Theism is irrationnal?

[Tynan]

If a phenomenon couldn't be explained, why couldn't we say God did it? Untill further research shows that it actually has a natural explanation?

When I used the word "God", maybe I should have used the word "divine"

Maybe you should have used the more honest "I do not know".

 

[variant]

Why wouldn't there be an incentive? It would allow you to show our version of God wrong.

God's aren't falsifiable. There will always be something we do not know, and there God will be in the minds of people who feel the unquenchable need for it to be there.

If you don't have a good reason to posit one you really are just guessing, and if you are just guessing, stating that you don't know is a more honest approach.

 

[Mumbles]

I've heard it say by atheists that it is up to the theist to prove that God exists, except the way I see it, the atheist doesn't know everything about the physical universe and how it got here, so couldn't God be a working hypothesis?

The problem is that the hypothesis never works. Usually, there's no explanation about"how" the god did anything, the "why" is usually a bizarre story, and nobody seems to know "what" the god actually is to begin with. It almost comes down to "God said this" or "Zeus turned his latest girlfriend into that" or whatever.

And what's worse, it's not as if this hypothesis has had a decent track record. You've already pointed out that all sorts of natural phenomena that used to be explained by gods, and every time, there turns out to be a natural explanation. How many times do you need to be wrong before you stop trying the same thing?

Third note - the fact that we "don't know everything about the universe" is irrelevant. If I don't *see* any gods, and they have no actual explanatory power (an actual theory, not just "God did it.") then I have no reason to think there are any, and I can certainly reject any god that the believers insist I can see easily.

If a phenomenon couldn't be explained, why couldn't we say God did it?

It's like you're chasing your thousandth rainbow, saying "*This* time, I'll find a pot of gold for sure!" Yeah, whatever, I'll stay here.

 

[quatona]

If a phenomenon couldn't be explained, why couldn't we say God did it?

Because "it can´t be explained" is a more precise way of saying it. Replacing it by the wording "God did it" pretends to be some sort of explanation, whilst it isn´t.

 

[MedicMan]

Er, and how many thousands of years have people been trying to prove the existence of a god? Work on UFT only started recently. I'm getting really sick of this so-called Christian impatience. Today isn't the last day of all time.

People have been proving the existence of God since other people decided to try an disprove His existence. Mankind used to know that He existed, until some of us started doubting.
And anyway, even the disovery of the GUT won't totally disprove God - for why couldn't God have put these physics in place?

There is no such thing as Atheistic science.

There is atheistic science and theistic science - the latter is carried out by scientists striving to understand God's creation, whereas the former is carried out by scientists who have no religious motivation.

If we were to adopt this Nonsensical agenda driven logic would you accept that there is an onus on the Christian to prove the non-existence of the following gods ? . . .

For almost every one of those gods, their belief systems died out long ago, so how can any of these be the 'true' god/gods?

It may take a 300 years, maybe ten thousand years, where does the desire in you to stop the search come from?

I am merely saying that atheistic scientists never accept that the problems they are grappling with might not have solutions comprihensible by our minds. They are convinced of man's supremacy over everything, that given time we could do anything.

~MedicMan~

 

[us38]

People have been proving the existence of God since other people decided to try an disprove His existence. Mankind used to know that He existed, until some of us started doubting.

Nobody knew god existed. "Knew" implies demonstrated factuality. God's existance is not a demonstrated fact, therefore no one knows god exists.

And anyway, even the disovery of the GUT won't totally disprove God - for why couldn't God have put these physics in place?

Exactly! God is unfalsifiable, and thus has no place in science.

There is atheistic science and theistic science - the latter is carried out by scientists striving to understand God's creation, whereas the former is carried out by scientists who have no religious motivation.

There's nothing wrong when a scientist sets out to prove something happened exactly the way they think it happened. When that scientist encounters evidence to the contrary, however, and still continues to insist that scenario is correct, they have stopped being a scientist.

There is no theistic science or atheistic science. There is science and non-science. Which one of them is done by any person has nothing to do with beliefs.

