Replies

The idea of God takes less faith than believing that nonsense.

Which "God", exactly? You see, there have been several thousand proposed throughout human history.

What you are doing is starting out with an unproven assumption that there is no God and calling that "objectivity".

No, my position is that because no one has provided evidence for any gods, I've no reason to assume the existence of any. You're the one introducing some specific "God" construct, but you don't have any evidence for it, so you'll need to get in line behind the few thousand other people that got here before you, each with their own "God" construct to pitch, each offering as much evidence as you.

If you RULE OUT in advance, regardless of the evidence, an explanation outside the known properties of the universe then you close the door to the unknown.

So are you suggesting that, when we come to a point when our current scientific understanding is insufficient to explain a phenomenon, we should just chalk it up to a sudden miracle, a point where the laws of physics were temporarily suspended, and stop all inquiry at that? And you call me short-sighted?

"So are you suggesting that, when we come to a point when our current scientific understanding is insufficient to explain a phenomenon, we should just chalk it up to a sudden miracle, a point where the laws of physics were temporarily suspended, and stop all inquiry at that? "

Nope. I did not say that. I will re-state what I originally said. If you want to attack something with my name on it, attack what I actaully put down, not some straw-man. Here is a repeat from my orginal #328) post....

You may not be able to study the "supernatural" but you can rule out natural causes. The more certain you are that all natural causes have been ruled out then the more certain you can be that the supernatural hypothesis is the correct one. Can one ever be 100% sure of the supernatural hypotheses? Probably not, but the same is true of natural hypothesis. We just have confidence levels.

You further write...

"No, my position is that because no one has provided evidence for any gods, I've no reason to assume the existence of any. You're the one introducing some specific "God" construct, but you don't have any evidence for it, so you'll need to get in line behind the few thousand other people that got here before you, each with their own "God" construct to pitch, each offering as much evidence as you."

The trouble is you have already ruled out in advance any hypothesis that might include God as an explanation, so I am unable in advance to provide you with anything you would accept as proof. This despite billions of changed lives (including mine) throughout human history. This despite the gigantic roll Christianity has had in uplifting mankind and even advancing science. You would discount all that and pretend that some forgotten mesopotamian idol be accorded as much crediablity as the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

Tell me, if God ever did reveal Himself to mankind, logically speaking, where in history might He have done it?