RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 4, 2013 at 2:53 pm
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2013 at 3:02 pm by Simon Moon.)
(January 4, 2013 at 1:37 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: without trying to sound flippant I'm actually trying to bring God into an Athiest Forum. The fact that Athiest seem to put all credence on science and only limited credence to anything else (if any when religion is mentioned) means that when I find anything I can use in science I will so is there any reason I can't ?
It depends on what questions are being asked as to whether science is used or not.
If you ask me if I love my girlfriend or family, I will not use science to answer the question. The only credence I need are my feelings.
If you are asking about the nature of the universe, the explanation for the diversity of life, formations of the continents, formation of stars and planets, etc, science is the only place to put any credence. Science is the only thing that consistently works.
You are not "bringing God into the forum". You are bringing your unsupported belief that a god exists into the forum. For you to bring 'God' into the forum would requite you to provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument that 'he' exists.
(January 4, 2013 at 2:27 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: easiest thing for me to say is i'm pointing you toward the Cosmological Arguement....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
The Cosmological Argument is fallacious.
Among other problems, the CA contains an equivocation fallacy.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
