Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Revelation777]

His existence has basically been disproven by the precise fact that his existence can no more be proven than that of Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.
Once a rational individual understands the absurdity of believing in the existence of something that cannot be proven to exist past the magical stages of childhood, it becomes easy to understand, through a the process of employing logic, how silly it is to believe in a deity.

you know how the composer loves to lecture about 'God of the Gap, and special pleading'? well this a philosophical fallacy category mistake. sorry, but someone had to tell you.

No better one to do it, good reply.

[Whateverist]

Feels good when you can make a point that doesn't depend on scripture, doesn't it? Now try to imagine leaving scripture out of conversations with people who don't share your beliefs altogether.

[Rampant.A.I.]

His existence has basically been disproven by the precise fact that his existence can no more be proven than that of Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.
Once a rational individual understands the absurdity of believing in the existence of something that cannot be proven to exist past the magical stages of childhood, it becomes easy to understand, through a the process of employing logic, how silly it is to believe in a deity.

you know how the composer loves to lecture about 'God of the Gap, and special pleading'? well this a philosophical fallacy category mistake. sorry, but someone had to tell you.

Oh, really?

God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

What's a "philosophical fallacy category mistake"?

Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment[1]) is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[2]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

[Cyberman]

you know how the composer loves to lecture about 'God of the Gap, and special pleading'? well this a philosophical fallacy category mistake. sorry, but someone had to tell you.

No better one to do it, good reply.

[snowtracks]

you know how the composer loves to lecture about 'God of the Gap, and special pleading'? well this a philosophical fallacy category mistake. sorry, but someone had to tell you.

Oh, really?

God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1]

---

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

What's a "philosophical fallacy category mistake"?

Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment[1]) is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[2]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

---

[Cyberman]

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.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Oh, really?

---

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

What's a "philosophical fallacy category mistake"?


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

---

[Brakeman]

the error the atheist make is a presuppositional belief that the future- discovery-gap will explain things; if the supernatural is ruled out before the investigation, that's a belief not an argument. ..

You may not know this, but real scientists let the evidence do the talking. If a chemist puts two new chemicals together, he isn't sitting aside, writing lists of outcomes he will accept or not accept. No, you must be confusing science with theistic apology. If Richard Dawkins himself dissected a new form of life and a little green magic ghost demon popped out, he'd describe it to his best detail, as he is only interested in reality. It is theists that have ulterior motives.

How would a "presuppositional belief," as you imagine, even work? Do you think a fossil hunter would throw his newest discovery in the trash because it doesn't support his pre-concieved lineage ideas? No, in reality he would buy everyone beers because he's found something new and even more challenging.
Give us a real world example of how your idea of "presuppositional belief" bias would work. I think you are just grasping at straws. - Desperately..

[Esquilax]

the error the atheist make is a presuppositional belief that the future- discovery-gap will explain things; if the supernatural is ruled out before the investigation, that's a belief not an argument. additionally, science has limited range. for instance: the question, does good ultimately prevail over evil?

Are you really this dumb? This atheist "presupposition" you think exists is in reality just a cascading set of logical rules that one needs to follow in order to be internally consistent; the supernatural isn't ruled out, it's just not going to be a potential option until someone can demonstrate that it actually exists, in the same way we're not going to just assume space aliens are a possible answer without having a reason to believe they exist.

This shouldn't be a new thought to you, but things that don't exist can't be the cause of things, and you all have utterly failed to provide any evidence of the supernatural. Come back to us when you have some, and you bet we'll start considering is as part of the set of things that exist. Until then, you're just bitching that we won't take your fantasies as seriously as you do.

Moreover, even if we never found a discovery that explains X thing or Y thing, that doesn't make the conclusion you've come to without evidence correct or truthful, which is the point of this apparent "presupposition" you've found in our views. You're essentially saying we're being unfair because we refuse to accept your arguments from ignorance.

And for your example of science having limits, you give us a question based around two conceptual subjects that don't actually exist, and therefore can't prevail over anything, and that's just disregarding the many language issues in your question. You couldn't have asked anything more nonsensical if you'd tried.

[Tonus]

the error the atheist make is a presuppositional belief that the future- discovery-gap will explain things; if the supernatural is ruled out before the investigation, that's a belief not an argument. additionally, science has limited range. for instance: the question, does good ultimately prevail over evil?

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?