CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Science supports that all things were created. You cannot go outdoors and pick a watch off a tree or see one growing up from the ground. Just as a watch has to be created, so we had to have been created.
Life does not come from non-living matter.
According to science, mutants are not beneficial to improved survival.
According to science all things in any system tend to break down rather than build up, when not acted upon by an outside force. (If you don't change the oil in your car it will wear out faster)
You are not the product of an ape or a fish. You were made to be exactly what you are--a human being with limits on your genetic proliferation.
This is quite clearly bollocks of the highest caliber. Anyone who understands the basic laws of physics knows that this is false.
You cannot go outdoors and pick a watch off a tree or see one growing up from the ground.
Oh here we go...
Just as a watch has to be created, so we had to have been created.
How does that make any sense whatsoever? I'm struggling to count all the fallacies this commits. Firstly, there is the problem of induction. Then, this is God of the gaps. Thirdly, it's scientifically incorrect. I'm probably missing a few.
Life does not come from non-living matter
Abiogenesis.
According to science, mutants are not beneficial to improved survival.
Bullshit. We're all mutants.
According to science all things in any system tend to break down rather than build up, when not acted upon by an outside force. (If you don't change the oil in your car it will wear out faster)
Are you referring to the second law of thermodynamics? In which case, you're right, we are being acted upon by an outside force: it's called the sun.
You are not the product of an ape or a fish. You were made to be exactly what you are--a human being with limits on your genetic proliferation.
OK, seeing as I just blew all your "science" to smithereens, got anything else that proves that?
a) We have observed evolution, directly, and we have observed many of the earmarks [directly] of the big bang
b) If not immediately 'experienced', they can still be empirically tested via the scientific method. Religion cannot be, and is thus rejected, at least on a basis of scientific rigor.
That's the trouble. Scientists do not use "the scientific method" (of observation, hypothesis, and then seeking to disprove the hypothesis) when it comes to evolution. The seek to prove it rather than disprove it. Hence, the ongoing debate. That is faulty "science."
Just do a search on how many scientific hoaxes there have been.
You ignorant, indoctrinated hillbilly. Why don't you go say that to a biologist who has committed their entire lives to the research of evolution? I'm sure they'd love to hear how they ignored the scientific method when discovering the most solid theory in biology.
Evolution is disprovable, but guess what? Nobody has! Wanna know why?
Because evolution is supported by mountains of evidence.
Trust me, there's other atheists on this site of think the same way. Anyway, I though Atheistman was linked to Spiritualman, maybe they are as I see Spiritualman as a troll account made to make Christians look like idiots.
1. Science shows, via evolution, that species were neither made intact nor are they immutable, as indicated in religion's Bible.
2. Science shows that beings are complex, taking billions of years to form, so a Being cannot be the basis of all, as First.
3. Science finds no evidence at all of anything extra-, beyond-, or supernatural, and that is against a Being who is supposed to be everywhere, doing everything. Only the natural is seen, high and low, and near and far. Planets are not seen to suddenly stop and freeze in their orbits, for example..
Science and religion are very nearly the same thing, in that both are an attempt to understand the world around us. The only difference is that we use the word "religion" to refer to those beliefs that we stubbornly continue to believe in long after science has found other explanations for. Religion, therefore, is necessarily not supported by science.
Currently, science doesn't make any sort of predictions on God's existence. Why would it, science is the pursuit of knowledge by utilization of the scientific method.
For those that don't know this states that one:
1 Develops a hypothesis.
2 Devises a set of experiments to validate the hypothesis.
3 Records all data and sends it for independent peer review
4 Brings together all known data supporting the hypothesis
5 Develop a theory that can make predictions of future outcomes.
One can develop a hypothesis that God exists, but can't develop any experiments to record data to support it, so the trail ends there.
One can develop a hypothesis that God does not exist, look at all the relevant claims that are made to his power and then use empiricism to provide natural explanations for the phenomena, something akin to this has happened, indirectly, with the discoveries of Natural Selection, Relativity, Quantum mechanics and String Theory, the conclusions of which negate the God hypothesis at least on the scale of what is knowable now.
