Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
VaultZero4Me said:How are they false analogies?
Free said:Sorry for the wait. I've been greatly distracted with the current political mess up north.
As Rachel Tulloch states, the IPU, FSM and Teapot are false analogies because they "are just things that may or may not exist in the universe." God, however, is "not a part of the universe...but the ground of the universe's very existence." That is where the real disagreement is, not in regards to empirical evidence for something in the universe.
Zechariah said:Atheism is merely a title. If you haven't noticed atheists could care less how they act. They have no official guidelines or laws to follow. Most atheists do as they please, and enjoy themselves in whatever way seems suitable. Atheism is a clear REJECTION of religion, and most definitely should not be taken as a religion. It is merely a point of view and a title.
Zechariah said:Atheism is merely a title. If you haven't noticed atheists could care less how they act. They have no official guidelines or laws to follow. Most atheists do as they please, and enjoy themselves in whatever way seems suitable. Atheism is a clear REJECTION of religion, and most definitely should not be taken as a religion. It is merely a point of view and a title.
No, the point stands. This is the whole problem with these arguments--science, by definition, deals only with the empirical, yet it is the atheists who want to determine what is evidence and what is not. But the theist is arguing that the world itself, the fact that it does exist, that we exist, is evidence enough.Dante-Alighieri said:They are not false analogies in any respectFree said:Sorry for the wait. I've been greatly distracted with the current political mess up north.
As Rachel Tulloch states, the IPU, FSM and Teapot are false analogies because they "are just things that may or may not exist in the universe." God, however, is "not a part of the universe...but the ground of the universe's very existence." That is where the real disagreement is, not in regards to empirical evidence for something in the universe.
"God" is as verifiable as IPU or the Teapot. To accept "God" as true without any objectively verifiable evidence to support the idea of a God is as ridiculous to rational people as believing in the IPU, teapot or FSM seems to Christians.
Dante
Zechariah said:All I am saying is that human law in the mind of a christian is their own laws. There are indeed many atheists who just don't care what happens to others, but themselves.
Free said:No, the point stands. This is the whole problem with these arguments--science, by definition, deals only with the empirical, yet it is the atheists who want to determine what is evidence and what is not. But the theist is arguing that the world itself, the fact that it does exist, that we exist, is evidence enough.Dante-Alighieri said:They are not false analogies in any respectFree said:Sorry for the wait. I've been greatly distracted with the current political mess up north.
As Rachel Tulloch states, the IPU, FSM and Teapot are false analogies because they "are just things that may or may not exist in the universe." God, however, is "not a part of the universe...but the ground of the universe's very existence." That is where the real disagreement is, not in regards to empirical evidence for something in the universe.
"God" is as verifiable as IPU or the Teapot. To accept "God" as true without any objectively verifiable evidence to support the idea of a God is as ridiculous to rational people as believing in the IPU, teapot or FSM seems to Christians.
Dante
The IPU type arguments use physical things in the universe, things which if they existed, science would be able to find evidence of. But God, as the ground of the universe's existence, would not necessarily be able to be proven in the same ways. And there is no reason to suppose that he could, but this is what these atheist parodies do.
You will find many people of ALL beliefs who care for no one but themselves. Being selfish is not something that is exclusive to atheists.Zechariah said:All I am saying is that human law in the mind of a christian is their own laws. There are indeed many atheists who just don't care what happens to others, but themselves.
yet it is the atheists who want to determine what is evidence and what is not.
But the theist is arguing that the world itself, the fact that it does exist, that we exist, is evidence enough.
But God, as the ground of the universe's existence, would not necessarily be able to be proven in the same ways.
No one is looking for a free ride. Even Dawkins stated that although there is the appearance of design in nature, it doesn't mean that there is a designer. But that is really a silly argument. If there is the appearance of design then the most obvious explanation is that there is a designer. In the very least, there is no reason to not believe in a designer, other than precluding the existence of one. In every other area of life, if there it appears that something is designed, it is assumed that there is a designer, not that there isn't one.Dante-Alighieri said:The theist (apparently) wants a free ride through science and make claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. If you can point out the objective evidence that the existence of the world or us points to a deity, then please do tell.
