Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
On numerous occasions you have stated that the statistical probability of God existing is minuscule that it's safe to assume he doesn't exist. I'm simply asking you to defend that point through scientific reasoning (Which is what you're basing your argument on, anyway).
|
No evidence exists to suggest that any god or gods are real, therefore the absolute belief in god is unreasonable. Ir's more an argument of reason than science, but I feel it adequately explains my thoughts.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
1.) If God were to exist, then there would be good objective evidence for that.
2.) There is, however, no good objective evidence for God's existence.
3.) Therefore, God probably doesn't exist.
|
For everything that we know, there is proof. The supernatural by definition doesn't have scientific proof. Therefore, the supernatural cannot be known.
Doesn't that make sense?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I know that I've said this before, but not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not nor cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case-- It is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more ( Wikipedia).
Your position is no more 'logical' than mine. |
Of course it is. Would you care to tell me how absolute belief in god is as logical than looking at evidence and coming to the reasonable conclusion that god probably doesn't exist?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I don't believe I ever said that one was more likely than the other, but rather that I believe in the Judeo-Christian God more so than I believe in Zeus.
|
And why is that? Why do you believe in the Judeo-Christian god and not Zeus?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Trying to use science to explain religious beliefs/phenomena is rather problematic, wouldn't you say? Religion explains the 'who' and 'why' while science typically tries to answer the 'how'.
|
Something without how is something to be skeptical about.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I said that your experience was wrong? Find it. I believe I said that you can't qualify other people's experiences based on your own, which you were trying to do.
|
I was explaining my experience.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
The only way to not fall into one of those two categories is to make no conclusions regarding the existence of God either way. Anyway, I don't believe I've ever claimed my argument to be logical (By scientific standards) and I'm perfectly happy to admit that my beliefs contradict what science knows about the natural world. You, however, claim to base your argument on scientific reasoning yet the conclusions you make exist outside the realm in which science is able to estimate (See link above).
|
That's because while there is no evidence to suggest that god is real, there
is evidence to suggest that god isn't real. Remember my first post? Avoid this all you want, but it's pretty clear.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Didn't I, like, already explain this?
Your argument against the existence of God relies heavily on the premise that, while you might not be able to disprove God's existence today, tomorrow you might know more than you know today and thus be able to disprove his existence (Stop me now if I'm wrong).
|
You're wrong. I didn't take sides on the future concept of discovering god. We may prove his existence or we may discover that he's fiction. That's speculation. The point is that based on all evidence today, the only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that god probably doesn't exist. When more information becomes available, then we can change the conclusion as necessary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Such an argument simply avoids the fact that science will never be able to make claims regarding God's existence one way or the other. With that being said, I believe God to be inexplicable. As I'm sure you're well aware, two contradictory statements (Or in this case, beliefs) can't both be true; Either God can be explained or he can't be explained. The growing inability to explain/rationalize God only serves to support my claim that God is unexplainable.
|
How very unscientific of you. How could you be so arrogant as to say that god is unprovable? You believe god to be inexplicable....well I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought that the sun was inexplicable at one time. They were wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
You continued the discussion, even though I clearly stated that it was slightly off-topic and better suited for a thread of it's own.
|
Explain the argument's merit and reasoning or take it back.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I didn't say you won't find any atheists from different ethnic backgrounds (As you seemingly believe I said), but rather that the majority of atheists do stem from a singular background.
|
And you have absolutely no evidence to support that racist claim.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
You can't call me on anything when I specifically stated (Before you replied, mind you), "Slightly off-topic, but I've always wondered why atheism is most prevalent in non-minorities. I guess, however, that's another topic for another day."
|
Oh how dare I question your claim? I should naturally assume that anything that is qualified with "slightly off topic" is true beyond question.