Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
Specifically, which questions did he respond to in this manner? Of the questions posed in this thread, the theistic qustioners were far more sarcastic than he was...
|
Dawkin's is almost always sarcastic
Anyway, I'd simply ask him how he came to the conclusion that the invisible pink unicorn-- Or any other mythological being-- Doesn't exist since he has no evidence to disprove the notion that they do exist. If he wants to argue based on the scientific method, then I want him to show the scientific evidence which disproves the existence of God.
...Of course, that evidence doesn't exist.
As you pointed out, he has no rebuttal for such a question because there isn't one. Asserting that God doesn't exist takes just as much faith as asserting that God does exist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSflim
First of all: there are plenty of philosophical problems associated with using science to determine the truth. This is well known and accepted. And it is pointed out very frequently. What is pointed out less frequently is that it's the best we've got. Certainly there are difficulties with science, but it is certainly massively superior to the process of say, divine inspiration (a process which is utterly indistinguishable to an impartial observer to the process of making crap up). So by all means be critical of science's ability to get at the truth; just apply such stringent requirements equally across the board: do not apply double standards and let off "other ways of knowing"<sup>TM</sup> too lightly.
|
That's nice and all, but you really didn't answer my question: Since when has science ever considered a lack of supporting evidence to equal non-existence?
Quote:
|
Second: The existence or not of aliens is not on a par with the existence or not of a god. There is at least some evidence for the possibility of life on other planets, that evidence being; life on this planet. It is generalizing from an extremely limited sample size (i.e. 1), but all that the "extra terrestrial life" hypothesis is saying is ultimately "more of the same, elsewhere". It is nothing more than a rather tentative application of induction. Since we know that life on this planet evolved, and suspect that similar conditions and materials exist elsewhere in the universe, it remains a possibility. It is reasonable to not wish to draw premature conclusions. It is a genuinely open question.
|
...And, as I'm sure you're well aware, the exact same reasoning you've used here to argue for the existence of aliens has also been used to argue for the existence of God.
Quote:
Third: "Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find so how, exactly, can a scientist claim that God doesn't exist?", this argument in one form or another (i.e. the shift of the burden of proof) seems to be the favorite argument of very many theists: You can't prove that I'm wrong, therefore I must be right (or at the very least on 50:50 odds). Of course this is the ultimate point in the wide range of "mock religions" that the OP wondered about. Whether it involves orbitting teapots, Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, the point is always the same: the inability to refute an assertion is not enough to establish its veracity. Stated otherwise:
"Just because there is no answer one is justified in giving, does not mean that one is justified in giving whatever answer one will" (Daniel Harbour). Or to answer your question more clearly; atheists are not claiming the non-existence of a god despite the lack of evidence, but because of it.
|
First and foremost, there theists possess no burden of proof. You seem to forget that theistic beliefs aren't based on any set of logical reasoning. Our beliefs are based on faith, and faith is very, very different from logic. If anyone must disprove the notion of God, it's you. Anywho, I'll ask this again (As I fear I'm being ignored); Since when has a lack of evidence ever been equatable to non-existence?
Making a concrete assertion based on inconclusive/incomplete evidence is not only absurd but also isn't scientific in the least.
Any scientist worth his or her salt knows that science will never be able to qualify the existence of God, and to trying to do so is futile. Religion works in the realm which science simply can't and never will be able to explain. Theists need no rational explanation of God nor do we need to prove that He exists, as we have faith he exists. You, on the other hand, feel the need to rationalize God based upon human limitations (Which, by the way, you'll never be able to do). So, until the day you can pull out some scientific evidence which states "God doesn't exist!", I'll take all atheist arguments with a grain of salt, as they have no logical basings.