The God Argument

wandering soul · Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject: The God Argument

Any thoughts on the arguments in this website?

http://www.thegodargument.com/

James
_________________
The Happy Heretic

Moloth · Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject:

wandering soul · Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:17 pm Post subject:

I honestly don't trust any "science" Christians come up with, but I'm still interested in what others think.

James
_________________
The Happy Heretic

Sal1981 · Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:18 pm Post subject:

Sincerity, whatever the cause, doesn't grant knowledge.
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos

tonyman1989 · Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject:

Moloth · Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject:

AtheistEngineer · Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject:

Actually the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

And I'm sick and tired of Christians using the "we don't know so that means goddidit" argument. Thank god the same people that make these pointless websites aren't in charge of important things like research and discovery. They let others do all the work to try to figure how our universe works, then sit back and criticize it like they understand what the fuck they're talking about. They contribute nothing to advancement of understanding.

Gerard · Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject:

wandering soul · Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject:

Also, life is not a multiple choice test. Ruling out A, B, and C doesn't necessarily make D true. How the hell do they come up with this shit?

I don't take Christians seriously when I know that so many of them believe that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark. My mind fails to see how anyone could take that bullshit seriously. Even I didn't believe dinosaurs were on the damn ark as a Christian. As a child I used to think, "The Bible would be so much easier to believe without this story in it!" I didn't know much about other parts of the Bible back then.

James
_________________
The Happy Heretic

Dopey Gigglz · Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject:

Gerard · Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject:

Rudism · Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject:

My quick little analysis...

In #1, an eternal universe is equated with eternal time, and then eternal time is said to be impossible. I don't think there are any cosmologists or serious scientists anywhere who claim that our universe has always existed, so it's a bit of a straw-man. What he doesn't address here is the idea that there are infinite universes, each with its own localized finite timespan, which I think might be a more viable theory.

In #2 he addresses the idea that the universe is an illusion. Again, I don't think science has ever made this claim. It sounds more like something a new-agey person might say. His argument here is pretty much the same one I would use to counter this claim.

In #3 when tackling the big bang, he seems to essentially concede that it's backed by science, and he has no substantiative arguments to prove it's wrong. Instead, he basically says that since we don't know what happened "before" the big bang, God must have been responsible. This is a false dichotomy. Assuming we actually have no viable theories (which actually isn't true, for example I'm pretty sure that M theory takes some stabs at it which are mathematically sound), then God would have no more likelihood of being the correct answer than any other of an infinite number of possible alternate theories. In other words, we simply don't know.

In #4 he asserts that since he "disproved" 1, 2, and 3, God must be the only answer. Well, as I already said in analyzing #3, he didn't actually disprove it. And as I pointed out in #1, there are other possibilities to look at besides the ones he has presented--not just theories that science may hold now, but any number of possible theories that could be developed in the future which fit the evidence and can actually be tested. By claiming he's disproved all competing theories, he's also claiming that no better competing theories will ever exist in the future. Perhaps he thinks he is as omniscient as the God he postulates?

I stopped reading the page after he started going in to the watchmaker argument, which like his "box of nothing" experiment, is ridiculously fallacious.

It's really arrogant for anyone to say that we should have all the answers right here and right now. Some things we don't know, and we may never know (it may not even be possible to know from our vantage point as finite entities within the confines of our finite universe). It's far more interesting to say "I don't know, but hey let's keep trying to figure it out" than to say "God did it."
_________________
Cectic - My semi-weekly skeptical webcomic.

tonyman1989 · Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject:

Rudism · Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject:

tonyman1989 · Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject:

	AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Religion General Discussion	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3