(February 9, 2015 at 3:38 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Well, I don't necessarily say that "absence of the evidence for a god is the evidence of its absence." I say "the hypothesis has failed every one of the thousands of times it's been proposed, so I'm calling it disproven." (1)
It's the simple arithmetic of science. Every god-myth ends up being torn to shreds. (2)Just as surely as I can state with certainty that there are no magical fairies and unicorns on Earth, I can state with certainty there is no god, there are no gods, (3)never have been, but who knows, maybe we'll make a quantum-processor-based All-Brain that we used to transcend and become the Machine-God with? That'd be pretty boss...
Despite what every delustionist claims, the bible's been disproven with hearty gusto by science in many, many ways. (4) They can try to square the circle all they want; doesn't change the fact that anyone NOT trying to kid themselves can see the reality of its logical failings. It and the Torah, and the Talmud, and the Quran. All of them. Bunk, baseless, fiction.
In the field of science, a hypothesis is considered null and void and incorrect if it is disproven ONCE. (5)
The god-myth hypotheses have been disproven far more times than that.(6)
Why, therefore, lend any credence or weight to any other possible variations of the exact same fucking hypothesis? The same one that in all its forms comes up invalid over and over and over again?
You can't say you put weight into trusting in science to provide you with the closest thing to truth you can hope for outside of math, and then say you give some credence to another possible future iteration (or iterations) in this endlessly-disproven series of hypotheses. Those two statements are simply not compatible. The scientific method has demonstrated this clearly enough.(7)
Am I actually wrong in saying this? Because I could have sworn that when we talk about creationism and intelligent design, we all agree; the latter is just another attempt at bringing the former hypothesis back around again for another go, despite the former being disproven.(8) Yet somehow, it comes to this subject, where the amount of times it's been disproven numbers in the tens of thousands, and suddenly half the forum is hemming and hawwing and shuffling their feet and shrugging and going "well, MAYBE another version of the hypothesis will be right, we just can't know for certain..."
WHY?
As far as the definition of a god goes by ad populum, one simply does not exist. I know this, because science [aided in many other cases of this ridiculous failure of a hypothesis series by the simple passage of time and geological exploration] has demonstrated it as clearly as it has demonstrated the process of evolution, the progress of climate change, and the secrets of the atom. (9) And just as clearly as it has demonstrated the total failure of creationism and intelligent design to be worthy of any consideration as having any basis in reality and facts.
1: How has the God hypothesis failed? If you could show this, you would actually have proof of atheism, which far as i can tell, no atheist in any debate has ever come up with.
2: Like what?
3: No because you have no grounds to liken God to Unicorns. Why would you posit unicorns as an explanation for any phenomena? Their postulation is entirely arbitrary, thats why you can dismiss the claim. God is different, he could be the explicator for all phenomena, and i'd argue, is the best explicator.
4: Like what? We can argue about evolution or dating methods if you like, or we can argue about whether or not things should be taken allegorically, literally, metaphorically etc.
5: To be disproven is an absolute. You never need to disprove something more than once. As far as i can tell, certainly science has never disproven God.
6: Like When?
7:Demonstrate why you cannot believe in God and science, in mind of the fact that science is the study of the natural realm, which exists inside of our universe, and God, being the creator of the universe, exists independent of it.
8: Like when?
9: Like when? Lol, i think you have a case of scientism. Science operated in the natural paradigm, God created the natural paradigm, he exists outside of it. You cannot disprove God through naturalism. the best explanation for naturalism, is God.
