nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 172:
Line 172: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→'Weak Atheism': Let's try it this way...
:::::::::::Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for Allah. It's also evidence for Jehovah. It's also evidence for YHWH. It's also evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. It's also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's also evidence for the Great Snozuflu. It's also evidence for anything and everything that my imagination can conjure up to explain the beginnings of life generally, or the beginnings of man specifically. And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for Allah. It's also evidence for Jehovah. It's also evidence for YHWH. It's also evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. It's also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's also evidence for the Great Snozuflu. It's also evidence for anything and everything that my imagination can conjure up to explain the beginnings of life generally, or the beginnings of man specifically. And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Okay, let's try it this way.
:'''Example 1'''
Archaeologists find a Stonehenge-like structure in a part of the world and dated to a time where there has previously been no evidence of people having lived. Here is how three different groups would consider different options.
{| class="wikitable"
| || Christian||Weak atheist||Strong atheist
|-
| The formation was formed by nature
| colspan=3| Reject: Nature does not arrange rocks in concentric circles and stacked on each other in this manner.
|-
| The formation was created by animals
| colspan=3| Reject: The rocks are too large for most animals to handle, and animals don't arrange rocks like that.
|-
| The formation was created by aliens
| Reject: Aliens don't exist
| colspan=2| Reject: According to Occam's Razor, the next option is preferred.
|-
| The formation was created by an unknown group of humans
| colspan=3| Agreed. This is within the capabilities of humans and is the sort of thing they might do.
|-
| The formation was created by God
| Reject: No evidence of and no motive for creation by God
| Can't consider: No evidence for God's existence
| Reject: God doesn't exist
|}
Do any of the groups of scientists hold the last option with absolute certainty? No, nothing in science is considered certain. But there would be no real doubt about it. In fact, the presence of humans in a particular time/place has often been determined on evidence flimsier than this. Remember, science cannot actually ''prove'' anything, so saying that "no-one would be able to prove this hypothesis scientifically" is axiomatic.
:'''Example 2'''
Biologists find complex information-carrying structures in living things, which they name "DNA". Here is how the three different groups would consider different options.
{| class="wikitable"
| || Christian||Weak atheist||Strong atheist
|-
| DNA was formed by nature
| Reject: Inconsistent with the Bible and with scientific observation
| colspan=2| Accept: Only acceptable option
|-
| DNA was formed by animals
| colspan=3| Reject: DNA predates animals, so animals could not have formed it. Also, technology involved is beyond animals.
|-
| DNA was produced by aliens
| Reject: Aliens don't exist
| colspan=2| Reject (although a few might accept); the next option is preferred.
|-
| DNA was formed by an unknown group of humans
| colspan=3| Reject: DNA predates humans, so humans could not have formed it.
|-
| DNA was created by God
| Accept: Consistent with the Bible and with the evidence that information only comes from an intelligence. This is within His capability and is the sort of thing He might do.
| Can't consider: No evidence for God's existence
| Reject: God doesn't exist
|}
Notice the inconsistency there. In the first example, weak atheism was prepared to accept, even if tentatively, that humans were responsible ''even if there was no other evidence of humans''. In the second example, weak atheism is not even prepared to consider the possibility of God being involved, ''despite the exact same situation''. Actually, I'd lump weak atheism in with strong atheism, but I'm using your descriptions.
"''The science is based on the idea there is no God as there is no evidence of God, as I have stated repeatedly.''": And as I have stated repeatedly ''and substantiated'', there ''is'' evidence for God.
"''For what evidence? You haven't looked at any yet.''": Who says I haven't? I have evidence in the form of a Stonehenge-like structure, for example.
"''Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for Allah. It's also evidence for Jehovah. It's also evidence for YHWH. It's also evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. It's also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's also evidence for the Great Snozuflu. It's also evidence for anything and everything that my imagination can conjure up to explain the beginnings of life generally, or the beginnings of man specifically. And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Oh dear, oh dear. Let's pull that nonsense apart.
I said that it's evidence for "God". What is "God"? "God" comes from the Old English, meaning "supreme being, deity"[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god]. It is not a name, but a ''term''.
According to the Bible, the supreme being (for which, in ''English'' translations, the term "God" is used) has the ''name'' (transliterated from the Hebrew), "YHWH". The anglicised form of this is "Jehovah". The Muslim term for the the supreme being is "Allah".
Now what is the "invisible pink unicorn"? Is it (a) a fictitious being created as a parody, or (b) a claimant to the title "supreme being"? The same question can be asked of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Snozuflu, and anything else you dream up.
Let's assume for the moment that the answer to the last question was (a). Then no, evidence for a supreme being is ''not'' evidence for a fictitious being created as a parody, as fictitious beings can't actually create anything!
Alternatively, let's assume that the answer to that question was (b). In that case, "invisible pink unicorn" is nothing more than an alternative term for "God"! As was "Allah"
So the first part of your last paragraph amounts to the following:
: "Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for God (a.k.a. Allah). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. Jehovah). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. YHWH). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. the invisible pink unicorn). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. the Flying Spaghetti Monster). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. the Great Snozuflu). It's also evidence for any other synonym for God that my imagination can conjure up..."
Is that ''really'' any sort of answer to my point???? Of course not!!
"''And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Only if evolution has the ''capability'' of creating us. But it doesn't, as it cannot create genetic information.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)