Thread: Atheists

Originally Posted by KT.

I would also like to point out that Atheism is no more scientific than believing in a deity. You can't prove god doesn't exist in the same way you can't prove that god does exist.

depends on your understanding of the scientific method
i.e. opinion of hypothetico-deductive model, falsifiability etc.

If science is a purely inductive exercise, then invisible pink unicorns and God are both outside of its province and it would be "unscientific" to make an assertion on the existence of invisible pink unicorns. Note that even on this (totally castrated) model, particular hypotheses concerning miraculous interventions ascribed to God(s) can be tested for.

Broadly, when people say there is no evidence for the existence of God (i.e. taking an empiricist position on the issue), in longhand what they are saying is
a) God is an unfalisfiable concept
b)there are an infinity of unfalsifiable concepts
c1)I do not accept the existence of a valid metaphysics, nor do I presume before argument the existence of a deity/a holy book/a church which can infallibly issue true statements
c2)therefore the scientific method is the only objective criterion for verifying a particular thing's existence
c3)it therefore follows that all unfalsifiable concepts are equally objectively likely/unlikely
d)I don't make it part of my daily business to consider the infinity of unfalisfiable, possibly existent concepts and make supplication to them
e)it is not scientific to reject scientific models on the basis of unfalsifiable, possible existent concepts

it follows that it is not in my daily business to worship God, nor is it scientific to postulate Him

Atheists are quite right, all of this does follow and b) d) and e) ought surely to be accepted by any thinking human being ( a) oughtn't to be too much trouble to anyone either, because no given number of miracles or incarnations can constitute the existence of God; just as no given number of fake miracles or false incarnations can constitute His nonexistence); having said that, doing the things in d) and e) might be a nice way to unwind
A better challenge would be the (implicit) propositions c1 and c2, because c3 is the statement on which the argument stands or falls

Originally Posted by Think

Atheists are quite right

Sig'd