My dumbass parents doubt evolution

[Truth Matters]

Belief in the existence of the god of the Bible can't be proven by science. It requires faith. Belief in evolution, specifically belief that humans share a common ancestor with the other great apes, requires no faith. It is a belief that can be and in many instances is based on evidence.

Yes, it does. It requires faith in the words of Materialist speculators peddling their logically incoherent philosophical Naturalist speculations as "science". I don't believe their speculations based on my rational faculties. None of them can explain the evidence sufficiently.

I don't place much faith in Materialist speculators. I trust the actual evidence - and my rational faculties to recognize DESIGN.

---

Sounds like someone doesn't understand what the fuck science is.

---

Gravity isn't science. Gravity is a Law imposed on our Universe.
Science presumes gravity exists, but cannot cause gravity. We believe gravity exists based on experiences of it, but cannot prove it without arguing in circles.

No one said science caused gravity. Gravity is understood THROUGH science. Science is both a process and a tool kit.

2) Same as above for Logic

I'll let the people who enjoy the mental masturbation take that one on.

3) Historical Truths - you cannot prove most of the past by science. Prove Napoleon rode a horse on April 6... using science?

The scientific method and related tests developed through science allow us to confirm data or not. Most of the past has to be confirmed by science, either by carbon dating or paleo-botany, paleontology, etc.

4) You cannot prove epistemological truths by science. You cannot prove the external world is real or that other minds objectively exist as something other than deliverance of our own chemical delusion - using science.

Science is a method used to help remove our personal, chemical-derived biases from observation.

5) You cannot prove Beethoven was a talented composer by science.

Subjective, as all art is - science has nothing to do with that at all.

6) You cannot prove moral knowledge by science. Try proving that raping children is wrong by scientific testing. Do you not believe raping children is wrong?

Science can be used to test whether or not something causes pain and suffering, which is the measure most of us use for making our subsequent moral beliefs. Again, it's a process, not a set of beliefs.

7) You cannot prove your life has intrinsic value by science. Do you believe your life has no intrinsic value? Do you believe your life only has extrinsic make-believe value?

I'm quite willing to bet "God" is your ultimate answer to this one.

8) You cannot prove science is valid by science. You would be arguing in a circle.

9) You cannot prove universal negatives by science. That alone, would be most truths.

Do I need to continue?

This modern notion that science is omnipotent is terribly misguided.
Most truth cannot be accessed by science. Science is a useful enterprise, but it is very limited. It's extremely misguided to believe that only scientifically validated truths are worthy of belief.

Yup, sounds like god was the answer to all this too - which is hilarious since God is the circular argument that's supposed to replace science.

I see you have nothing substantive to add. You can't make any case that I am wrong. Your Scientism was exposed for it's foolish naivety. You should be embarrassed - but that requires intellectual honesty.

Thanks for playing Atheist.

---

There's also a difference between belief and reasonable expectation. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the Sun to rise in the morning, for which we don't even need to rely on past experience which isn't always reliable anyway (that's how lottery scams tend to work). A basic grounding in orbital mechanics and the rotation of the Earth will help cement this expectation as well as explaining the mechanism behind it. That we tend to describe such expectations as belief is an unfortunate consequence of language, which shouldn't be taken as a vindication of belief as in faith in things for which there is no reasonable expectation, such as in gods. Until a god attains the same observational evidence as the principles that cause the Sun to appear to rise in the morning, any belief in it is going to be irrational almost by definition. Attempts to fabricate evidence hurt the claim rather than help.

That's silly. You expect observational evidence of a non-physical mind?

The fact is we know about all kinds of things we cannot directly observe, but we know must exist due to inference. Atomic and sub-atomic particles for example.

In reality, there is massive evidence for God. That's why it enjoys the dominant belief position. Atheists have a weird psychological bias, but no evidence to justify their belief.