RE: Hell
February 7, 2011 at 9:05 am
(This post was last modified: February 7, 2011 at 9:47 am by Captain Scarlet.)
(February 6, 2011 at 8:23 pm)Matthew Wrote: for the former? Do you really believe we should hold onto unsupported hypotheses
Regarding the first assumption, I would have to know what you consider constitutes "evidence" before I could answer that. Depending on your definition, I may or may not be able to present evidence.
Regarding the second, I am challenging your assumption that evidence is necessary in order to hold onto a hypothesis.
(February 6, 2011 at 6:29 pm)Matthew Wrote: If it is observable scientific evidence you are looking for, then I'm afraid you rule out the possibility of evidence for God, since God is not a part of the physical world and thus can not be subject to thescientific method by definition. If you only allow for observable scientific evidence full stop, and you require such evidence for any truth claim, then your position becomes self-defeating (since it is impossible to provide observable scientific evidence for all the non-scientific claims you have made - including those regarding the necessity of such evidence!).Come on lets stop tip-toeing around the issue. When evaluating a truth claim then the best and only reliable method we have is science which relies on evidence. I think any dictionary will give a reasonable definition of evidence, it hardly needs defining. Failing that we have deductive logic, which unfortunatley isn't very reliable, as it relies on each premise being sound, which is often a source of debate.
The problem with this god argument is that whilst theists have constructed this undetectable god, it clearly must interact with our world through miracles, prayers, sending messengers etc. Therefore the physical effects of this god ARE detectable by science. And guess what, whenever they are exposed to scientific methods they fail the test and are exposed as confirmation bias, wish thinking, cons, frauds or in the case of prayer just disproved. It is equally the claim of the tailors in the 'Emperors new clothes' that there is a fine garment, just an invisible, ineffable etc. I struggle to see the difference between these arguments for a god and the arguments the tailors made in that fictional story.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.