Atheism posits that a God doesn't exist, but to be honest religious beliefs are more of a scale, akin to the Kinsey scale of sexuality with polarised options at both ends, to describe people as agnostic is not sufficient, and anti-theist is a practice more than a belief system. Ignosticism seems on the face of it the most valid position to hold and is only giving a name to what most Atheists hold true.
Given that everything scientific is based on some assumption, as Kurt Godel thought us, there is a point at which the biggest assumption has to made.
We can only get closer to the truth, but Occam's razor precludes the God hypothesis at this stage. I'd rather be a spherical earth theorist that a flat earth theorist, though in essence we are both wrong, one is invariably closer to the truth than the other.
Science doesn't support either. Scientifically speaking, there is no evidence for God, but at the same time that doesn't disprove God. While it's rational to be an atheist, science has only taken us as far as agnosticism at this point (and it's pretty much impossible to go past that point).
Actually, Science supports the atheist position (doesn't prove, only supports) by the evidence that we don't see a deity or a sign of some form of spiritual essence where we would expect to find such things. The lack of evidence can sometimes be evidence if evidence would be expected to be there. The majority of theological claims would suggest that there would be at least some objective evidence to support them, but there are none.
Absense of evidense is not evidense of absense. It's rational to conclude that there is no God given the lack of evidense, but logic still supports the agnostic's position alone. It's unfortunate, but unless we find to way to measure all of reality and come up godless, there is always the possibility that God exists. I don't think this possibility is likely, but I can't deny its existence.
No it is evidence of absence wherever evidence would be expected. This isn't suggesting that no gods could possibly exist but that any concept of a deity that one would expect to see evidence for (for example 99.999999999% of theists who are not deists) is showing thus the evidence of not existing.
I can't deny every god's existence with evidence but there are plenty of ideas of Gods which would make falsifiable claims. Even more that would be making claims where absence can be seen as evidence. Maybe not proof, but definitely evidence.
Who can say where we should find evidence? You've acknowledged the very problem with your argument in the argument itself. Deism.
If you can't provide evidence against deism, then you can't use your lack of evidence as evidence for atheism. With deism, no claim is made about where we "should" find evidence for God, so you can't falsify via lack of expected evidence.
The possibility that God exists in an unfalsifiable and unverifiable way makes it impossible to argue against God past returning to point to neutral, which is agnosticism.
I'll let Matt Dillahunty take it from here, since he taught me all I know on the topic. Watch it and argue against what he is saying and I promise that I will honestly consider your contentions and either agree or offer counterpoints to them
So he's saying that in the case of theism the default position is not to believe that claim until there's adequate evidence and in the case of atheism the default position is... not to believe that claim until adequate evidence is given.
Do you see the problem with this? If you don't believe the claim that there is a god nor the claim that there is no God, what position are you left with? Uncertainty, also known in this case as agnosticism.
This Matt guy is merely separating the claim that there is no God from the claim that there is a God (with the weak justification that you can't have a single belief about multiple claims, which is false) and then asserting that the default position is always negative. Not only does he not justify this, but this claim assumes the very thing he's trying to prove. Why is the default automatically negative? If you are unbiased, then the default is uncertainty until reason is given one way or another.
I know you have a great deal of respect for this guy, but keep in mind that he is still human and has a strong incentive to prove his own correct-ness. He already knows the answer he wants to come to, so once he finds a way to get to that answer, regardless of how reliant that way is on semantics, he will stop searching, so he never goes on to see the flaws in his reasoning.
"I know you have a great deal of respect for this guy, but keep in mind that he is still human and has a strong incentive to prove his own correct-ness. He already knows the answer he wants to come to, so once he finds a way to get to that answer, regardless of how reliant that way is on semantics, he will stop searching, so he never goes on to see the flaws in his reasoning."
This is not the case with Matt Dillahunty. Yes, he's only human and he is capable of error, as am I, but my respect for him comes from knowing his sincerity in seeking and speaking truth in logic. The atheist experience is a great show that covers many topics and arguments regarding atheism and freedom from religion.
