Debating an Atheist

[CThomas]

I'm constantly reminded why I keep swearing off this discussion. I have yet to see a single substantive response to my -- or anyone else's -- arguments. It's always this sort of one-line assertion with no rationale. Do you really think that it's an answer to my point to assert a definition? In any event, I promise you that methodological naturalism is not uniformly applied by scientists, including by atheist scientists. Have you heard of the Skeptical Inquirer? Or Shermer's Skeptic magazine? They are filled with -- premised upon -- articles testing supernatural claims with scientific methods. The CSICOP -- your kind of people -- James Randi, etc., etc. -- will test supernatural claims using science. The premise of these investigations is that science can confirm or disconfirm supernatural claims. Otherwise the whole enterprise would be pointless. (Kind of like this conversation.) So it's really not an answer to respond to this sort of substantive point by saying "science is restricted to MN by definition." I'm asking you to critically evaluate that definition, see if it is applied uniformly by scientists, think about whether there is any possible scientific evidence (not actual evidence but anything you can imagine discovering) that would lead you to infer a non-naturalistic conclusion, etc., etc. A quick slogan may work well over on the Panda's Thumb, but people are going to expect a bit more around here.

CThomas

[TrumanSmith]

I'm constantly reminded why I keep swearing off this discussion. I have yet to see a single substantive response to my -- or anyone else's -- arguments. It's always this sort of one-line assertion with no rationale. Do you really think that it's an answer to my point to assert a definition? In any event, I promise you that methodological naturalism is not uniformly applied by scientists, including by atheist scientists. Have you heard of the Skeptical Inquirer? Or Shermer's Skeptic magazine? They are filled with -- premised upon -- articles testing supernatural claims with scientific methods. The CSICOP -- your kind of people -- James Randi, etc., etc. -- will test supernatural claims using science. The premise of these investigations is that science can confirm or disconfirm supernatural claims. Otherwise the whole enterprise would be pointless. (Kind of like this conversation.) So it's really not an answer to respond to this sort of substantive point by saying "science is restricted to MN by definition." I'm asking you to critically evaluate that definition, see if it is applied uniformly by scientists, think about whether there is any possible scientific evidence (not actual evidence but anything you can imagine discovering) that would lead you to infer a non-naturalistic conclusion, etc., etc. A quick slogan may work well over on the Panda's Thumb, but people are going to expect a bit more around here.

CThomas

Science does not entertain supernatural hypotheses. But supernatural hypothesis can be tested and found to be false; because if they were true they would leave a mark on the world, and they don't.

[CThomas]

Uncle! Back to you, Matt!

CThomas

[mattrose]

I'm constantly reminded why I keep swearing off this discussion. I have yet to see a single substantive response to my -- or anyone else's -- arguments. It's always this sort of one-line assertion with no rationale.

Science does not entertain supernatural hypotheses. But supernatural hypothesis can be tested and found to be false; because if they were true they would leave a mark on the world, and they don't.

Uncle! Back to you, Matt!

Haha. I did have to chuckle at Truman's latest response in relation to yours. At this point I'll say uncle too (since we're at a standstill and not actually discussing anything anymore). Or maybe I'll cry 'Nephew!' instead since my 5 year old nephew is also pretty good at making bold assertions and leaving any nuance to the adults.

[steve7150]

I'm constantly reminded why I keep swearing off this discussion. I have yet to see a single substantive response to my -- or anyone else's -- arguments. It's always this sort of one-line assertion with no rationale. Do you really think that it's an answer to my point to assert a definition?











Regarding Truman it's Deja Vu all over again. Been there with him , done that.

[TrumanSmith]

How does evolution hurt theology? Consider this from a Christian thinker:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/09/ ... ution.html

Excerpt:

One of the challenges for theistic evolution is how to reconcile theistic evolution with the competence and benevolence of God. According to evolution (i.e. macroevolution, universal common descent), Cro-Magnon man is the end-result (thus far, at least) of earlier hominids. Some represent linear ancestors of Cro-Magnon man, while others represent independent offshoots, where we and they branched off from a common ancestor. Divergent evolution. Earlier hominids became extinct. In some cases, Cro-Magnon man replaced them.

From a theistic evolutionary perspective, this is strikingly like those science fiction stories in which a cyberneticist experiments with model androids until he is able to perfect his design. Once they outlive their usefulness, the earlier models are deactivated and destroyed. This calls into question both the competence and benevolence of the deity postulated by theistic evolution

In addition, it's far from clear why modern man would represent the final stage in human evolution. Logically, we'd be just another stepping stone, another temporary phase, in human evolution–to be replaced by a superior model down the line.

[TrumanSmith]

I'm constantly reminded why I keep swearing off this discussion. I have yet to see a single substantive response to my -- or anyone else's -- arguments. It's always this sort of one-line assertion with no rationale.

Science does not entertain supernatural hypotheses. But supernatural hypothesis can be tested and found to be false; because if they were true they would leave a mark on the world, and they don't.

Uncle! Back to you, Matt!

Haha. I did have to chuckle at Truman's latest response in relation to yours. At this point I'll say uncle too (since we're at a standstill and not actually discussing anything anymore). Or maybe I'll cry 'Nephew!' instead since my 5 year old nephew is also pretty good at making bold assertions and leaving any nuance to the adults.

I don't know why you have a problem with a "pithy" reply (it's a good word, look it up if you don't know it). Why should I go on and on when I can reply clearly and concisely?

[mattrose]

Our problem is not that your replies are pithy. It is that they are not.

They may be short, but they are not weighty. They are empty assertions.

[CThomas]

Exactly. The solution is not to start writing long messages. Sadly, there's a bit of a balance that has to be struck. Posting long, meandering messages is useless. So is posting single-sentence conclusions without supporting argument. What you want to try to do is write a message that is long enough to engage the other side's argument substantively and respond to it in a way that recognizes what is said and addresses why you think it is wrong, but no longer. (Or, every now and then, maybe realize that something somebody said may be right after all.) Unfortunately, it can be a difficult thing to do, and not everybody is a natural at it.

CThomas

[mkprr]

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”

Excerpt from “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawkins and Leonard Mlodinow

I once thought that a fully naturalistic worldview had all the real science on its side until I began reading that book and realized that naturalistic atheism is just another faith based worldview. The introduction alone to that book is enough to show any thoughtful person how flimsy the foundation of naturalism is.

If I am going to put my trust in a faith based worldview, I figure I might as well go with the one I find most convincing. Yes Prophecy can be explained away, so can the other gifts of the spirit, and the testimonies found in the scriptures of men and women over the ages. My own personal experiences with God can be dismissed as mind tricks as well. But if I have to rely on faith to be an atheist anyway, I choose to put my faith somewhere that I find both convincing, and good. I have found that no worldview has stronger evidence than does the Christian worldveiw, and nothing stretches me further for good than does following Jesus.