Logic

Originally posted by googlefudge
I beg to differ.

Unless you are requiring absolute proof, then Science has already disproved
the god/s they believe in.

Beg all you want GF but the theists are not going to swallow that!

Absolute proof is what they demand and of course that is unachievable.

I would agree that each passing year diminishes the probability of
god and that belief in god was irrational many, many years ago.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Is it logical?

yes.

just like fire is firey.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes.

just like fire is firey.

What is brown and sticky?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Beg all you want GF but the theists are not going to swallow that!

Absolute proof is what they demand and of course that is unachievable.

I would agree that each passing year diminishes the probability of
god and that belief in god was irrational many, many years ago.

Whether they swallow it or not is irrelevant to whether or not it's true or rationally
justifiable.

The fact that I believe few theists will be convinced not to believe based on the fact
that science can and has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that their god doesn't
exist. Does not mean that I am going to pretend that science hasn't achieved that
knowledge.

Of course if you require absolute 100% proof to be able to 'know' anything then you
cannot know anything outside of mathematics... and even that is open to debate.

So anyone making that claim has just relinquished the ability to know anything at all.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Is it logical?

Axioms, rules ...

Originally posted by googlefudge

The fact that I believe few theists will be convinced not to believe based on the fact that science can and has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that their god doesn't
exist.

Could you refer us three names of scientists who have announced that "science can and has proved beyond all reasonable doubt" that God does not exist?

Remember, I want to see the words "beyond all reasonable doubt" or an equivalent phrasing, concerning Science demonstrating the nonexistence of God.

Better yet, you could produce the formulas which make this proof. I'm expecting something like "variable - variable - variable , etc. = God doesn't exist" and THAT conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt.

SIX REASONS TO BELIEVE IN GOD

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

The Earth's size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

Our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.

Water is uniquely suited to life. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes. Water is a universal solvent. Water is chemically neutral. Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees. Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter. Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it? Scientists have no explanation.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it? Why is the universe so orderly? Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior. All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him. God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us. Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him.

Finally, evolution does not explain the complexity of life and the human brain that simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information, including your bodily function, your emotions, thoughts and memories. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Originally posted by sonship

The fact that I believe few theists will be convinced not to believe based on the fact that science can and has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that their god doesn't
exist.

Could you refer us three names of scientists who have announced that [b]"science can and has proved beyond all reasonable doubt" that God does not exist? ...[text shortened]... e , etc. = God doesn't exist" and THAT conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt. [/b]

Sean Carroll, Lawrence M. Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins....
I could go on but there is little point.

As I said, I don't expect you to be convinced by science, you are far to
ignorant of it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sean Carroll, Lawrence M. Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins....
I could go on but there is little point.

As I said, I don't expect you to be convinced by science, you are far to
ignorant of it.

You have not provide the quotations in which they use the words or equivalent words that Science, beyond ALL reasonable doubt, has demonstrated, has proved the nonexistence of God.

Yes, I did ask for NAMES. But you should have understood that I was looking for words out of their mouths that Science has proved "beyond all reasonable doubt" that there is no God.

Now, you want to exchange ad homs. I am far too ignorant, you say.

Show me some baseline ethical integrity and QUOTE these men that Science has or can PROVE there is no God beyond all reasonable doubt.

Sean Carroll - QUOTE him.

Lawrence Krauss - QUOTE him.

Richard Dawkins - QUOTE him.

Stephen Hawking - QUOTE him.


And I do not mean just quote some juicy quip about God or religion or Christianity or Theism. I mean specifically that Science CAN and/or HAS proved God cannot exist "beyond all reasonable doubt".

As I said, I don't expect you to be convinced by science, you are far to
ignorant of it.

Convincing or not convincing me of atheism is not the issue right now.
Convince me the nonexistence of God is proved by Science "beyond all reasonable doubt." Convince me that that has been proclaimed by professional scientists.

The issue is do you have the decency and baseline moral integrity to back up your claim that such a Scientific PROOF of the nonexistence of God has been announced beyond all reasonable doubt.

Some favorite juicy blows aimed at religion do NOT qualify. I have heard all of the people you speak of though I may not know much about Sean Carroll.

Your integrity is on the line not your ability to convince me of Atheism.
WHERE did they CLAIM Science beyond any possible shadow of doubt has PROVED that God does not exist?

Unfortunately, I am going to put this rather crudely for the googlefudges of this Discussion Forum.

1.) John Lennox mops the floor up with Richard Dawkins in a debate.

YouTube


Put crassly, for the googlefudge types of this Forum

2.) Richard Dawkins is too chicken livered for a debate William Lane Craig. He's called a coward by an academic colleague.

YouTube

3.)
In spite of his continuous tactic of rude interruptions, parading red herrings, switching subject matter and dodging around like a grasshopper in a hen house, Atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss receives a thrashing behind the wood shed from William Lane Craig.

