Into the Night
Verified User
Evidence is not 'good' or 'bad'. It is simply evidence.
If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
Seriously, don't debate a topic if you haven't read anything about it. Implicit atheism is a brand of atheism and the most logically robust.
And you are impressed by my intelligence because I know what the meaning of a word is? Wow. You are easily impressed.
You are so out of your depth on this one.
Science relies on the concept of the "null hypothesis" when testing any given claim. It is a perfectly rational method for assessing the truth value of any claim.
You then gather evidence to test AGAINST the null. If you have sufficient evidence you are sure you are less likely to be making a Type I error (false positive) then you REJECT THE NULL hypothesis.
So far insufficient evidence has been presented to reject the null hypothesis without having a high likelihood of a "false positive" result.
It's the basis of how drugs are tested for efficacy, it's the basis of how any hypothesis is tested. It's even the basis of the justice system in the US (you start with the Null of "not guilty" and then test against that. )
Now, move along. Or learn more about the topic.
I didn't make the case Piers Morgan made.
I didn't make the God of the gaps argument Nike Tyson brought up.
Your YouTube video has nothing to do with me and the case I presented.
Niel also said he doesn't know what caused the universe, aka he is agnostic about it.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Lol...of course it was. Questions you don't want to answer are always already answered.
BLNT
ZenMode
Well-known member
Really? So hearsay is equal in quality to first person witnessing?
Oh, let me guess...RQAA.
ZenMode
Well-known member
You made, and have made, EXACTLY that argument. That which can't be explained by science is explained by a god.
That's quite literally your argument.
Glad you enjoyed it.
You tell me what the definition of atheism is...and then tell me to look up what implicit atheism is. C'mon.
My point is that when someone uses "atheist"...you have to ask other questions, because the word itself is a mess.
Under any circumstances...why not just say what you mean rather than use the word atheist.
Fact is, any atheist uses that word as a self-descriptor because he/she has made a guess that there are no gods. Most hide that fact, because they want to bloviate about being scientific and using evidence....and mocking the theists. But atheists are just like the theists...making guesses about the unknown.
I have been discussing this topic for fifty years...and I understand it a lot better than you.
I read it very carefully. And I can show you definitions of atheism that are much different from the one you gave.
If you think you know the topic better or more thoroughly than I...you are mistaken.
But...be smug rather than actually discuss the subject. That is your best bet.
I am not sure why you think my position is "atheism"...but it is not.
Anyway, I would love for you to answer my question in the posting that you quoted.
Neil deGrasse Tyson identifies as an agnostic...as did Einstein and Carl Sagan and (until a supposed conversion at the tme of death) did Stephen Hawking.
But there are atheists here who would suppose that they (the atheists) are smarter than those individuals.
Baloney.
Piers Morgan started his argument by saying that there must be something superior to man. That's a completely stupid and retarded argument. It's not logic.
I have never made a god of the gaps argument. That presupposes that scientific truth and god are polar opposites; they can't be reconciled. That's a bogus argument. Isaac Newton himself said that the universal mathematical laws of physics are proof of the mind of God. I don't know for certain if he's right, but that is a powerful argument to make. A mathematically rational universe seems unlikely to come from the irrational.
You are a genius.
ZenMode
Well-known member
We can only be who we are. We don't control what arguments convince us and which ones don't. Intelligence isn't a factor for me. Very intelligent people believe some wacky things. Brett Weinstein is a great example.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Thos isn't a God of the Gaps argument?
You don't have to use the Bible to infer that there is some type of god or rational transcendent power underlying the universe.
All you have to use is logic.
Something doesn't come from nothing. The rational does not come from the irrational. Order does not come from chaos.
To think otherwise is logically incoherent.
Whether you agree with it or not, it is a reasonably good inference that a mathematically rational, lawfully ordered, and finely tuned universe was caused by some kind of rational and purposeful entity or force.
You were the one who brought Neil deGrasse Tyson into this discussion because of his intelligence. So, perhaps intelligence is a factor for you...which is why I added my comments.
In any case, I submit that my position as written is a much more intelligent, logical and reasonable way to deal with the issue than the way theistic and atheistic "believers" do.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Saying he's more knowledgeable might have been better.
To me, saying your agnostic is like saying your absolutely 50/50. You don't lean even a little theist or even a little atheist. You are the Switzerland of God opinions.
I think everyone has an inclination one way or the other. I can say I'm not 100% sure there are no gods, while still confidently say I lean heavily atheistic.
But, that's just my opinion.
Nope.
God of the Gaps argument is a straw man invented by atheists. It presupposes that God is absent wherever there is science. And as science progreses it leaves less and less room at all for God.
That has never been my argument, and the only people I see using that argument are atheists.
It is science, and particularly physics and cosmology, that actually convinces me a rational case for some type of theism can be made - though nothing can ultimately be proven in the end.
Science and physics tell us this universe has an origin point, and that universe is rationally mathematical, lawfully organized, finely tuned on the edge of a razor blade.
I have a hard time convincing myself that rational mathematical lawfullness and fine tuning of physical constants come from chance and from the irrational.
ZenMode
Well-known member
And I'm not playing your dumb word games. All evidence is not of equal quality or quantity.
When all you have are books written by ignorant and highly superstitious men, who were inclined to explain anything they didn't understand, including many things explained by science today, with a miriad of invisible beings, that is bad evidence, especially when it's the basis for structuring your life around something.
You might as well structure your life around Santa Claus. The evidence for Santa is basically identical to the evidence for Jesus/Christian god.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Sorry, but your argument is using gods to explain what science can't explain. Science can't explain where the universe came from and you fill that gap with a deity:
Something doesn't come from nothing. The rational does not come from the irrational. Order does not come from chaos.
To think otherwise is logically incoherent.
Whether you agree with it or not, it is a reasonably good inference that (it all came from) some kind of rational and purposeful entity or force.
Exactly the opposite.
Because science discovered a universal law of gravity, a beginning to the universe, a spacetime boundary to the universe's past, the exquisite fine tuning of the physical constants, one can logically infer those properties cannot come from chance, from the irrational or the inanimate.
Science is never going to prove what came before the universe. Science doesn't answer philosophical questions. But science can be used in philosophical deduction and inference.