I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I found the belief video that he referenced in the video that I sent you. it's an hour long and it's great, but it's really difficult for me to quickly learn how to argue his points. I've watched it multiple times before responding so that I could both understand and repeat what was said in my own words.
Chances are, that I will misrepresent what he's saying because I'm still learning about these arguments, but unlike many religious followers, I will follow through with challenging my position and I will be openly willing to adjust my view to fit objective reality.
"Do you see the problem with this? If you don't believe the claim that there is a god nor the claim that there is no God, what position are you left with? Uncertainty, also known in this case as agnosticism."
Actually, in the belief video which I will attach to this post, he points out the difference between saying that an agnostic claim is that you don't know something verses the claim that you can't know. Matt accepts that he is an agnostic based on the first definition, but not by the second. If you claim that we can't know if there is a deity, then you have made a claim which you still need to demonstrate as true. You still need to demonstrate that knowledge of a deity's existence is unknowable and why it is unknowable.
Another point being made is that there are different questions being asked when we consider atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is a belief in response to a claim that a God exists, whereas agnosticism is a stance regarding knowledge of a truth claim. It's because of this difference that it's reasonable for a person to identify as an Atheist Agnostic.
"...with the weak justification that you can't have a single belief about multiple claims, which is false) and then asserting that the default position is always negative."
I'm pretty sure that he's not saying that. The justification of atheism being the default position is related to the reasons we say that a defendant is guilty vs not guilty rather than innocent vs not innocent. It's more practical and useful in determining truths even of claims which if true are indistinguishable from if they are not true. Either way, we should not be strongly acting upon what we do not know to a high degree of certainty.
That's in essence what makes Atheism the default position. Since a Deist God has no impact on our lives and is indistinguishable from the non existence of such a god, it's more rational to live by the idea that such a thing doesn't exist, otherwise you would be showing equal support to all metaphysical claims.
Any action that you take towards acting upon such beliefs is wasted effort, even to an extent of just thinking about the possibility of them being true/real because there's no way of telling which of those beliefs holding zero evidence are simply not true/real and the many different claims that would fall into the realm of potential but not true/real are infinite. It's also not possible for all potential realities to be true, because an infinite set of those potential realities would contradict one another.
The atheist position is therefore the default position because it's the more practical position to take when concerning matters of belief which match with reality. Why is it that you would even concern yourself with the possibility of a Deist God any more than you would concern yourself with the possibility that all matter in the universe is made out of invisible marshmallows? I would posit the likely reason being something to do with you wanting there to be a God or some sort of thing out there that explains your existence or else falls in line with the metaphysical beliefs that you were brought up to concern yourself with and that all of the reasons for why you got to that point can be explained with objective evidence.
"The philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others" -Bertrand Russell
The whole of creation is the visible evidence, since mankind did not create it himself. The evidence is that it was created by somebody way more intelligent (since man's designs copy nature in many things), and powerful (man can only create tiny bits of matter from energy in particle accelerators) as opposed to the whole of the universe.
Man knows how the universe was created--from energy--but the simple existence of the universe we did not create is evidence of a god, an intelligent and unseen higher power than we ourselves. To believe anything else is "inexcusable" and illogical
While you are correct, for the purpose of scientific rigor, a claim without evidence should be immediately dismissed if untestable.
'Science' doesn't make a decision on, for example, the existence of God, but for the purpose of scientific endeavours, it would never be assumed that there was.
That's why I say it's rational to be an atheist, even if it's not verifiable by science. If God is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable then even if he exists, his existence means nothing to us as our lives won't be affected by it.
No, science is just the endevour to find out more. it is in human nature. it and religion may cross paths, but science's soul purpose is not to contradict it...
Lack of evidence does not prove something to not exist. Up until 1492, the Americas had not been encountered by Europeans. But they still existed at the time.
Its also worth nothing that until the mid-twentieth century science had not discovered the universe had a beginning, something the Bible had claimed for many centuries before.
Nah!!! cummon people science has got hardly anything to do with any of em!!! I mean its neither supportin nor is it opposing! coz religious stuffs are all about one's believes maybe, they are not a part of one's rational self.