For almost every one of those gods, their belief systems died out long ago, so how can any of these be the 'true' god/gods?

If belief in christianity died out, would that, in your opinion, be proof that christianity is false?

Remember children, society is not the arbiter of truth.

I am merely saying that atheistic scientists never accept that the problems they are grappling with might not have solutions comprihensible by our minds.

Because such attitudes lead nowhere. If you start out with the presumption that you can't do something, and thus never try, how will you know if you can indeed do something?

Orville and Wilbur Wright were told that they would never fly. I'm sure some people said "Why can't they accept that". They didn't, and look where we are now.

They are convinced of man's supremacy over everything, that given time we could do anything.

Of course they are. If they weren't, they never would have been scientists to begin with.

Verwirrung

-- D

 

[RichardT]

I'm still not sure if the onus should be on the theist or the atheist.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I'm still not sure if the onus should be on the theist or the atheist.

If we have to disprove every god anyone ever made up in order to be atheists, you'll have to disprove every god minus one. I suggest you start with some minor animistic deities before tackling Allah or Shiva.

 

[quatona]

I'm still not sure if the onus should be on the theist or the atheist.

For starters, you could give us only one good reason why it should be on the atheist.

 

[RichardT]

For starters, you could give us only one good reason why it should be on the atheist.

Because the atheist doesn't know how the universe came to be without one and blames it on ignorance.

 

[Blackguard_]

Because the atheist doesn't know how the universe came to be without one and blames it on ignorance.

Do you know how God made the Universe Rich?

The creation of the universe is presently a mystery to theist and athiest alike. They assume there is simply a scientific reason they haven't found yet and you assume none will be found (apparently).

What are you going to do when there is a widely accepted theory of the origin of the universe?

 

[RichardT]

Do you know how God made the Universe Rich?

What does this have to do with the topic?

What are you going to do when there is a widely accepted theory of the origin of the universe?

test it.

 

[quatona]

Because the atheist doesn't know how the universe came to be without one

And this is a reason exactly how?
On another note, the universe came into existence through Zulknirusula.

and blames it on ignorance.

Blames what on whose ignorance?

 

[RichardT]

Blames what on whose ignorance?

Blames our inability to explain the beginnings of the universe on human ignorance.

 

[Blackguard_]

What does this have to do with the topic?

If you don't know how the universe was made, how do you know it was God?

All you know is you don't know how the universe was made. The athiest assumes the cause is purely scientific and you assume, with your God of the Gaps, that it was God. It's an argument from ignorance.

ANd like I said, what will you do when a theory of how the big bang happened is widely accepted?

 

[RichardT]

The athiest assumes the case is purely scientific and you assume with your God of the Gaps, that it was God

So the onus is not on the christian or the atheist, they both have to prove their point.

ANd like I said, what will you do when a theory of how the big bang happened is widely accepted?

I obviously won't just blindly accept it, now will I?

It depends if it's sound or not.

 

[Blackguard_]

test it.

You do realize they don't have to directly test a theory as in build a universe don't you? The thoery would just need to be able to explain teh observable phenonemon and make predictions, which can be tested retroactively, by looking to see if the theory explains changes observed over time in the universe

How do you think they got the models of stellar evolution and galaxy formations?

 

[Blackguard_]

So the onus is not on the christian or the atheist, they both have to prove their point.

Sort of. The burden of proof is always on the positive assertion. Which "God/Science did it" is. But you would be logical in assuming it wasn't God as there is no proof of that assertion. It wouldn't be logical to assume science did it either without proof. But science and A/Theism are seperate.

I obviously won't just blindly accept it, now will I?
It depends if it's sound or not.

If it wasn't sound it most likely won't be widely accepted. Believe or not, most scientists won;t just jump on a shoddy thoery just so they have another cudgel to swing at the God of the Gaps.

But let's assume it's sound. then what?

 

[quatona]

Blames our inability to explain the beginnings of the universe on human ignorance.

What do theists blame our inability to explain the beginnings of the universe on?

 

[RichardT]

What do theists blame our inability to explain the beginnings of the universe on?

So is science finally going to figure it out or not?