Okay someone PMed me urgently requesting that I reply to this blog with the above title. I wasn’t going to, I figured I’d just comment. Then I saw that people were actually agreeing with this tired tripe in the comment section, and well we can’t have that now can we? : )
So yeah, I will give an in-line response.
Also note the blog title, which is hilariously, ironically retarded as that is just what the skeptic is doing.
Well… lemme say that I recently saw a comic strip/illustration of a logical reasoning VS a religious reasoning in which 2 stick figures “face-off”… the first pair that illustrated logical reasoning is Stick figure guy #1 says something about a baseball… Stick figure #2 asks for the proof… Stick figure #1 reveals the baseball as the proof…
Then the comic goes off and holds the same stick figure scenario pertaining to religious reasoning… but the last line is Stick Figure #1 exclaiming the notion, “YOU CAN’T PROVE I DON’T HAVE ONE!” making him look irrational and overbearing… and then stick figure #2 making a calm yet snarky remark… thereby from my best assumption making the Stick Figure #2 be the allegory to atheist while stick figure #1 the… irrational religious folk
First of all, this is the picture in question which zerowing posted and then I posted as well because it’s a classic lil’ funny picture:
The problem is first off… the response isn’t at all unreasonable… when asked for proof verifying the existence of God… the one asking for proof can’t at all prove that there isn’t…
You can’t disprove unicorns, fairies, dragons, zeus or the abominable snowman. It is impossible to universally prove that anything does not exist. That fact does not make it reasonable to believe anything you like.
conversely the Christian supposing God’s existence can prove through proper thought and reasoning…
The author then doesn’t offer proof of any kind and just attacks science as inadequate at proving things.
The question though is… how do you want to the proof?
Because for many… well, many an atheist… they want scientific evidence for God’s visible existence…
No, logical evidence would do just fine, but nice straw man anyway.
Dr. William Lane Craig asserts that there are 5 major problems with using science as a means of gaining evidence… by that he means there are things with which science CANNOT prove scientifically… here are the 5 he states:
1. Logical/mathematical truths… science presupposes logic and math so to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle”
The statement “science ‘presupposes’ logic and math” is not a coherent sentence. Philosophers invented logic and scientists invented math. Both are credible because both can be tested. You can test a mathematical proof for accuracy and you can disprove a logical argument by showing a disconnect between the premises and conclusions or by showing one or more premise to be false or showing that the argument excludes other possibilities etc.
“2. Metaphysical truths… there are other minds or the external world is real or the past was not created 5 minutes ago w/ an appearance of age…”
Which you also have to assume to believe anything you believe, hypocrite.
“3. Ethical beliefs… science can’t prove whether the Nazi scientists did anything evil vs western democratic scientists”
That is in the realm of philosophy, science is a methodology for testing physical explanations. You might as well criticize botany as being useless because it can’t explain insect behavior or say that the inability to explain quantum mechanics is a shortcoming of poetry.
Different areas of study that deal with different things, different ways. And also a complete dodge since you can’t use moral philosophy OR science to prove there is a god so this is just irrelevant science-bashing.
“4. Aesthetic judgments… statements of beauty like the good cannot be proven scientifically…”
Wait, so 4 and 5 refer to science not being able to deal with abstract things that only exist in our minds. If you want to argue that science can’t disprove god because god is a concept and not a physical reality then hey, we’re on the same page.
5. Science itself… science can’t be justified by the Scientific Method… science is permeated with unprovable assumptions… ie: Special theory of Relativity… we can’t PROVE the speed of light to be the determined number it is… it is just assumed in order to uphold w/ the theory…
Um, relativity isn’t an assumption, it’s a model that explains things like gravity better than any previous model and can be experimentally tested. And we can measure the speed of light extremely accurately, which is why we know it’s 299,792,458 meters per second. That number wasn’t pulled out of a hat you lunatic.
So the question is… really back into full circle…
You want proof that there IS a God… PROVE to me that there IS NO GOD…
And the author says exactly what the religious person in the cartoon said, and even yelled it in capital letters!
Atheists want prove that there IS a God… which I would go on and say how do you want the proof????
That is the prime question… how do you want it served to you?
Any form, hell I don’t even want proof, I’ll settle for any evidence whatsoever. Logical, scientific or otherwise. But not this weak-ass “science is lame so Yahweh specifically must be real” stuff. That is a neurotic reaction, not a logical argument. It’s on par with “I know you are but what am I”.
Scientifically? Well… I can’t because God’s existence is neither observable, measurable, or repeatable much in the same way George Washington’s presidency is neither observable, measurable, or repeatable… which is what the Scientific Method dictates we are to do in order to prove what we are trying to scientifically prove…
Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. So you’re saying we have god’s signature on documents, thousands of firsthand accounts of his life, paintings of him that he posed for and his fucking body in a box? If you can tell me that then you can compare the two. But no, that george washington was a president of the US is not an article of faith. Faith is by definition a belief held without evidence. George washington “believers” are not a religion.
“But you didn’t win there my dear atheist friend… don’t rest your laurels upon science because there are many things with which science CANNOT prove as Dr. Craig pointed out… and those are just of the flaws of science…”
That’s like proving you didn’t murder your wife by saying “well that guy raped his KIDS! I mean KIDS! That guy sucks way worse than you’re accusing me of sucking! …therefore I do not suck.” You cannot prove your position by attacking something else.
And do not pretend to have evidence and then refuse to provide it at the same time unless you want to look like a fool.
“so what now???? Because we clearly can’t rely on science to prove or disprove God…”
In the words of I’m sure some great philosopher, put up or shut up. You can believe whatever you like, but don’t be obnoxious and dictate what I should believe unless you have more to back it up than not liking science.