Science is about a demonstrable method that is concerned with the inner workings of things, what is fact, law, scientific theory, plausible, observation, etc.
It's comparing apples and oranges in a fruit platter where sometimes a bit of orange or apple extract leaks onto other opposing orange or apple.
Science looks to quantify and qualify data that it can rationally explain. Neither atheism or religion can be scientifically proven or justified. I think the God of the Bible is horse shit, because the story doesn't make sense, but that doesn't mean that there's not something out there that is God. I also find atheist to be just as arrogant and dogmatic as Bible thumpers. They want to take their belief and convince you that they're right.
Science supports Wiccan practices and other religions that use meditation to focus energy because this energy is called bioelectricity and it can be mentally controlled.
No, in fact atheism can undermine science. For example, atheism teaches that science is the only logical option when considering explanations to life and its origins, on the basis that faith is required to be blind because it is not provable. However, there is a fatal flaw in this system. Science assumes the rational intelligibility of the universe. If this assumption is not made, it would be impossible to draw conclusions. But there is no current evidence for the rational intelligibility of the universe, making science require faith at its very outset!
Likewise, science is very incomplete. There are numerous gaps that can be exposed through a child's simple ponderings: "Why am I here? What is the purpose of my existence?" In this way, science is not able to support atheism.
For example, atheism teaches that science is the only logical option when considering explanations to life and its origins, on the basis that faith is required to be blind because it is not provable.
No it doesn't. Atheism only preaches that there is no God. That does not mean it's 'pro-science' in any way. It just happens that many of the atheists of the world are also pro-science.
And by the way, nothing's provable, not really. It's all about the amount of faith you are willing to put into something. For example, there's no conclusive will be working tomorrow morning. I have faith that it won't. So in the morning I shall not put a chain on my leg before I walk outside. That's faith. There's just a big distinction between blind faith & reasonable faith.
Science assumes the rational intelligibility of the universe.
No, reasoning assumes the rational intelligibility of the universe. As I previously said, you put faith into everything you do. Without reason, we quite literally cannot make any sort of conclusion on anything in the world. So everyone assumes some things (as I said before), in everything they do. So I would not say this is an irrational assumption.
If this assumption is not made, it would be impossible to draw conclusions. But there is no current evidence for the rational intelligibility of the universe, making science require faith at its very outset!
As I said, science does require faith. However, if you want to become a complete skepticist, or a solipsist, or something similar, then you are very free to do so, but do not imply that science is irrational.
Likewise, science is very incomplete. There are numerous gaps that can be exposed through a child's simple ponderings: "Why am I here? What is the purpose of my existence?" In this way, science is not able to support atheism.
Ah, the God of the Gaps fallacy. I would pay very little attention to any claims at absolute proof, rational human learning requires that which is learnt to be dynamic, because, as I've said before, we should put our 'faith' in the most reasonable assumption, which can always change due to changes in evidence. So science will never be 'complete' (although you're talking more about philosophical questions, so it's somewhat irrelevant).
Yeah, just got there all of 35 seconds faster, go me (y) But yeah, any argument must make a premise, or else -> That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as said Christopher Hitchens.
No it doesn't. Atheism only preaches that there is no God. That does not mean it's 'pro-science' in any way. It just happens that many of the atheists of the world are also pro-science.
Alright, I'll revise my phrase to: Most atheists think that science is the only logical option when considering explanations to life and its origins, on the basis that faith is required to be blind because it is not provable.
And by the way, nothing's provable, not really. It's all about the amount of faith you are willing to put into something. For example, there's no conclusive will be working tomorrow morning. I have faith that it won't. So in the morning I shall not put a chain on my leg before I walk outside. That's faith. There's just a big distinction between blind faith & reasonable faith.
Well of course anything happening in the future cannot be proven yet. That is completely irrelevant. What you're referring to as 'reasonable' faith is not really faith by definition. In your example, you may not be aware of it, but there are many things that already point to the instance of you not working tomorrow morning. Events that happened today could bring about an increased possibility of this, making your prediction more credible.
