Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I see that Atheists on the forums use this following explanation to draw their conclusion of, "God not existing".Something CANNOT be considered true unless it is verified or able to be verified by scientific inquiry.However,the above statement is not scientifically verifiable.Therefore, through deductive reasoning: It is illogical for an athiest to use a "You can't prove --------" as a common argument in favor of atheism.Basically, if you're an atheist as a result of "God can't be proven" logical fallacy, you're now an agnostic.Just a mind wrencher for the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But if you don't believe in God because you feel it cannot be proven that he exists then you arent an atheist?
If you're an Atheist because you feel it cannot be proven that he exists, then you logically cannot be an atheist, because it is not scientifically verifiable.Sure you could technically be an Atheist, but it would be a logical fallacy if you were so as a result of that conclusion.edit: pardon all the mismatched ie -> ei's losing lots of sleep
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're an Atheist because you feel it cannot be proven that he exists, then you logically cannot be an atheist, because it is not scientifically verifiable.Sure you could technically be an Atheist, but it would be a logical fallacy if you were so as a result of that conclusion.
I am so confused.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am so confused.
Okay, it's like this:If you're Atheist : write down 1If you're Atheist because of : You can't prove God exists write 2 Other reasons write 3If you got 1-2, it is illogical for you to consider yourself an Atheist, science says you can't be.If you got 1-3, congratulations, you didn't jump the bandwagon, and you are an Atheist.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you don't believe in God because you cannot prove that God exists then it doesn't make sense for you to not believe in God, and you should have arrived at a more of "we cant know if god exists" or "it doesn't matter if god exists" type of conclusion?This line of thinking seems to reduce atheism to some kind of thing based in faith. Thats ironic and funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Crow I am interested to hear your response on this, if you would be so kind.The "truth" that "the only truth is science" is in fact not scientific, right?Put me on the right track if I'm not.
once again, science is not concerned with absolute truth in the philosophical sense you are talking about. it is just a method for finding apparent truth through repeatable tests.
Link to post
Share on other sites
once again, science is not concerned with absolute truth in the philosophical sense you are talking about. it is just a method for finding apparent truth through repeatable tests.
This is exactly why I stated this to be the dumbest thread ever.What is with the religious nuts that always seem to think that we have to answer to this higher power of absolute truth and destiny? What the **** is wrong with you people?!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I see that Atheists on the forums use this following explanation to draw their conclusion of, "God not existing".Something CANNOT be considered true unless it is verified or able to verified by scientific inquiry.However,the above statement is not scientifically verifiable.
actually if you change "cannot" to "should not because no other approach to truth can be mutually shared or is a practical approach for the benefit of humanity" then the statement IS scientifically verifiable. in other words if you phrase it as a scientific question instead of a philosophical question about absolutes there is no circular reasoning.
Link to post
Share on other sites
actually if you change "cannot" to "should not because no other approach to truth can be mutually shared and practical for the benefit of humanity" then the statement IS scientifically verifiable. in other words if you phrase it as a scientific question instead of a philosophical question about absolutes there is no circular reasoning.
Only theoretically, because you can't prove what is practical or beneficial for humanity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Only theoretically, because you can't prove what is practical or beneficial for humanity.
if you specifically define practical/beneficial (which is easy to do - reduced physical suffering, increased chances for long-term survival as a species etc) you certainly CAN prove what is and isn't. we are doing exactly that all the time.unfortunately we are not able to do it (yet) with other "approaches" to truth like faith-based fundamentalism because they are uniquely getting social/cultural free passes they shouldn't get.
Link to post
Share on other sites
once again, science is not concerned with absolute truth in the philosophical sense you are talking about. it is just a method for finding apparent truth through repeatable tests.
Yes, but "philisophical truth" does not exist according to Dawkins (and you), by definition. It is not based on science.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but "philisophical truth" does not exist according to Dawkins (and you), by definition. It is not based on science.
false, although replace "does not exist" with "does not matter" and that would be an accurate statement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...