Leading Atheist Philosopher Concludes God's Real

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, I don't think MNG cares too much about your criticism.

That's not the point here. We refute MNG for the benefit of the audience.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, I don't think MNG cares too much about your criticism.

Then why should we care about his? I don't know about anybody else, but I for one don't much care for presumptions of infallibility.

[Agathon]

Agathon: The dinosaurs only existed once in the history of the world (as far as we know) and no-one experienced them... Does that mean they didn't exist and is therefor silly?

No. And that is a really sad answer by the way.

We have evidence of the existence of dinosaurs: fossils and the like. Given what we know about animals, geology and suchlike, which is based on countless examples, it is a reasonable assertion.

How do we know that the laws of nature were the same 50,000,000 years ago? We don't. One of the irrational things we do is engage in inductive inferences, we can't live without them.

[Urban Ranger]

It's also way better than thinking that his whole life has been pointless.

This is the reason Flew changed his stance. It is exactly the same reason why the Martin Gardner, being a leading skeptic, is a Christian. He admitted that we (the atheists) have the upper hand, and his belief is based on an "irrational, deep-seated fear."

[Japher]

If everything is the proof of god's existance than how can you prove he exists/existed?

[Agathon]

If everything is the proof of god's existance than how can you prove he exists/existed?

It's also consistent with any number of explanations, and we have no reason at all to incline our belief toward any of them. It's quite possible that there is an intelligent deity, but we have absolutely no reason to think there is or there isn't. It is a question that is beyond human capacity to solve.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


You have the personality of a hacker, editing that paragraph. It didn't fool me, though, cuz I ain't no fool.

Yeah, no flies on you...

[Japher]

It's quite possible that there is an intelligent deity, but we have absolutely no reason to think there is or there isn't. It is a question that is beyond human capacity to solve.

I agree, which is why this statement:

Deism can be quite easily refuted. It proposes a first cause which we have no experience of.

Given that we only infer causes from constant conjunctions in nature, we cannot speculate about such a cause, since it only happened once (and that isn't enough) and no-one experienced it (which renders the whole thing silly).

Is silly.

You are right in that we can't infer the laws of nature existed before we observed them or have proof from which to prove, but that doesn't negate the possibility of a god.

[Agathon]

Belief in science is strictly speaking irrational, but we can't help such irrationality.

People who attempt to establish religion on design grounds attempt to appeal to the same habits that scientists and all of us have, but they ignore the role of consistency.

[Agathon]

You are right in that we can't infer the laws of nature existed before we observed them or have proof from which to prove, but that doesn't negate the possibility of a god.

It doesn't negate the possibility of blue space goats either, but it is irrational to believe in such things.

If people want to argue that it is possible for a God to exist, I don't care. Even if it is possible, and even if such a God does exist, it is irrational to believe in his existence.

[Japher]

It's all just arbitrary paradigm designs meant to fit the single human view of existance.

DOn't make it true

[Agathon]

It's all just arbitrary paradigm designs meant to fit the single human view of existance.

I have no idea what any of that means.

People have beliefs about the uniformity of nature, beliefs which are formed by habit and experience.

Unless they have some defeating reason, everyone believes that if one thing keeps following another, that this will always be the case and always has been.

In cases where we have no experience of the cause, we have no reason to make a causal inference.

If I see a half finished house, I know that someone built it based on my previous experience, or on the testimony of others that is based on their experience.

The world is not like that. We don't have repeated experiences of world creation to appeal to.

[Agathon]

wrong thread.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Philosopher.

Based on scientific evidence.

This is just stupid....

[Japher]

wrong thread.

but it applied none-the-less