RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
May 26, 2016 at 11:18 pm
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2016 at 11:26 pm by robvalue.)
This all shows the problem with trying to do science when you presuppositions.
If you already believe one of the popular gods is real and had a hand in designing things, then you automatically believe there is an intelligent designer.
How can you possibly study science with anything resembling objectivity if you have to force your conclusions to agree with this? Notice we don't see religious people arguing against 99% of science; when they disagree with it, it's nearly always about the same area. They seem to accept the rest without any question at all, even trying to use it against the parts they don't like. Yet all these theists trying to desperately to show evolution is false can't come up with anything remotely solid to cast doubt on the scientific theory.
If anything, this goes to show just how rock solid the theory of evolution is. But to understand why that is, you have to understand how science works. Some people genuinely seem to think half of science is just guesswork.
If you drop the presupposition and instead try to formulate a hypothesis about an intelligent designer, you run into a problem. What's the failure criteria? What does "non-designed life" look like? How would we tell the difference? If we found another planet teeming with life, and we studied it, what would the hypothesis be? If you have no hypothesis, no test criteria, then you're simply assuming your conclusion is true regardless of the evidence.
For all the blathering and pseudoscience that ID proponents have come up with, I've never seen a single falsifiable hypothesis. Just vague rubbish like, "Non-designed life would be simpler". How do you know this? How do you quantify "simple"? Science does not use vague terminology like this. I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything. (Go ahead and quote this part of my post and write "Only sensible thing you've ever said!!1111!!) I heartily recommend to anyone that they go learn for themselves. But look at different sources. Don't spend all your time hanging around creationist websites where their only goal is to try to debunk evolution. Go learn what it is they are debunking, and what it would even mean to do so. Learn how science works. Learn what evolution actually is. Because we see evolution all the time. Once you understand it, you'll see why we wouldn't reasonably expect anything else. It's just a matter of how we best model it.
If you already believe one of the popular gods is real and had a hand in designing things, then you automatically believe there is an intelligent designer.
How can you possibly study science with anything resembling objectivity if you have to force your conclusions to agree with this? Notice we don't see religious people arguing against 99% of science; when they disagree with it, it's nearly always about the same area. They seem to accept the rest without any question at all, even trying to use it against the parts they don't like. Yet all these theists trying to desperately to show evolution is false can't come up with anything remotely solid to cast doubt on the scientific theory.
If anything, this goes to show just how rock solid the theory of evolution is. But to understand why that is, you have to understand how science works. Some people genuinely seem to think half of science is just guesswork.
If you drop the presupposition and instead try to formulate a hypothesis about an intelligent designer, you run into a problem. What's the failure criteria? What does "non-designed life" look like? How would we tell the difference? If we found another planet teeming with life, and we studied it, what would the hypothesis be? If you have no hypothesis, no test criteria, then you're simply assuming your conclusion is true regardless of the evidence.
For all the blathering and pseudoscience that ID proponents have come up with, I've never seen a single falsifiable hypothesis. Just vague rubbish like, "Non-designed life would be simpler". How do you know this? How do you quantify "simple"? Science does not use vague terminology like this. I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything. (Go ahead and quote this part of my post and write "Only sensible thing you've ever said!!1111!!) I heartily recommend to anyone that they go learn for themselves. But look at different sources. Don't spend all your time hanging around creationist websites where their only goal is to try to debunk evolution. Go learn what it is they are debunking, and what it would even mean to do so. Learn how science works. Learn what evolution actually is. Because we see evolution all the time. Once you understand it, you'll see why we wouldn't reasonably expect anything else. It's just a matter of how we best model it.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum