RE: the god created science argument
September 21, 2011 at 6:11 am
(This post was last modified: September 21, 2011 at 6:25 am by lucent.)
I consider God to be a self-evident truth, which can be proven by reason alone; it is axiomatic. As far as physical evidence, once it is established that God exists, the entire creation is evidence for the existence of God. There is no lack of evidence. Logic necessitates a first cause. Ontologically, our thought of a perfect Creator necessitates His existence. There is the argument from morality, the argument from design, the cosmological argument..etc. From there, we can identify who God is.
You can make certain presumptions for argumentation so we don't have to tediously examine the same topics over and over again. So, set your terms as to what you are going to argue and I will provide a counter argument.
You could say it was probably pretty stupid to test something you had a hunch could burn off the entire atmosphere, but that's what they did in 1945 when they tested the atomic bomb. Luckily for us, science wasn't wrong that day.
Science, has created enough weapons to destroy this world 2000 times over, and the only thing atheists can hope for is that cooler heads prevail. History has shown this is inevitably not the case. I'll give you a doomsday scenerio:
It is true that technology is getting expodentially more powerful, cheaper to produce, and more widely available. According to this, it is inevitable that eventually a doomsday weapon will be created that anyone in the world could replicate in their own homes, in secret, and use it to set off a chain reaction that triggers world war 3.
Now the religious belief that science can save us is called scientism. Science is a philosophical discipline based on the epistimological belief that knowledge only comes from sensory experience, ie, empiricism. This is the faith that our five senses are enough to determine the nature of reality. It fails to note the nature of our contextual experiences, or impressions. Neither can it quantify an impression. The interpretation of scientific data is philosophical, and a scientific theory cannot actual prove anything. So, to base your complete faith in science I would say is fairly misguided.
You can make certain presumptions for argumentation so we don't have to tediously examine the same topics over and over again. So, set your terms as to what you are going to argue and I will provide a counter argument.
(September 19, 2011 at 12:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It doesn't matter what you hypothesize, and as long as all you have is an opinion you have no grounds to dismiss similar flights of fancy from others who happen to disagree. In other words, you don't get to decide the grounds or terms of an argument that you put forward. I can make up any god I like at will, but having a discussion over what this god did, does, or desires, without first providing any evidence that said god exists is infantile. Without something to consider, we're talking Santa Claus, Unicorns, Teapots, and Garden Faeries. There's a word for any "test" like this, false positive.
You're defining things in a way that suits your argument without providing any justification for your definitions. It's common, it's bullshit, that's apologetics. Propose the deists god and we'll just have to wait until we can see the beginning of the beginning, but as long as you put forward a theistic god, that interacts with the world, you're making a claim to the material, and with claims like that, it's evidence or gtfo. That modern christians seem to know so little about their own theology that they fail to realize that their religion is grounded on "evidence" in the first place, and that there was no distinction between the natural and the supernatural worlds to the founders minds is utterly lost on them. We know too much to believe in these fairy tales as told and so we try to beat them out against the anvil of that knowledge and make them fit. They don't. They're relics. God isn't shy, people just aren't as gullible as before. Billions of people are neither lying nor correct, they are mislead. But hey, don't let me steal your dichotomy away from you, there isn't much left to christianity without them.
You could say it was probably pretty stupid to test something you had a hunch could burn off the entire atmosphere, but that's what they did in 1945 when they tested the atomic bomb. Luckily for us, science wasn't wrong that day.
Science, has created enough weapons to destroy this world 2000 times over, and the only thing atheists can hope for is that cooler heads prevail. History has shown this is inevitably not the case. I'll give you a doomsday scenerio:
It is true that technology is getting expodentially more powerful, cheaper to produce, and more widely available. According to this, it is inevitable that eventually a doomsday weapon will be created that anyone in the world could replicate in their own homes, in secret, and use it to set off a chain reaction that triggers world war 3.
Now the religious belief that science can save us is called scientism. Science is a philosophical discipline based on the epistimological belief that knowledge only comes from sensory experience, ie, empiricism. This is the faith that our five senses are enough to determine the nature of reality. It fails to note the nature of our contextual experiences, or impressions. Neither can it quantify an impression. The interpretation of scientific data is philosophical, and a scientific theory cannot actual prove anything. So, to base your complete faith in science I would say is fairly misguided.
(September 20, 2011 at 10:53 pm)Epimethean Wrote: " ... but the point is that He doesn't need to openly demonstrate His power to reach people. The number of Christians in the world speak to that."
Are the 8,000,000 cancer patients in the world also evidence of his power in reaching people? If so, we need to chemo the fucker out of this universe. You love citing numbers that can mean nothing except circumstance: Stupid exists and grows. It can be cured, but not by any tool religion offers. Science is the cure.