No, reasoning assumes the rational intelligibility of the universe. As I previously said, you put faith into everything you do. Without reason, we quite literally cannot make any sort of conclusion on anything in the world. So everyone assumes some things (as I said before), in everything they do. So I would not say this is an irrational assumption.
If you put faith into everything you do, why is a faith in God then considered so irrational? If its only a conclusion based on an assumption and if assumptions are always made in some cases, why?
As I said, science does require faith. However, if you want to become a complete skepticist, or a solipsist, or something similar, then you are very free to do so, but do not imply that science is irrational.
I'm by no means implying science is irrational, I'm simply contesting that if atheists avoid faith in favor of logic, isn't science flawed similarly to religion in that regard?
Ah, the God of the Gaps fallacy. I would pay very little attention to any claims at absolute proof, rational human learning requires that which is learnt to be dynamic, because, as I've said before, we should put our 'faith' in the most reasonable assumption, which can always change due to changes in evidence. So science will never be 'complete' (although you're talking more about philosophical questions, so it's somewhat irrelevant).
But what makes assumptions reasonable? Is it really faith if you believe in something 'reasonable'? If evidence can be changed, what makes it credible in the first place?
Alright, I'll revise my phrase to: Most atheists think that science is the only logical option when considering explanations to life and its origins, on the basis that faith is required to be blind because it is not provable.
Agreed. As I've said, blind faith is not the only instance of faith (not to say that religion requires blind faith). I believe that atheism requires a lesser degree of faith than theism, and is more logical, hence why I am an agnostic-atheist.
Well of course anything happening in the future cannot be proven yet. That is completely irrelevant. What you're referring to as 'reasonable' faith is not really faith by definition. In your example, you may not be aware of it, but there are many things that already point to the instance of you not working tomorrow morning. Events that happened today could bring about an increased possibility of this, making your prediction more credible.
Yeah, I meant to say 'there's no conclusive proof that gravity will still be working tomorrow. My point does still stand though, I have no reason to believe that it will, other than it has always been working before (Karl Popper's theory of scientific falsiability). Everything I know can be proved wrong, I just have faith that I'm right. But it is definitely 'faith' by definiton, it is a belief without proof. I'm simply saying that as nothing can be proven, we have faith in everything, and that not all faith is equal.
If you put faith into everything you do, why is a faith in God then considered so irrational? If its only a conclusion based on an assumption and if assumptions are always made in some cases, why?
As previously said, not all faith is equal. Occam's Razor says that we should make as little assumptions as possible in order to explain that which is unexplainable otherwise.
For example, I can see out of my eyes, I see my computer in front of me, I see my keyboard, my hands, my desk, a whole array of things. Here are two assumptions, equally valid from the evidence before me:
1: My eyes see what is before me.
2: My eyes present an ever changing visual representation that my captors have coded my brain to present to me, in order to keep my preoccupied whilst they extract my vital organs.
Both are completely possible scenarios. But to say that they are equally reasonable is typically considered irrational. Both assumptions require faith to accept. That is an extreme version of how I see atheism v theism.
I'm by no means implying science is irrational, I'm simply contesting that if atheists avoid faith in favor of logic, isn't science flawed similarly to religion in that regard?
Yes, but science admits its flaws, it's dynamic, responds to evidence, is willing to admit that it does not know, and tries to be as rational as possible. Epistemology is interesting, you should look it up (the philosophical question of how we attain knowledge).
But what makes assumptions reasonable?
The necessity of making them, some would argue. But really, they aren't, I just feel that some are more reasonable than others.
Is it really faith if you believe in something 'reasonable'?
Yes, to some extent. Nothing can truly be proven (proof = elimination of reasonable doubt, in common context), so I would take the skepticists approach and say that everything is faith.
If evidence can be changed, what makes it credible in the first place?
I'll retract that. I mean more that the sum of all evidence can change, we do more tests, we find more things out, we reconsider old results with a new eye, there are lots of reasons why evidence (in a collective sense) can change. What makes it credible is its promise to change where new evidence becomes available, where something else is the more rational thing to believe. I would rather put my faith in something that admits to not truly knowing the answer, as that makes sense, over something that claims an absolute knowledge, however much I would like to find an absolute answer.
