Posted on 03/04/2010 9:15:34 AM PST by MarianoApologeticus
I know plenty, thanks.
A definitive assertion that lacks proof is the definition of faith. The statement “there is no God” is unknowable by any scientific standards, and thus is unjustified by any scientific standards.
Therein lies the contradiction ... the use of scientific arguments to assert a position which is not scientifically justifiable.
SnakeDoc
Science makes no claim regarding the existence of God.
Evangelical Atheists continually extoll the virtues of science and thereby proclaim that there is no need to use God as an explanation for things which used to confuse people. Science is a tool, used by atheists, to argue that they are right and Believers are wrong.
But science cannot serve as such a tool. Therefore, both Believers and Atheists are pushing a faith-based worldview.
>> Science makes no claim regarding the existence of God.
Exactly. But athiests do make a claim regarding the existence of God ... they explicitly claim that He does not exist. Thus, the athiest position is entirely outside of the realm of the scientific, and is thus based on the faith and circumstantial evidence alone — just like any other religious believer.
Athiesm worships science and reason without holding themselves to the same scientific standards that are demanded of believers. Atheism is an inherent contradiction and logical fallacy.
SnakeDoc
Science seeks to explain the natural world through observation and experimentation. A precept of the scientific method is that supernatural explanations are beyond the scope of science, and should not be considered. Period.
Your position makes me interested in your case for the existence of God on the basis of circumstantial evidence. How does that go?
But with the exception of the God you believe in, you are an atheist.
A precept of the scientific method is that supernatural explanations are beyond the scope of science, and should not be considered. Period.
Fine. Got it. I agree. AND MY POINT IS -- atheists say they KNOW that God does not exist.
How can they make such a claim? You just beautifully explained that science cannot help them.
I guess atheists are acting on faith, huh?
>> Your position makes me interested in your case for the existence of God on the basis of circumstantial evidence. How does that go?
Circumstantial evidence on which I base my faith is historical, eyewitness, archeological, scientific (though certainly not rising to the level of scientific proof), and personal experience ... and includes —
- the documentary and eyewitness evidence included in Scripture, which is comprised of 66 books written by separate authors over thousands of years detailing the historical and eyewitness case of God’s existence and Christ’s divinity;
- archeological confirmation of the existence of places that are Biblically referenced (which lends voracity to the accuracy of Biblical texts) and events which occurred (the flood, for instance);
- scientific evidence/ hypothesis which leads me to believe that the creation of the Heavens, the Earth, and humanity was guided by a greater power and not simply random; and,
- the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit in my life.
... which, I might add, is quite a bit more substantial than the typical circumstantial evidence on which atheists base their faith.
SnakeDoc
>> But with the exception of the God you believe in, you are an atheist.
You lost me. That makes no sense at all. If you make exceptions for a belief in God ... then atheism has no meaning.
I fully admit that my beliefs are based on faith, and thus I will admit to falling short of scientific proof. That isn’t the point of my argument. Atheists tend to claim a monopoly on reason, or some sort of scientific superiority in their faith.
The point of my argument is to say that atheism is just as based on faith as theism. Neither is based on science, and thus we are arguing from equal footing in our analysis of the circumnstantial evidence surrounding us. Our analyses of the evidence may come to different conclusions ... but lets not pretend that atheism is based on scientific proof or intellectual superiority. It isn’t. It is based on faith in the atheist analysis of circumstantial evidence ... just as Christianity is based on an analysis of circumstantial evidence.
SnakeDoc
Your unwillingness to engage on this, and your insistence on dodging the issue convinces me that you recognize that you are wrong but do not have the integrity to admit it. Have a nice day.
My point is that (assuming you are not a pantheist) you do not believe in the existence of Gods other than the one you worship. In other words, relative to all those other gods, you are an atheist.
Knowing is stronger than believing.
Theists make the assertion, not atheists; therefore it is incumbent on them to prove their assertion. You cannot prove a negative.
>> My point is that (assuming you are not a pantheist) you do not believe in the existence of Gods other than the one you worship. In other words, relative to all those other gods, you are an atheist.
OK. So? Why is that a point worth making?
I will fully acknowledge having ruled out the existence of gods other than the Judeo-Christian God. I will additionally acknowledge that such a determination is based on faith, not science. I am not averse to being tagged with the label of “faithful”. Are you?
If you are equating my faith-based discounting of these gods with your faith-based discounting of any God ... then we seem to be in agreement that atheism is indeed faith-based, and unscientific.
SnakeDoc
I use the same argument with atheists that I use with pro abortion people... If you are hunting and you see the bushes moving... you don’t know if it the big game you are searching for or your hunting buddy. Err on the side of caution and do no harm in the absense of proof supporting your expectation....... i.e. if you don’t know if life begins at conception or later in gestation, do not destroy it!..... if you don’t know if “God exists”, better to err on the side that “God exists” and do the right things.
>> Theists make the assertion, not atheists; therefore it is incumbent on them to prove their assertion.
“There is no God” is an assertion made by atheists. It is incumbent on them to prove their assertion.
>> You cannot prove a negative.
Then, if “proof” is the god you worship, you cannot definitively assert a negative. You cannot assert that “there is no God”. You cannot be an atheist and simultaneously claim to base your assertion on proof.
SnakeDoc
Atheism means "without gods". Which is to say that anyone who self-identifies as an atheist is making a positive assertion that NO gods exist. They cannot prove that because, as you point out, you can't prove a negative. Thus, my consistent statement: “Atheism must be based on faith because it cannot prove its central assertion."
See post 28.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.