Atheists please answer this

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Joe K., Aug 11, 2010.

  1. Joe K. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    107
    Let's say there is someone who makes the following argument:

    Darwinism is a scientific fact. We know that it works, and how it works, and we know that it is the explanation for life on earth as we know it - but Darwinism works as it does because God is guiding it.

    This is not my view, I don't believe in evolution, but my question is:

    By what scientific evidence (not arguments or logic but scientific evidence) can you prove this person wrong?

    Your disbelief in god is purely subjective, based on your own personal needs. Atheism is wish fulfilment.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,872
    Well, I would first say that Darwinism is not an explanation for life on Earth as we know, just the origin of species.

    A scientific argument against the guiding hand of God is the principle of Occam's Razor. There is simply no need for the premise of a guiding hand, since evolution specifically explains how the development of complexity did not need one!

    For what phenomenon is the presence of a complex agent necessary? I would say none, since there are plausible naturalistic explanations for abiogenesis (the origin of life).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    The lack of evidence of anything not explainable by natural phenomena. If you can describe how things happen using the science of chemistry and physics, topping it off with the statement that God makes all that possible is extraneous. I think it's more amazing that things happen in nature due to these basic laws...attributing it all to some god just dumbs down the greatness of it all.

    You misunderstand atheism then. Because this doesn't make any sense for non-believers who spent years trying to look for answers from God. They didn't want to not believe, they just couldn't anymore. I mean, you can pretend to believe, but really you either do or you don't.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,872
    Theism is wish fulfillment. Hell, even some athiests wish there some kind of God in charge of this mess! If there is one, he's not doing a very good job of it.
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    Joe K, science isn't about what is right, but about what is rationally acceptable.
    Part of what is rational is that it fits the evidence: A scientific theory has to fit all the evidence within the applicable universe.
    But another part of what is rational is that the "theory" with fewer redundant aspects / elements to it should be accepted first.

    As Spidergoat has stated, the idea of God, of a guiding hand that is beyond the scope of investigation, is a redundant aspect... i.e. there are theories that do not require this aspect and that also fit the evidence. Therefore science will go with the theory with fewer redundant aspects, until such time as those aspects become necessary for the theory to fit the evidence.

    And in answer to your question: there is no scientific evidence that can disprove the claim. The claim is unscientific from the outset.
    Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or the Celestial Teapot?
    No?
    Why not?
    Is it wish-fulfilment on your part - or perhaps the lack of scientific evidence to support the claim of their existence?
     
  9. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    By who's standards are you measuring His job performance?
     
  10. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Evidenciary analysis is not required in this case; a logical one will suffice.
    One need here only question the premisses involved, one of which is clearly erroneous, if not unsubstantiated (or even amenable to substantiation).
     
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,872
    His alleged affinity for human beings.
     
  12. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Joe K

    Joe, how can one provide scientific evidence for something that god does when we can't even prove god exists ?

    Secondly, it is you, if you believe this to prove that god is guiding it.

    You can't do that because you can't prove god exists.

    Can you prove that I don't have an invisible elf in my pocket ?
    Can you prove there is not a invisible alien probe spying on us ?

    I didn't think so.
     
  13. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    I don't think you understand the subject matter. It's 'natural selection', not 'Darwinism', and the name 'natural selection' rather implies it doesn't need some sky pixie to guide the process.
     
  14. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    GTFOOH

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    Your sky pixie is nothing more than a convenient misconception concocted to help you suppress/dismiss your very real awareness of the Person you'd rather not deal with. Sorry old bean, you will deal with Him, and in turn, be dealt with by Him.
     
  16. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801

    I rather believe in Santa Claus. :worship:
    He brought me many gifts and has caused me much happiness.
    Unfortunately I grew up and for adults it no longer exists.
    Santa did only good things and unite all the children in good faith.
    Many children have seen him, what you can not say about your god.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


     
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I don't need to proof that person wrong. The onus lies on him or her.

    Yap yap yap..
     
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,872
    Thor?
     
  19. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    LOL

    Now.. where did I hide Mjolnir??
     
  20. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: I think you have just described most of the people who go to churches. Religious belief, I think, commands a lot of pretense. People want to be accepted by their peers, so they seek out who they want as peers to confirm their "goodness."
     
  21. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    I would ask the person to look up the actual definition of Darwinism and see if his statement really made sense.

    I would correct the person and let him know that Evolution is a fact. We know that is how all species on Earth evolved. We know many of the details of its mechanics but not all of them. It is not an explanation of how life came to exist on Earth. It is a model of how life adapts to change. Additionally there is no evidence that any sapient life form is "guiding" the process.

    Evolution is quite real regardless of whether you believe it or not.

    The statement isn't even qualified for your question. It needs to be corrected first.

    Science shows that belief in God is a psychological phenomenon born of the natural human behaviors of anthropomrphism and relationship hierarchy. Knowledge gained from science also invalidates any human claim of a God.
     
  22. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Technically speaking, we can't. That's why certain churches embraced Darwinism, and they say it is the way how God achieves his plans..
     
  23. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Another useless post, from our resident redundant member.
     

Share This Page