(April 29, 2014 at 11:17 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(April 29, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Well for a start, consider this. There's a reason the question had to be framed as an hypothetical and hung from an "if". Bonus points if you can tell us what that reason is.

guess you guys didn't come with anything. looks like God's existence is therefore the default position. but maybe soneone will come with something so the question is still active.

No points for you, I fear.

(April 29, 2014 at 6:57 pm)snowtracks Wrote: here's a hypothetical question: if the biblical God has existence, is there any scientific phenomenon that couldn't be explained as being a product of creation?
i personally didn't come with anything, but maybe you can.

Well, when you have a thing like god, where you're content to not define anything about it, and are evidently more than willing to expand and contract its power set based on what you need at the time with no need for demonstration or evidence, then of course you can use it to explain everything.

That said, the same is also true of anti-god, a non-conscious force I just made up that does everything god can, but also makes absolutely sure that no gods can exist ever. Since you can't produce a thing that couldn't be the product of anti-god, I guess that's the default position, right?

(April 29, 2014 at 6:57 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(April 29, 2014 at 6:02 am)Tonus Wrote: But that's just it-- we have plenty of examples of scientific discoveries that explained things we did not know or understand, and not a single one of them involved supernatural beings or forces. None. Not a one. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

The next discovery that we can directly attribute to god --or any other supernatural force or being-- will be the first. Based on that track record, why would you claim that the atheist is making the error in expecting that trend to continue?

here's a hypothetical question: if the biblical God has existence, is there any scientific phenomenon that couldn't be explained as being a product of creation?
i personally didn't come with anything, but maybe you can.

THe same can be asked for a hypothetical Odin, or Zeus or any other creator god.

If you use that supposition as proof for your deity then it can be used as a supposition for any deity humans have and will invent.

If Cyril the Space Wombat exists, is there any scientific phenomenon that couldn't be explained as being a product of creation?

Apart from Cyril, Himself, of course.

The question is as silly as any I've encountered from theists up to and including, "prove atheism is right".

So, no, it doesn't leave your particular imaginary friend as the default position.

You're just playing word games to justify your beliefs.

(April 29, 2014 at 11:42 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Well, when you have a thing like god, where you're content to not define anything about it, and are evidently more than willing to expand and contract its power set based on what you need at the time with no need for demonstration or evidence, then of course you can use it to explain everything.

But theists seem to be limited to explaining only things which have already happened.
When predicting the future..... the record's not so good.
When you develop theory capable of the many decimal points of accuracy good enough to get you published in respected journals.... please call back.

(April 29, 2014 at 11:51 pm)JuliaL Wrote:

(April 29, 2014 at 11:42 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Well, when you have a thing like god, where you're content to not define anything about it, and are evidently more than willing to expand and contract its power set based on what you need at the time with no need for demonstration or evidence, then of course you can use it to explain everything.

But theists seem to be limited to explaining only things which have already happened.
When predicting the future..... the record's not so good.
When you develop theory capable of the many decimal points of accuracy good enough to get you published in respected journals.... please call back.

well, gotta say, not bad.

---

(April 28, 2014 at 7:30 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

---

The error the theist makes is a presuppositional belief that not just a god but their god explains everything. If the natural is ruled out before the investigation, that's a belief, not an argument.

---

Additionally, the question "does good ultimately prevail over evil?" has nothing at all to do with science and is a total non-sequitur.

nevertheless, an interesting question to know the answer. seems that way anyhow.

(April 30, 2014 at 12:40 am)snowtracks Wrote: nevertheless, an interesting question to know the answer. seems that way anyhow.

Only if you're insistent on characterizing the whole world as a cartoonish battle between Cobra and GI Joe, Snowy. The rest of us understand that we live in a world of hard answers and blurred lines, where good and evil aren't labels you can apply to people, but to actions, and where everyone has motivations and justifications for everything.

(April 29, 2014 at 8:08 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 29, 2014 at 6:57 pm)snowtracks Wrote: here's a hypothetical question: if the biblical God has existence, is there any scientific phenomenon that couldn't be explained as being a product of creation?
i personally didn't come with anything, but maybe you can.

That's an excellent question. I can't think of anything either.

Mine was a good question, but you chose to ignore it I see.

(April 30, 2014 at 12:40 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(April 28, 2014 at 7:30 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Additionally, the question "does good ultimately prevail over evil?" has nothing at all to do with science and is a total non-sequitur.

nevertheless, an interesting question to know the answer. seems that way anyhow.

I don't doubt that. Speculation can be fun. The point I was making is that you were stating it as a scientific question, when in fact that makes as much sense as "'If the sum of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square on the other two sides, why is a mouse when it spins?"

Please let's try to stay focused here.

(April 29, 2014 at 6:57 pm)snowtracks Wrote: here's a hypothetical question: if the biblical God has existence, is there any scientific phenomenon that couldn't be explained as being a product of creation?
i personally didn't come with anything, but maybe you can.

The default position is that magic did it!

Don't you love when counter examples, like those Rampant said, get mentioned, they just get passed over?

Because of course, when referring to deities, it's either the Judeo-Christian god or none at all.
So much for considering other possibilities....