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
Unfortunately, I am going to put this rather crudely for the googlefudges of this Discussion Forum.

1.) John Lennox mops the floor up with Richard Dawkins in a debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9t6Fkhu_MA


Put crassly, for the googlefudge types of this Forum

2.) Richard Dawkins is too chicken livered for a debate William Lane ...[text shortened]... behind the wood shed from William Lane Craig.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x_zmTpiZEU

Two observations about two of the debaters.

1) I wish Dawkins stuck to science; he seems much better at explaining evolution than he does debating philosophical questions.

2) WL Craig possesses an enviable ability to remember, point-by-point, everything that he and his opponent say during the debate. That's the main thing that makes him a strong debater. However, I find many of his actual arguments aren't compelling. Watching WLC debate only shows how a good debater can win even with mediocre arguments.

How many of the people in these debates practice upholding arguments they don't find compelling? That's the ultimate test. A good debater knows how to make a strong presentation of the argument assigned to them, even if they personally think the argument sucks.

One gets the sense that WLC has done a lot of this sort of practice and Dawkins almost none.

Originally posted by sonship
Unfortunately, I am going to put this rather crudely for the googlefudges of this Discussion Forum.

1.) John Lennox mops the floor up with Richard Dawkins in a debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9t6Fkhu_MA


Put crassly, for the googlefudge types of this Forum

2.) Richard Dawkins is too chicken livered for a debate William Lane ...[text shortened]... behind the wood shed from William Lane Craig.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x_zmTpiZEU

Sonship.

I can rip WLC to shreds, and have done so. He's an evil lying twit.

And I am not going to run around finding quotes for you.

Science isn't based on the opinions of people, it's based on evidence and
of theories explaining the aforementioned evidence.

I understand the science and I know it proves gods non-existence beyond
all reasonable doubt.

I have explained this a number of times on these forums and you failed to
comprehend it then and you will fail to comprehend it the next time.

I feel disinclined to put the effort and time in to fully explain how science
disproves your god at this point as I regard you as being too ignorant and
stupid to understand it. [and that's me being polite]


I will undoubtedly get around to explaining this in detail again at some point
but that point isn't going to be today.


And nobody should bother debating WLC, because the guy is a lying scum-bag
with no morals who is unheard of outside a small community of die-hard religious
nutters.

Every time you have shown me his drivel and I have taken the time to view it
I have destroyed his arguments. As has every other atheist here who has done
the same. I'm not watching any more crap by him.


I am simply [to you] making a statement of fact. Science disproves your god/religion.

If someone asks who is actually capable of understanding the answer I will
happily discuss it with them. You are not that person.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem

1) I wish Dawkins stuck to science; he seems much better at explaining evolution than he does debating philosophical questions.

Agreed. But who can resist writing a best seller ?

2) WL Craig possesses an enviable ability to remember, point-by-point, everything that he and his opponent say during the debate.

He is not an ad hoc arguer. He is a professional. He works at it.

IE. Its the POINTS, nothing else ... its the arguments that matter.

I agree with you.
And there are some other academics who can meet him on that ground.

That's the main thing that makes him a strong debater.

That and the truth, I think, is on his side.
But you'd expect me to say that as a Christian.

However, I find many of his actual arguments aren't compelling. Watching WLC debate only shows how a good debater can win even with mediocre arguments.

If they are "mediocre" then why does he come across as having won the day so many times ?

Oh no. He tells you WHAT he is going to say. He says it. And he defends it to the points in spite of the fact that he repeatedly gives his audience and opponent plenty of forewarning where he is going.

He's like a quarterback who announces his plays to the opposing team. And they still cannot stop him.

One gets the sense that WLC has done a lot of this sort of practice and Dawkins almost none.

That of course is not Craig's fault. If Dawkins wants to sensationalize with his big mouth then he should be able to stand up to examination.

Originally posted by sonship
If they are "mediocre" then why does he come across as having won the day so many times ?

As I already said - because good debating technique can make up for mediocre arguments.

Originally posted by RJHinds
SIX REASONS TO BELIEVE IN GOD

[b]1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

The Earth's size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Eart ...[text shortened]... ake action, and relate to other people.[/b]

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html[/b]

This is a little like putting some beer into a glass and then being surprised that the glass fits the beer so neatly. The earth's size is important, but not absolutely critical, it could be different by about 50% in either direction and life (but probably not us) would exist. Also the habitable zone is large, the orbit doesn't need to be that precise. The earth's atmosphere was not always the same. Life itself does a lot of the maintenance - most obviously with photosynthesis maintaining oxygen levels. The moon used to be closer. Really we have an explanation as to why the universe started - you may not find it satisfying and it isn't the only one possible, but it started as a quantum fluctuation. You don't know enough about science to base your arguments on it.