Science does not claim to have an absolute claim on truth. It says that humans must b4e aware that much that we think we know today may be false.
Doesn’t that mean that we should be agnostic about science or a-scientific, because humans have no sure reason to know that science is right or that true knowledge exists.
A Christian knows that there are serious limits on his/her faith in God and her/his knowledge of God. This does not mean we should not stop trying to understand God or increase our faith in God, just as the scientist continues to expand her/his understanding of the truth about the universe and use this truth to help others.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
124
I fully agree, even as an atheist. Recognizing our fallibility and ignorance while striving to increase knowledge is a goal we all share in.
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
125
This is all part of the mysterious nature of the Universe.
What I’m trying to suggest to both sides is that “Logic” is not a unique possession of either side. And to lump our good BioLogos folks into the same “pack of illogical demons” (my paraphrasing) - - well, that’s not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself with the folks and their friend, Yahweh…
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
126
My actual language is “that is not a logical argument”. I fully agree that both atheists and theists get things wrong when it comes to logic and how logic works. I see no need to call people demons for using illogical arguments, or not understanding what a logical argument is.
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
127
Sometimes my rhetoric gets a little frothy … but when I see you arguing against God’s existence on these boards, I don’t think any good comes of it.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
128
I fully agree, and I try not to directly argue against the existence of God, but I don’t always achieve my goals and I do take your criticisms to heart. What I am trying to do is focus on the method of the argument. I think we would both agree that a God of the Gaps argument for the existence of God is not a logical argument, but in criticizing that specific argument we are not implying that God does not exist. I realize that it is a fine line to walk because we are all aware of each others’ positions which causes us to jump to conclusions.
The problem is not that the God of the Gaps is not a logical argument, but that God is not the God of the Gaps, but the God of the Facts. Then the problem occurs when you deny the facts or deny that the facts point a particular way.
If the universe is rationally designed, then logically there is a Rational Designer. Now one can deny the fact that it is rationally designed or that God is not the Rational Designer, but I certainly do not think that you have come close to doing so, or you could claim that the question cannot be solved so we gave an atheism of the gaps argument, which is not logical.
The problem with that statement is that by denying the existence of God one denies the existence of an intelligence in the universe except human intelligence.
How exactly do you determine if the universe is rationally designed? Are you comparing it to another universe? And what would a non-rationally designed universe look like? And finally, assuming we could determine rational design, how do you know it is your God that did the designing? Just curious.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
131
There would be two logical fallacies in that argument. First, you assume your conclusion when you say that it is a fact that the universe is rationally designed which is begging the question. Second, you are making an argument from ignorance when you say that no one has disproved the claim that God is the rational designer.
How is it not logical to not believe a claim that is not supported by evidence?
I don’t take the position that God does not exist.
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
132
Didn’t we just exchange multiple emails on this topic?
You do know that Roger is, in general, a supporter of BioLogos, yes?
You do understand that you are challenging his fundamental faith, which he has arrived at using hereto unfathomable cognitive processes - - partly because this is true for most of us, and partly because - - after all - - this is Roger.
3) When will you repeat this same process for our good friend, @jpm?
I strongly suspect that the reasons why he has faith in the existence of Yahweh would not measure up to your standards of logic either.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
133
Here is the quote:
“or you could claim that the question cannot be solved so we gave an atheism of the gaps argument, which is not logical.”
Is it a part of his fundamental faith that the supposed “atheism of the gaps” argument is illogical? It seems a bit of a stretch when atheists can’t even define their own arguments without stepping on some toes.
They aren’t my standards of logic. They are the standards of logic.
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
134
Are you incapable of not stepping on Theist toes on the one topic that really isn’t up for discussion: whether God actually exists?
If you feel it is appropriate for you to step on Theist toes, please let me know when you will begin the ritual for @JPM. I think that would be most educational… and equitable.
The implied point of your protest to me is that you should be allowed to challenge the position of God’s existence on these boards - - whenever you feel there is a need to do so.
My position is, if there is ever a need to do so, then, logically, there is a need for you to do so daily.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
135
One takes something that is rationally designed and compare it to something that is not rationally designed. A rationally designed car works well, good on gas, requires minimum upkeep, etc. A car that is not rationally designed does not. It breaks down all the time so you never know when it is going to work if it does work.
There is only one God, YHWH, and YHWH is the only One Who has the power to create the universe out of nothing, the opportunity to create the universe out of nothing, the wisdom and knowledge to create the universe out of nothing, and the motive to create the universe out of nothing.
Case closed.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
138
Wouldn’t both cars be the product of rational design, or at least a rational designer?
I’m not aware of a ‘not rationally designed universe’ to compare this universe against and validate your assertions.
All standard Christian assertions that are based solely on Faith.
I’m going to make 2 assumptions about you; please correct me if they are not accurate.
You are not a YEC. I assume this because you are on this website.
You believe that man (Homo Sapiens) were the ultimate goal and motive for God’s rational creation.
Assuming those are correct can you explain to me why God waited over 13 billion years from the time of the Big Bang to the appearance of Homo Sapiens? How does that time lag demonstrate a rational Designer?
I really want to know what you believe. I have asked this question to dozens of believers and most simply say I don’t know but God did it.
All standard Christian assertions that are based solely on Faith.
Who says that is true?
You are right. I am not a YEC.
The ultimate goal of God’s Creation is God’s Kingdom.
The 13.5 billion process is rational. I do not think that doing things quickly is more rational. Doing things the best way is most rational and that is what God chose to do. We can all learn from this. We need to stop looking for short cuts and do things right.
If you really want to know what I believe you need to read my book, Darwin’s Myth: Malthus, Ecology, and the Meaning of Life.
Since that sentence begins with IF I am not assuming anything. However since everyday is a test of the rationality of the universe. There is no need to assume it since it is being proven on a minute by minute as we use the computer and internet, because this is the basis of all science. and rtechnology We will all know if the universe becomes irrational.
I did not say that no one has disproven the claim the God is the Rational Designer, but that you have the option to try to disprove that logical assertion.
There are many kinds of evidence. You choose not to believe that which contradicts your beliefs.
Do you think that there is any evidence that the universe was created by an Intelligence that is beyond human?
Is there any evidence that humans have needs beyond the physical, that is spiritual and psychological needs?
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
142
The “If” statement is identical to your conclusion which means that it is begging the question. That is a logical fallacy.
As to your test, can you explain how using a computer demonstrates that the universe was created by a deity?
There is no need to disprove logical fallacies.
I choose not to accept unverifiable claims that are dependent on the claimant.
I have not seen any independent and verifiable evidence of either. However, I fully acknowledge that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.