Agreed. As I've said, blind faith is not the only instance of faith (not to say that religion requires blind faith). I believe that atheism requires a lesser degree of faith than theism, and is more logical, hence why I am an agnostic-atheist.
I understand. I don't think there is much more to say here. Thanks for not getting vicious like a number of other atheists here (Which is why I left this site for a while).
Yeah, I meant to say 'there's no conclusive proof that gravity will still be working tomorrow. My point does still stand though, I have no reason to believe that it will, other than it has always been working before (Karl Popper's theory of scientific falsiability). Everything I know can be proved wrong, I just have faith that I'm right. But it is definitely 'faith' by definiton, it is a belief without proof. I'm simply saying that as nothing can be proven, we have faith in everything, and that not all faith is equal.
Well, I don't think everything you know can be proved wrong. Some things can be proven, like mathematical operations. If the belief that 1+1=2 is faith, then I agree, not all faith is equal as this has a great deal more evidence than there is for existence of God.
As previously said, not all faith is equal. Occam's Razor says that we should make as little assumptions as possible in order to explain that which is unexplainable otherwise.
For example, I can see out of my eyes, I see my computer in front of me, I see my keyboard, my hands, my desk, a whole array of things. Here are two assumptions, equally valid from the evidence before me:
1: My eyes see what is before me.
2: My eyes present an ever changing visual representation that my captors have coded my brain to present to me, in order to keep my preoccupied whilst they extract my vital organs.
Both are completely possible scenarios. But to say that they are equally reasonable is typically considered irrational. Both assumptions require faith to accept. That is an extreme version of how I see atheism v theism.
This is interesting. I'm not sure if I completely see the comparison. To me, this would be like comparing the universe as we know and believe it is to the possibility that we all live in a simulated world in a computer, although this would somewhat be like a belief in God as the computer must have a creator. But anyway, that is irrelevant.
Yes, but science admits its flaws, it's dynamic, responds to evidence, is willing to admit that it does not know, and tries to be as rational as possible. Epistemology is interesting, you should look it up (the philosophical question of how we attain knowledge).
Yeah, its kind of funny though; if legitimate evidence for the God of the Bible was found, religion would become science in some regard.
The necessity of making them, some would argue. But really, they aren't, I just feel that some are more reasonable than others.
Where did that feeling come from? I don't think its necessary to make some assumptions.
Yes, to some extent. Nothing can truly be proven (proof = elimination of reasonable doubt, in common context), so I would take the skepticists approach and say that everything is faith.
Hmm that's interesting. I've never heard someone say something like this before.
I would rather put my faith in something that admits to not truly knowing the answer, as that makes sense, over something that claims an absolute knowledge, however much I would like to find an absolute answer.
I understand. I don't think there is much more to say here. Thanks for not getting vicious like a number of other atheists here (Which is why I left this site for a while).
No worries, hope it helps you understand your own faith + beliefs, regardless of where they lie. And understandable, some people (including myself at many times) just get a bit dicky over things like this, it's natural, but not good.
Well, I don't think everything you know can be proved wrong. Some things can be proven, like mathematical operations. If the belief that 1+1=2 is faith, then I agree, not all faith is equal as this has a great deal more evidence than there is for existence of God.
Well I don't know enough to give you evidence, but for example, I do know that at certain universities/colleges, you can take a semester long elective, with the sole aim of proving that '1+1=2'. While (obviously) the logic is sound there, it does imply that mistakes can be made, or evidence could change. This is obviously quite a foreign concept (I'm not saying I understand it, I'm mostly speculating here), but considering that we can't even comprehend how the universe is arranged, not really (if you travel for eternity in a straight line, you end up exactly where you started. How the fuck does that make sense?), I would maintain that even laws of mathematics are human made, and rely on human reasoning, and are therefore fallible.
This is interesting. I'm not sure if I completely see the comparison. To me, this would be like comparing the universe as we know and believe it is to the possibility that we all live in a simulated world in a computer, although this would somewhat be like a belief in God as the computer must have a creator. But anyway, that is irrelevant.
