Filtherton
Quote:
|
That's only if you accept the proposition that science is capable of explaining everything, i.e. that the realms of science are infinite, a proposition which has just as much a basis in science as a belief in god.
|
It has quite a larger basis than what you think. Everything that science attempts to explain and indeed does explain is based on evidence. As for the realms of science, science deals with all of reality which is essentially everything.
Quote:
Axiom: The machinations of the universe are too complex to have come about on their own
Logical Conclusion: There must exist some creating diety
I'm not saying it's compelling, but it is logical.
|
True. IF you make the very large and completely unfounded assumption that the universe is too complex to come around by its own. Show me how this could possibly be so.
Quote:
String theory is exceedingly logical. It's all math. I think if you are going to frame your argument from a scientific perspective you'd benefit from refining your word choices. The word logical has a specific meaning and that meaning isn't "someone who comes to the same conclusions about the nature of existence as me". Logic concerns itself with the relationships between a series of statements and has nothing to do with whether the underlying assumptions of those statements are scientifically valid.
Furthermore, if you are going to allude to the concept of "critical thought" you should define it precisely, otherwise you aren't really making a "scientific" argument. I asked ustwo to do this above, but he apparently got too busy.
|
What do you truly know of string theory? Quantum theory is all maths however for string theory to work one often has to introduce extra spacial dimensions. Furthermore string theory’s claims are un-testable and therefore have no accompanying proof.
Quote:
|
Only if you use your own definitions of the words theism, consistent and logic.
|
Let’s see... Consistency is when claims or indeed evidence agree with each other. If you have read scripture you will find that the amount of contradictions is extremely numerous. Theism is inconsistent. I take theism to include, for the sake of this argument, both theism and deism as both are opposed to atheism. Logic really only has one meaning and according to Oxford it is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. I do not use my own definitions. I do not know where you are getting yours from.
Quote:
|
It's a convenient way to frame an argument against theism. You can point at people like pat robertson, and though folks of his ilk in no way represent theism in its general sense, you can pretend that he epitomizes theist thought. Then, in your most intellectually elite voice you can chuckle and shake your head at the whole lot of them.
|
When has an atheist here made the claim that because one theist acts in one way all theists are bad? We can leave those kinds of claims to the theists (‘Stalin was atheist so there!’). Atheists do not judge groups by actions of individuals however you seem to think that we do, though you are right that it is indeed an ineffective way to argue.
allaboutmusic
I believe that either they are deluding themselves or they have been tricked by someone or by natural events and they really do believe. This puts them out of any realm of an argument because they know that God is real and nothing we could possibly say will tell them different. This is where the childhood thought comes into it. In any other field bar theism such attitudes would not be tolerated however theism teaches that unquestionable faith is a virtue and as a result these people become almost idolised.
My comment in relation to Newton and Einstein was not worded too well and as a result it reads as though I thought Newton was unreligious, my mistake.
Baraka_Guru, I think that church dogma as you call it follows almost explicitly from theist beliefs so that is how it fits into this thread.
Willravel makes a good point however this would be very hard to show in practice or even in theory.
Lasereth
You are talking of Pascal’s wager. He thought the same things that you do however there are some things inherently wrong with his argument.
God allegedly rewards belief however he rewards true belief and not ‘I’m just pretending to believe in you because I want to get into heaven’, wouldn’t go down too well. You cannot simply decide to believe one day, you can decide to act as a believer but you cannot decide to believe.
God is also allegedly omniscient so you have no hope tricking him into getting into heaven either. There are further arguments against this however I think what I have said here is enough to show its fallacy.
Sedecrem