Evolution, the Bible, and the 3.5 Million Dollar Violin - my article

[Tobie]

http://sententias.org/2012/01/04/evoluti...ar-violin/

If you would like to comment, I would appreciate if you read the whole article.

A god existing does not necessarily contradict science, but almost all of them do, due to the properties that various religions give them.

Anyway, you considering our reasons for considering the existence of god as or less likely than santa (who at least was human, if you go by the St Nick stuff, but if you santa is the invention of Coca Cola, god is as likely as santa) not good is no surprise to me, seeming as you assume one exists. What is not justifiable about citing lack of evidence as a reason for not considering the existence of god very likely? Why don't you give me a justifiable reason for considering the existence of god a likely possibilty?

I don't grant that there is a lack of evidence, and science does not contradict the existence of the God of Jesus Christ unless you assume this God is dependent on biblical inerrancy. (see my debate on this site for more http://atheistforums.org/thread-13986.html) And even if I cannot show you God's existence is likely, it in no way follows that it is as unlikely as Santa Clause. It also seems to me a bit intellectually arrogant to simply declare that what a large percentage of the worlds population believe to be true is self-evidently false. If this is what you must do to justify atheism I submit that atheism is founded upon straw.

So resorting to an appeal to popularity now, eh? In a bygone era, the majority of people believed the sun revolved around the Earth, yet it is not true. What is true isn't necessarily what is popular, and vice versa. It is a logical fallacy to make an appeal to popularity/tradition.

If you cannot show God is likely, why should we take his existence to be more likely than that of Santa Clause? There is more evidence for the existence of Santa Clause, the Anatolian guy who put money in peoples' shoes.

Why don't you allow a lack of evidence as a reason to think that the existence of god is unlikely? It's what they do in the scientific community to decide on the validity of various hypotheses, are you saying they're doing it wrong? Or are you just saying that the existence of god is a special case? If the latter, why do you feel you are justified in this?