A Tradgedy

[Ruggedtouch]

Bismillah


""God created this and that" is not supportable, it's a theistic claim."


"God did not create this and that" is not supportable, it's an atheiist claim.


You are on the board complaining about how muslims are arrogant but you see to be the most arrogant... and the least knowledgable. Your prejudiced blanket statements are, fortunately, revealing this intolerance.


Why are you asking for that which you do not give?

Look Dan, I’m going to type this very slowly. See if you can stay with me.


Weal (and others), have made the positive assertion that the existence of the universe is proof of gods existence. This claim is made absent a single shred of supportable evidence.


My reply to wael’s claim was:

Nonsense. You believe that because you've been coached by religious authorities who've told you it's true. You've blindly accepted the creation myths because it's promoted by the religious culture that you were raised in.

Did you read anywhere my claiming

"God did not create this and that" is not supportable, it's an atheiist claim.”

?
No. You didn’t. Further, your comment is presumptive.


Suggesting a god(s) did this or that with any sort of <i>intent</i> is asserted by you, so now the onus for proving such intent rests solely with you. I do not assert nor embrace the idea that a god(s) of any persuasion intelligently directed any seemingly natural event.


You’re the one making that case. Please support your argument.


I’ve said repeatedly that the <i>theistic</i> claims of gods are self-contradictory and thus reject’able. But I made no claims to know for sure that a god couldn't have done it. Perhaps a god did! But there is no evidence of it, and there's nothing to say this god didn't do it and walk away, or didn't do it and die, or didn't do it period.


Every time I hear this same argument asserting that god(s) created the universe it just tells me that those who assert it are just unschooled in basic logic.


I don't "disprove" god(s), angels, etc., -- your requirement that someone disprove something is irrelevant right off the bat. I cannot disprove that which hasn't been proven to exist (or even been tried to be proven).


Look, use something other than god(s).


Do you believe in leprechauns? Let's assume you don't. I tell you leprechauns exist. Now, are you expected to "disprove" my assertion or are you obligated to believe me even though I offer no proof? Wouldn't you reply, "Prove leprechauns exist." ?


If I wanted to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, wouldn't you EXPECT me to show PROOF That I owned it? What if I say to you, "I have proof. You DISPROVE I own it?"


Come on people, this is SIMPLE. You don't go through life just mindlessly believing every assertion made, you ask for proof of things before you believe them.


The ONLY time you make exceptions is when it's a religious belief, because you would like for it all to be true. Then your normal standards of proof go flying out the window. It's ridiculously obvious.


Dan, by the way, you owe me 30 million dollars. Disprove it. If you can't I want my money in 24 hours.


First, let me make the frighteningly obvious point that most of this debate is not a question of evidence, and it should be, but rather one of chosen interpretation. We are drawn to one analytical framework or another. I will attempt to explain why it is that I prefer the abio/evolutionary framework over the spiritual.


Also, I have slightly different approaches in how I regard abiogenesis as opposed to evolution that I may go into in another (hopefully shorter) post. What both views have in common can be encapsulated in what I find preferable about naturalism as an explanation for physical.


The first reason is tired and old, but one that became so precisely because it bears repeating; naturalistic explanations that have passed through the filter of the scientific method or that are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence have proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.


Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of the philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the extensive assistance of both philosopher and theologian in this task) and carried much of this lofty battle to a less friendly scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.


It does us well to remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bible.


Assuming a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of God, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations noble. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, surging up even to the gates of the Original Origin itself.


The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of this creator is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.


Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.


Is this approach hubris? Is it misplaced pride? I don’t believe so, if we proceed such that human knowledge is still paltry and unsure, especially when compared to the vast spans of energy, matter, and time that encompass us. We have made some astounding discoveries and gained some amazing insights into the fundamentals of nature, but there is so much left to be discovered and it may never be possible to answer the most significant questions with any certainty. Even the purest realms of deductive reasoning are bounded by the rules of their own systems. Knowledge, evidence, inductive or deductive reasoning aren’t absolute.


So basically, Dan, don’t be such a rube.