Arguments, that convince you, strong atheism is true. If you are not a strong atheist, but a weak one, don't argue with this question. its not for you. Its for the ones, that positively assert, most probably God does not exist. Please don't base it on a negative ( the bible is worthless etc....), but positive arguments, which do make strong atheism stand on its own right.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Wrong. Evolution CAN be tested, as has been explained various times in various ways through this thread. Sure, evolution is still a theory...one that just so happens to make sense to those smart enough and willing enough to look at the vast amount of evidence that does in fact exist to support it. Intelligent design offers NOTHING in the way of evidence, just words...and words that can't be tested at that.
Again, Angelo...I can appreciate your persistence, but you have nothing. I know you've heard this before, but I'd like to remind you that despite anything any atheist believes...the burden of truth will always like on you the believer, not us.
Let's be clear on one of the most misunderstood scientific concepts :
Hypothesis, Theory and Law
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation
Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Simply put... a hypothesis, best guess based on observations.... Theory, one or more hypotheses used to explain something that has been shown to be valid and have yet to be unproven. Scientific law is something accepted as fact and can also be a theory.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
Now, with all that being said.. Evolution is a Theory which has yet to be unproven and Intelligent Design is a hypothesis at best... and that is the reason why Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught along side Evolution-- that's not to mention separation of Church and State as covered by the Constitution.
Again, no Reply button --
RE: "ElShamah888 is me." - surprise, surprise, surprise! Clearly, whichever "you" it is, it's NOT the bumbling, question-asking, poor-English-speaking facet of "you"!
RE: the remainder of your assertions, you've steadfastly proven that the addition and subtraction of one simple word - super- can make your statements equally valid!
"(Super)Naturalistic science" points to (super)naturalism, whether philosophical or methodological, both of which are essentially the same. Neither of which will allow the supernatural as a cause for anything in this world, even if logical. (Super)Natural causes must account for everything. So if scientific findings shows limits in (super)natural causes, it doesn't matter because (super)natural causes must have done everything. This shows that it is not the science that is important, but the reigning philosophy of (super)naturalism. By definition, it will exclude any other possible explanation, whether presuppositional or logical or even rational, including the possibility of the supernatural, so it is true that (super)naturalistic "science", or rather the (super)naturalistic interpretation of scientific evidence will always miss a supernatural explanation. Whatever the supernatural is, the (super)naturalistic mind will not accept it. That's why it is true that research today is not about finding real answers, but only confirming a (super)naturalistic philosophy."
Angelo - come out and plaaaaaaaaay -- I'll pretend to listen to youuuuuuuu --
Whew!I thought he'd never leave - he was like the crazy relative that comes and stays, and stays, and stays, and stays --
So ends a forum, as I sit here, listening to the sound of one hand, clapping.
sigh, and it was just getting interesting....
fantastic post! a great contribution to the discussion.. i refuse to use the word debate because Angelo is not interested in answering any questions, just tossing out poorly researched facts from his website that seems to 'prove' his god is real!
so, i will respond and thank you for contributing some great points and offering a few more 'unprovable' facts from your interpretation, but Angelo will ignore most if not all of it or perhaps find one phrase he can attack.... but, he NEVER takes things out of context, just his scripture use!
cheers, and thanks again!
Well, the universe in its entirety is probably a closed system by definition. Given various models and ideas about its makeup and expansion, that may be debatable, but in any case Earth or any one smaller part certainly isn't closed. So applying the law to a planet like that is just ridiculous.
The other great absurdity is even trying to apply physical entropy to macro-events. They deliberately confuse thermodynamical and informational entropy. The first only applies to energy, the second applies to information. Ultimately both are mathematical concepts rooted in probability, but describe different things. They can't be turned into lame metaphors and applied to random things
you are assuming the intellectual integrity of the one making the claim! when faced with the option to honestly evaluate the evidence or misrepresent the counter evidence to avoid accepting what they know deep in their brains, that god really does not exist. to keep hope alive that they will live forever and ever, they have convinced themselves that their are not only believing the truth, but they feel the need to make sure everyone knows they know the truth.. that is why we have conflicts over religion raging around the world day after day after day...
but! they are safe in the arms of their loving savior ignoring all science based PROOFS that he does not exist!