10/2/09

ExChristian.Net Has Been X’d, part 4

Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on ExChristian.Net
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 comments:

  1. AnonymousOctober 2, 2009 at 9:56 AM

    I wonder if any of these "ex-christians" have even read the Bible? They like quoting scripture but they sure can't do it in context.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cedric KatesbyOctober 2, 2009 at 10:17 AM

    Thus, God is a hidden as wind: you cannot see wind but you can discern its effects—you see the trees waving, you feel the dust and moisture particles being pushed against your skin, etc.

    It's also possible to measure the wind.
    And predict it's strength and direction.
    And re-create it in experiments.
    And test it's effects on buildings and airplanes.
    Wind is a part of the physical world.
    Science has no problem with wind.
    There's plenty of evidence for it.
    I am happy to admit the existence of wind.
    No problemo.
    Does your god have as much evidence that it exists as wind?

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousOctober 3, 2009 at 10:40 AM

    I think you missed the point but whatever. How about you scientifically prove I love my parents next eh?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cedric KatesbyOctober 3, 2009 at 1:27 PM

    How about you scientifically prove I love my parents next eh?

    Why?
    I'm not claiming you love your parents.
    I don't have to "prove" anything since I'm not making a claim.
    Besides, science doesn't deal in "proof".
    It deals in evidence.

    If you want to claim that you love your parents then...thats fine with me.
    (shrug)

    ReplyDelete
  5. KenOctober 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM

    Cedric Katesby,
    Good question, "Does your god have as much evidence that it exists as wind?"
    The answer is no; not even close as there is much, much, much more evidence for the existence of God which you can measure, predict, re-create (at least in models), test effects, etc.

    It is called the ever mounting evidence the for universe's fine tuning and as long as the atheist answer is to believe, by "faith", that it just is, it just happened that way and that's all, it just happened to have happened, if it were not so we would not be here to talk about it then, as per usual, supernaturalism is the default position.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cedric KatesbyOctober 3, 2009 at 2:37 PM

    mounting evidence the for universe's fine tuning

    Ah, the "fine tuning" argument.
    That's it, is it?
    Hmm.
    Well, it's not really much to go with.
    After all, the whole fine-tuning thing has been around for a while and doesn't seem to be very convincing.
    Besides, there's no reason why a believer in Thor or Baal or the Flying Spaghetti Monster couldn't use the same argument for their own god/gods.
    Don't you have anything better?

    ...as long as the atheist answer is to believe, by "faith", that it just is...

    What atheist?
    Who exactly are you talking about?

    I personally have no idea what some atheist might believe or think about the universe until I bump into them and actually ask them.
    The trouble with atheism is that once you get past the position that there doesn't seem to be any good evidence that gods exists and that therefore one shouldn't believe in them....then there's nothing much else to talk about, with respect to atheism.
    There's no "list of things you must believe and adhere to if you want to be a registered atheist."
    No orthodoxy. No guide. No set series of instructions.

    Also, any theory you put forward about the universe must stand on it's own merits. It doesn't matter how bad is the other guy's theory.
    Even if the other guy's theory is really, really bad it doesn't make your theory magically any better.

    ...much more evidence for the existence of God which you can measure, predict, re-create...

    Well, I doubt it but...what the heck.
    Go for it.
    How can you measure your god?
    Or perform some kind of test or something like you can do with the wind?

    ReplyDelete
  7. MarkOctober 5, 2009 at 1:01 PM

    "After all, the whole fine-tuning thing has been around for a while and doesn't seem to be very convincing."

    How is it not convincing? It amazes me the excuses that people will come up with to explain away something that obviously has elements of design to it. There are so many factors and laws to the universe that if off by even a fraction of a fraction at all, we wouldnt be here today posting on this blog. One could respond and say "We got lucky because we are here after all". Thats fine to think I spose but that doesnt mean its a very rational or probably explanation. The odds say its beyond luck almost to the point of just flat out calling it impossible but we need an alternative for those that cant and wont believe in creator. A lot of us look at the universe, its laws, and how amazingly precise it is and say "It looks designed". Its not a bad theory, wishful thinking, or bad science at all. Its where the facts point and it makes sense if one DOES allow a divine foot in the door. The analogy of finding something that looks designed and then concluding that it probably is, is a good analogy and just because somebody can come up with an alternate explanation doesnt mean that its the most probable or even rational. If scientists found ANY object at all even half as complex and fined tuned as the universe besides the universe itself, I would bet that ALL of them would conclude that SOMETHING designed it which tells me this more of an argument about worldviews than it is about what the evidence says.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cedric KatesbyOctober 5, 2009 at 9:22 PM

    A lot of us look at the universe, its laws, and how amazingly precise it is and say "It looks designed".

    Plenty of things look designed. That doesn't mean that they are actually designed.
    :)
    Take the banana for example. Have you ever looked at a banana? I mean, really looked at it?
    (N.B: I did not doctor that video in any way. Ray Comfort really does believe what he's saying in that video. It's not a parody.)

    Looking at something that's complicated and going "Wow. That's complicated. I have no idea how that happened. Hmm. It must have got there by magic" is not testable or falisfiable. It's not science. There's no scientific theory in there.

    People did the same thing with lightning a long time age. That's why people invented Thor.
    It's all just a god-of-the-gaps argument. Here's one of my favourite science educators, Neil deGrasse Tyson, taking apart the god-of-the-gaps argument.

    As Douglas Adams said...
    "Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?".

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)