Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

am946745 wrote: »

Dr. John Lennox



Science is good at explaining somethings, however too many scientists are too focused on particular areas. They can tell you what position the earth will be compared to the sun in x number of years.. But can't boil an egg.

The quote I get given is.. Science can't explain everything YET so faith is put in the future hope of an explanation. What if it never comes?

Just because science or scientists can't explain everything (either yet, now or whenever), doesn't mean making up fairytales is a suitable filler.

am946745 wrote: »

Dr. John Lennox



Science is good at explaining somethings, however too many scientists are too focused on particular areas. They can tell you what position the earth will be compared to the sun in x number of years.. But can't boil an egg.

The quote I get given is.. Science can't explain everything YET so faith is put in the future hope of an explanation. What if it never comes?

This is typical.. Gap of the gods argument.
It's been said many times but anyway, just because you can't prove something doesn't mean you can say that magic did it.
Don't you see how illogical it is to think that just because we can't explain something now then magic did it.

At least science works towards filling the gaps.
No gaps will be filled using an outdated book.

I see that that Christians now outnumber Atheistic Communists in China!!!

Quote:
"Though the Chinese Communist Party is the largest explicitly atheist organization in the world, with 85 million official members, it is now overshadowed by an estimated 100 million Christians in China."

"Christianity is growing so fast in China that some predict that it will be the most Christian nation in the world in only another 15 years."
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/12/29/christians-now-outnumber-communists-in-china/

By 2030 China could have more Christians than America
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html

... and the response of the state is to try and repress the church!!!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/a6d2a690-6545-11e4-91b1-00144feabdc0.html

... so what do posters on this forum think about the attempts to deny the freedom to believe in the existence of God in China?

China now seems to find itself at the centre of tensions between Atheistic Communism (where it is a requirement to not believe in God to be a member) and Chrisitanity, which is growing exponentially as more and more people come to believe in the existence of God.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

This is typical.. Gap of the gods argument.
It's been said many times but anyway, just because you can't prove something doesn't mean you can say that magic did it.
Don't you see how illogical it is to think that just because we can't explain something now then magic did it.

Nobody is saying that magic did anything ... Christians believe that an omnipotent God did it.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

At least science works towards filling the gaps.
No gaps will be filled using an outdated book.

I agree that using an outdated book will do nothing for us ... but, here's the thing ... the Bible is the one book that will never be outdated ... it's the infallible Word of of an omnsicient God.

J C wrote: »

... only viable explantion currently.

So if a more viable explanation came along tomorrow, would you abandon the god hypothesis in favour of the better explanation?

J C wrote: »

using His omnipotent will.

And willow wand .........

antiskeptic wrote: »

That presupposes conviction of God's existence need be considered a hypothesis (i.e. a tenuous position held with the possibility that position can, in principle, be usurped in the future).

I mean, the idea that all be considered a hypothesis (a.k.a we're forever on a journey to greater understanding and all current understanding can be overturned) is itself a hypothesis. Which means it can be presumably usurped by something else - namely, arrival at a final destination from which no further movement is possible.

Couldn't God demonstrate his own existence beyond all doubt?

That's a question for JC. He used said the god idea is the only viable explantion for...

You might prefer to simply define god into existence like that but then why bother using reason or evidence for God?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Supposing you to be one who holds to hypothesis as the sole method of conclusion (with every conclusion being tentitive), what do you say to what I've said?



I didn't state how I defined God into existence. My point was that a point can be reached where you can consider a matter settled beyond all reasonable doubt*

(there remains the option that I have, in fact, being abducted by aliens and the reality I perceive (which includes God's existence) is the result of experiments being carried out by that alien. We can never be utterly certain but can find ourselves satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. At least, there is no particular reason to hold to the idea that all knowledge remains forever tentitive)

You didn't answer this bit:

Sure. God could demonstrate his existence beyond all reasonable doubt. By definition so too could any omnipotent entity. Until that happens it is impossible to tell whether the entity is real or imaginary.

If we found out everything there is to know about everything, then 'hypothesis' would no longer have meaning. I don't understand how you think this gets us any closer to determining if there is a god.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you accept that it can have happened to some people?



We don't have to have found out everything there is to know about everything in order to know some things for sure. My point was that a person coming to the conclusion God exists (by, for example, God demonstrating his existence) means they don't have to hypothesis any more about it. They've reached a knowledge terminus, as it were, and can step off the bus and explore the lay of the land, knowing the bus can't go any further, that there are no more stops.

In order to be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, I would have thought you meant an external demonstration which could be verified and be distinguished from hallucination. The way you're defining it, it would probably be completely indistinguishable from a hallucination but it could happen. Still no objective distinction between a real god and an imaginary one.


Again someone could become convinced by a god or a delusion, hop off the bus and have a walk about. You're hardly going to bring me on this bus journey, using scientific language and then skip the stop named 'burden of proof'. Saying god could convince an individual of it's existence, doesn't demonstrate anything.

antiskeptic wrote: »

On what basis to you say probably? if elevating empirical method to prime position you might bear in mind that this could well be considered an inferior/unsuitable method for God's purposes in self-revelation. Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't require external demonstration if the method chosen by God doesn't require external demonstration to produce certainty in a person.

The question isn't whether you're convinced by 2nd hand news but whether I can be convinced by direct revelation.





Doesn't demonstrate anything to you (the recipient of 2nd hand news) I would agree. But it would to the person receiving the demonstration - in the case God chose to self-demonstrate.

Yeah you could take that approach if you want. So an omnipotent being could convince an individual of their existence. Sure. You have the answer in the definition. The being is omnipotent so they could do what they like (as long as they exist). This is what I was saying about defining god into existence.

If we're not even going to bother to look into it as second hand evidence then you're asking me if an omnipotent being CAN do something. I thought you might be aiming for something a little more ambitious than that.