Essentially yes, it is. Is there any absolute proof you have that that we do not? We cannot ever know for sure, hence we exhibit faith that we don't. Conversely, is there any absolute proof for what we believe (our eyes are accurate)? No, so we exhibit faith when we act as though they are.
Yeah, its kind of funny though; if legitimate evidence for the God of the Bible was found, religion would become science in some regard.
Well, when we evaluate whether or not a religion is false, there is one test we apply before putting it through scientific method. Karl Popper's Theory of Scientific Falsifiability (the basis of scientific philosophy) requires all 'scientific thought' to be able to be proven false through empirical evidence. Anything else is speculation (not necessarily false though).
So, for example, if we look at the Christian Bible, it makes certain claims. One of them being that 'there are two great lights in the sky, one for day, one for night', for example (that's paraphrased). Science can now show us that there are not two lights in the sky, there is one light (the sun) and a reflector (the moon). So that would qualify as a scientific theory, as it can be proven false - as long as the Bible claims to be absolutely true. Many Christian's don't believe this, arguably just so it fits in with modern life, but I'd agree that the Bible is open to human error, so I don't find this illogical.
Looking at Buddhism, it had the same statement (two lights in the sky), I believe. The current Dalai Lama found this out whilst studying with his telescope, and showed it to his teachers. Following scientific method (through ignorance, I would add), he struck this part from Buddhist beliefs. This shows how religion can often act as science - constantly undergoing tests and revisions, until an acceptable hypothesis develops into a model which has not yet been shown to be false (somewhat irrelevant, but interesting, I find).
Where did that feeling come from? I don't think its necessary to make some assumptions.
In the example with trusting your eyes v believing that everything is a lie, every single person I have ever met or heard of has made the assumption that their eyes are correct. Without this assumption you cannot live an ordinary life. I think it's definitely necessary (it just depends what constitutes as an assumption, I'm being rather anal/semantic here).
Hmm that's interesting. I've never heard someone say something like this before.
Glad you like it, as I've previously said, Epistemology is an odd subject, somewhat refreshing I find.
Atheism doesn't "teach" anything, especially not glorifying science. It is a rejection of theism, nothing more.
You say that "there is no evidence for the rational intelligibility for the universe"... Um, what? Yes, the universe is capable of being rationally understood, we do it every day. We can observe patterns, test hypotheses, and manipulate matter to get the result we want. There is no faith here.
The incompleteness of science is not a flaw, nor does it detract from it supporting atheism. You don't need to have an answer for everything in order to dispute a religion. Questions like "What is the meaning of life?" are irrelevant. Science doesn't support atheism by providing existentialist answers -- it supports atheism factually by showing that there is no evidence to support religious ideas.
Atheism doesn't "teach" anything, especially not glorifying science. It is a rejection of theism, nothing more.
Well I could have stated that more accurately. I am really just referring to what the majority of individual atheists think, not necessarily atheism as an idea.
You say that "there is no evidence for the rational intelligibility for the universe"... Um, what? Yes, the universe is capable of being rationally understood, we do it every day. We can observe patterns, test hypotheses, and manipulate matter to get the result we want. There is no faith here.
This is not understanding the universe. What about everything that does not contain patterns? Not all hypotheses can be tested. Manipulating matter can by no means prove the rational intelligibility of the universe.
The incompleteness of science is not a flaw, nor does it detract from it supporting atheism. You don't need to have an answer for everything in order to dispute a religion. Questions like "What is the meaning of life?" are irrelevant. Science doesn't support atheism by providing existentialist answers -- it supports atheism factually by showing that there is no evidence to support religious ideas.
How is it not a flaw? Until How can you dispute someone's answer to a question if you have no answer of your own? That's just cynicism. "What is the meaning of life?" is about as relevant a question as there can be to this conversation.
Rational intelligibility means capability of being understood by reason. If we can observe patterns, test hypotheses, and manipulate matter, that shows we are using reason to understand the universe. How can you possibly claim that the universe is incapable of being understood? That's exactly what science is! Do you need examples of things we rationally understand about the universe? How about gravity and the laws of thermodynamics?
