Thread: Atheists

Originally Posted by gwahir

And thanks for the negrep, unnamed person (not simonj). Would you like to explain what, exactly, you disagree with? To clarify my point: if you have to be "open" to the existence of unicorns and teapots and genies and gods -- because that's more logical and scientific -- you also have to be open to the possibility that the Earth is flat. Simple.

I didn't want to derail the thread but since you called me out, whatever.

The reason why humans know the Earth is not flat are multitudinous.

• Many people have flown around the world.
• Images from space
• GPS
• Currents and weather systems
• Migration patterns
• Observations of other planets
• etc

Whether or not Earth is spherical in nature is a scientific question. One can prove that the Earth is round. Whether or not God exists is not a scientific question. You can neither prove nor disprove God exists. Being open to multiple possibilities is not in itself scientific.

Originally Posted by Think

If your only criterion for objective knowledge is science, then gwahir is broadly correct: there are thinkable unfalsifiable concepts for explaining science to be wrong on the matter of the earth being flat e.g. our perceptions are all edited by some higher being.
so the question is: is there a distinction between the concept of the existence of God and other unfalsifiable concepts? i.e. are there alternative sources of knowledge which point to God? Hence c1 and c2.

All I have to say to that is Occam's razor.

Truthfully, as an apatheist, I do not care enough about this subject matter to continue discussing it.