Higher IQ's

[Neo-Scholastic]

Even if atheists were as a whole more intelligent that theists that would not make them more wise.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In Listverse's smartest people in history, Swedenborg (Christian) is shown as #3, right behind Galileo (nominally Christian) and Geothe (Gnostic).

http://listverse.com/2007/10/06/top-10-geniuses/

I do not consider listverse authoritative by any means but it is at least an independent assessment.

[Shuffle]

Even if atheists were as a whole more intelligent that theists that would not make them more wise.

As Cephus said before me, I am only pointing out a correlation, not causation.
Also, what does wiseness have to do with this? The existence of a god is a scientific claim, not a philosophical one.

In Listverse's smartest people in history, Swedenborg (Christian) is shown as #3, right behind Galileo (nominally Christian) and Geothe (Gnostic).
http://listverse.com/2007/10/06/top-10-geniuses/

This is the appeal to authority fallacy.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The existence of a god is a scientific claim, not a philosophical one.

That's one of the most ignorant and yet honest things I have ever heard on AF. The methodology of science is specifically tailored to the study of the natural world.

[Longhorn]

And god somehow would not be part of the natural world?

By the way Chad....Just how DID you arrive from first cause to your particular deity?

[Simon Moon]

The existence of a god is a scientific claim, not a philosophical one.

That's one of the most ignorant and yet honest things I have ever heard on AF. The methodology of science is specifically tailored to the study of the natural world.

And it would follow, that if your god has any interactions with the natural world (answering prayer, miracles, communicating with individuals, causing floods, famine, etc) he would leave evidence in said natural world. Which would put the claims of an interventionist god directly in the purview of science.

[Shuffle]

That's one of the most ignorant and yet honest things I have ever heard on AF. The methodology of science is specifically tailored to the study of the natural world.

That's why science hasn't found any god yet. He doesn't exist in the "natural world." Whether something exists or not is purely scientific. If I claim that an orange is in my hand, science can test my claim. If I say a orange is in my hand, and science can not prove my claim, I can not say, "I don't want a scientist to prove my claim, I want a philosopher to prove it." I could also not say, "You can not find it because it exists in a different realm beyond human comprehension," without first proving it.

How can it by ignorant and honest? Aren't those things mutually exclusive?

[Angrboda]

[abaris]

In Listverse's smartest people in history, Swedenborg (Christian) is shown as #3, right behind Galileo (nominally Christian) and Geothe (Gnostic).

You know what your problem is? Taking references from the 13th, 17th and early 19th century. Time has moved on since then and so has knowledge.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If I claim that an orange is in my hand, science can test my claim. If I say a orange is in my hand, and science can not prove my claim, I can not say, "I don't want a scientist to prove my claim, I want a philosopher to prove it."

**warning - irony** But you cannot have an orange in your hand. 'Oranges' do not exist. What you call an orange is an arbitrary set of subjective similarities by which you chose to parcel one glob of matter out of all the rest.