DO NOT claim that just because some things haven't yet been understood (or "not all hypotheses can be tested") that means the entire universe is unintelligible. A thing does not need to be understood in its entirety to be called intelligible.
You can disprove one claim without proving another. Let me give you an example. Someone burned my house down, and I blame John. Then my sister reminds me that John has been dead for years, so he couldn't have done it. So I ask her who she thinks did it instead. She offers no alternate answer, because she has no idea, so I say, "Then it must be John because you can't provide me with a plausible alternative!" See the bad logic here? This is what you're doing. Obviously you can disprove one statement without having to prove another.
Rational intelligibility means capability of being understood by reason. If we can observe patterns, test hypotheses, and manipulate matter, that shows we are using reason to understand the universe.
A minuscule part of the universe, that is. Just because one part of the universe is like this, it doesn't account for the universe as a whole. I know its impossible to obtain, but still--there just isn't evidence that the universe can be understood through reason.
How can you possibly claim that the universe is incapable of being understood?
Quite easily. Just by the fact that these methods of understanding that you're listing are very limited.
DO NOT claim that just because some things haven't yet been understood (or "not all hypotheses can be tested") that means the entire universe is unintelligible.
I'm not claiming this.
You can disprove one claim without proving another. Let me give you an example. Someone burned my house down, and I blame John. Then my sister reminds me that John has been dead for years, so he couldn't have done it. So I ask her who she thinks did it instead. She offers no alternate answer, because she has no idea, so I say, "Then it must be John because you can't provide me with a plausible alternative!" See the bad logic here? This is what you're doing. Obviously you can disprove one statement without having to prove another.
I understand your point, but that just isn't the case here. You cannot disprove that God created the universe like you can disprove John burnt the house. So until I'm presenting with a better alternative answer, I would have no reason to disbelieve this one.
There just isn't evidence that the universe can be understood through reason.
Yes there is... I just gave you examples of ways we understand the universe. We understand the universe has matter which operates under rules regarding, we understand gravity, thermodynamics, and motion... These are direct examples of how the universe is intelligible and you're just ignoring them. You're right that so far we have only been able to test and observe a tiny part of the universe, but so far everything has been intelligible, so yes, IT IS INTELLIGIBLE so far.
First you say Just because one part of the universe is like this, it doesn't account for the universe as a whole. then you say you're not claiming that just because some things haven't yet been understood that means the entire universe is unintelligible. How are those two statements different, substantively?
Until I'm presenting with a better alternative answer, I would have no reason to disbelieve this one.
You just believe everything until it's disproven? That's not the way reason works. I assume you believe in faeries, bigfoot, and the chupacabra too, then, right? Because none of those have been disproven.
Yes there is... I just gave you examples of ways we understand the universe. We understand the universe has matter which operates under rules regarding, we understand gravity, thermodynamics, and motion... These are direct examples of how the universe is intelligible and you're just ignoring them. You're right that so far we have only been able to test and observe a tiny part of the universe, but so far everything has been intelligible, so yes, IT IS INTELLIGIBLE so far.
Once again, I know that it is intelligible in the tiny area we have been able to test, this doesn't mean you can say the entire universe is intelligible so you haven't really said anything to disprove my argument.
First you say Just because one part of the universe is like this, it doesn't account for the universe as a whole. then you say you're not claiming that just because some things haven't yet been understood that means the entire universe is unintelligible. How are those two statements different, substantively?
I'm not saying that...from the outset I said that there is no evidence of the rational intelligibility of the entire universe.
You just believe everything until it's disproven? That's not the way reason works. I assume you believe in faeries, bigfoot, and the chupacabra too, then, right? Because none of those have been disproven.
Nope, wrong again. I'm saying that I've been thoroughly convinced that God created the universe and will most likely hold that view the rest of my life. Unless, of course it is completely disproven, then it would silly to maintain that view. I however have not been convinced of the existence of Bigfoot, fairies, or the chupacabra. These are all contingent anyway, while God is non-contingent, so its not a very logical comparison.