Firstly, biology and cosmology have their limits. There is much they don't explain, the most obvious being how the universe came into existence and how life came into existence, or rather how the information for life came into existence.Dante-Alighieri said:Biology and cosmology explain humans and the world naturally, and don't rely on an unverifiable deity playing behind the scenes.
Just because there is no direct objective proof for the existence of God, that neither means he doesn't exist or that there are no empirical effects in the world which point to his existence.Dante-Alighieri said:God is unverifiable. Therefore, there's no reason to accept the existence of a deity when there's no falsifiability and no objective evidence.
Such a notion has no place whatsoever in science.
As Rachel Tulloch states: "Just because atheists do not have to prove empirically that God does not exist does not mean that they get to set up a standard of empirical proof for theists to meet. The real point is that such a narrow view of proof is inadequate to the question!"Dante-Alighieri said:Actually, it is scientists who determine what is evidence. Evidence must be objectively verifiable.
No one is looking for a free ride. Even Dawkins stated that although there is the appearance of design in nature, it doesn't mean that there is a designer. But that is really a silly argument. If there is the appearance of design then the most obvious explanation is that there is a designer. In the very least, there is no reason to not believe in a designer, other than precluding the existence of one. In every other area of life, if there it appears that something is designed, it is assumed that there is a designer, not that there isn't one.
I would not only argue from design but from fine-tuning, the existence of morality, joy, truth, and love. The latter few in particular which science cannot adequately explain, if at all, without shooting itself in the foot.
Just because there is no direct objective proof for the existence of God, that neither means he doesn't exist or that there are no empirical effects in the world which point to his existence.
As I stated earlier, science deals with the natural so looking for direct objective evidence for something which is supernatural is beyond science. But this in no way suggests that belief in God has no place in science. There are many scientists who, as Christians, find that their scientific study provides evidence for a Creator.
Free said:No one is looking for a free ride. Even Dawkins stated that although there is the appearance of design in nature, it doesn't mean that there is a designer. But that is really a silly argument. If there is the appearance of design then the most obvious explanation is that there is a designer. In the very least, there is no reason to not believe in a designer, other than precluding the existence of one. In every other area of life, if there it appears that something is designed, it is assumed that there is a designer, not that there isn't one.
I would not only argue from design but from fine-tuning, the existence of morality, joy, truth, and love. The latter few in particular which science cannot adequately explain, if at all, without shooting itself in the foot.
Firstly, biology and cosmology have their limits. There is much they don't explain, the most obvious being how the universe came into existence and how life came into existence, or rather how the information for life came into existence.
Secondly, my very point is that there isn't a supernatural being "playing behind the scenes." The very argument of the theist is that God is very much involved directly in his creation and that in doing so, has left evidence that points to his existence.
Just because there is no direct objective proof for the existence of God, that neither means he doesn't exist or that there are no empirical effects in the world which point to his existence.
As I stated earlier, science deals with the natural so looking for direct objective evidence for something which is supernatural is beyond science. But this in no way suggests that belief in God has no place in science. There are many scientists who, as Christians, find that their scientific study provides evidence for a Creator.
As Rachel Tulloch states: "Just because atheists do not have to prove empirically that God does not exist does not mean that they get to set up a standard of empirical proof for theists to meet. The real point is that such a narrow view of proof is inadequate to the question!"
In the end, if one wants to argue that the FSM is a sufficient analogy for God, in that it is the same in nature as God, does the same things as God etc., making it identical to God, then the analogy has changed "God" to "FSM" and merely appealed to ridicule, nothing more.
Let me try to answer your questions based as an objective scientist and Christian (objective, key word, scientist for science subjects, Christian for matters of faith ;P).LostLamb said:One question I cannot help but ask in light of this topic is....if it is so hard to believe in God without seeing Him or having proof in Him? Why is it scientists can be believed intelligent when they do not have all the answers? Or....why is it God who is unseen is so hard to believe in yet we as people still believe in cures for cancer when humanity yet has failed to provide proof of cures for numerous kinds?