RE: Top Seven Ways Christianity is Debunked By the Sciences
September 28, 2011 at 4:31 pm
(This post was last modified: September 28, 2011 at 4:37 pm by Zaki Aminu.)
(September 28, 2011 at 4:24 pm)Justtristo Wrote:(September 28, 2011 at 3:13 pm)Zaki Aminu Wrote:(September 28, 2011 at 4:06 am)Justtristo Wrote: I recently encounter this excellent blog post by John Loftus which describes the top seven ways Christianity has been debunked by the sciences. It can come in handy when you can say to people that science has disproved the bible and why.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...unked.html
I'm not sure what definition of "God" John Loftus is using in his arguments. It certainly is not the one I find in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
Definition of GOD
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality:.....
If one does not respect the meanings of the words of the language it becomes very difficult - if not impossible - to communicate any meaning whatsoever with it. Presumably, Mr. Loftus is not trying to say that there is no such thing as Ultimate Reality - or is he? Ultimate Reality is what the entire enterprise of science is about seeking, is it not? So how can it be possible that science will ever be in opposition to this Ultimate Reality - God?
One can argue intelligently about the Nature of Ultimate Reality. But to claim that it does not exist at all is simply absurd. And whilst that is a view one might take on existence, absurdism has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Did you read the article I posted may I ask?
The article talked nothing about disproving the existence of a god or ultimate reality of some sort. The article was actually about disproving the claims made by Christians which believes in the existence a particular god named Yahweh.
Oh well, if he's not saying he's able to disprove God's Existence then I don't really care what he thinks. But you see his article did start with this statement:
"God is dead, Friedrich Nietzsche predicted it over a century ago. No, God did not die. We just came to the realization he never existed in the first place....."
So......
(September 28, 2011 at 4:18 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(September 28, 2011 at 3:24 pm)Zaki Aminu Wrote: And anyway, the fact that something has not been proven to your satisfaction does not mean it is not true, does it? The American continent, for instance, existed long before it was known about in Europe. To have asserted that it didn't exist because there was no evidence about it a millennium ago would have been absurd, would it not?
Most atheists do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist.
The very fact that the case for the existence has not met its burden of proof is the reason why we don't believe.
A god could exist. But without sufficient evidence to support that claim, what should be our justification to believe one exists?
Actually, I'm not asking you to open your heart. I'm just noting that, for instance, many people don't understand the evidence for Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. But this does not make the latter any less valid, does it?
You are saying you don't understand the proof that has been offered to you for God's Existence. That does not mean God does not Exist. It just means you don't understand the proof for His Existence. That's all.
Of-course, if you could offer conclusive proof for His non-existence that would settle the matter. But you can't, can you?
