JimC wrote:Seth wrote:
"I've never seen a subatomic particle, so the most logical position to take is that they don't exist" Really?
You have just shown your utter ignorance of the scientific method. Vast amounts of quantitative measurements from a huge variety of experiments have supported the standard model of sub-atomic particles. The evidence is quite compelling, and no-one other than a complete ignoramus would make such a statement.
That was not the case in 1579 however. By your argument it was logical to presume that they didn't exist. That's wrong. It was ILLOGICAL to presume that they didn't exist. Presuming something does not exist merely because someone is ignorant of the facts is illogical. A proper scientist of 1579, faced with a proposition that subatomic particles exist would say "I don't know whether they exist or not, but I cannot say they don't, how about we do some experiments to see if we can discover the truth."
But not only have I not seen god with my own eyes, but there has been no data or objective evidence presented to support his existence. Rather an important difference...
Not really. You're just stating the fallacy of an argument from ignorance.
No atheist needs to prove the non-existence of Thor, or Zeus, or Vishnu, or any of the hundreds of putative deities that have festered in the fevered imagination of mankind since the first tall tale was told around a hominid campfire...
Correct, they don't need to prove anything...unless they make a claim about a thing...and then according to their own Atheist Rationalist religious dogma they have imposed a burden of proof upon themselves by making that claim.
We make only the claim that there is no evidence which supports their existence, and invite believers to show that we are wrong. They never, ever have...
Bullshit. Atheists commonly make the absolute statement that God does not exist. Moreover, when you say "there is no evidence" you are lying, or you're being deliberately ignorant, because there is evidence. Thousands of years of evidence. Hundreds of thousands or billions of individual observations of evidence over the centuries. Carefully documented evidence. It's just that you don't believe any of the evidence because it doesn't meet your standards of scientific proof. But that of course means nothing because your standards of proof are dependent on your level of scientific knowledge, and we all know that scientific knowledge is incomplete. Therefore you cannot with any scientific certainty whatsoever say that the evidence that exists pointing towards the existence of God is scientifically insufficient because our contemporary scientific understanding is paltry and faulty and incomplete.
Therefore, the best you can say scientifically is "I don't know whether God exists or not."
Show me clear evidence that a supernatural entity is controlling space and time, and defying the laws of physics. You can't do it, nobody ever has...
Which doesn't mean that an entity capable of performing those acts does not exist and is not entirely "natural" and you're just an ignorant hairless ape.
Of course, but why should I bother about a putative possible deity when nothing suggests they exists other than the emotive rantings of many, utterly conflicting theist models?
In other words, you're not a scientist. I thought so.
So, in the absence of evidence, the theist resorts to the private fantasy of faith.
The key word in that sentence is "private."
Here, I quite agree. Private religious faith will hear no criticism from me. However, the moment their ranting starts to demand equal billing as a model of the universe, I shall say "put up or shut up"
[/quote]
It's up to you to put up or shut up by examining the evidence that exists and showing with scientific rigor that the evidence that exists does not lead to the conclusion that God exists, because until you do the God hypothesis is just exactly as scientifically valid as the Big Bang hypothesis or the Brane Universe hypothesis or any of the other cosmological constructs currently accepted as valid science despite paltry to non-existent evidence supporting them.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.