Nerdfighters

This is a debate I've been having on another thread however I wanted to get a wider audience in on this and I wanted to elaborate on it a little more, just to open it to scrutiny.

A common perspective among the so called "new" atheists is that there is not a God because science has found no evidence of him. They cite this as an argument because from their perspectives, as scientists, nothing can be said to exist unless it can be proven to exist using the scientific method, IE Empiricism. However, there is a problem with this argument. If nothing can be said to exist unless it is proven using empiricism, then surely the fact "nothing can be said to exist unless it can be proven to exist using the scientific method" cannot be said to exist, because you cannot prove it true using the scientific method, because to attempt to do so would be circular.

The scientific method, empiricism, is founded upon logic (things like the law of non-contradiction etc). Logic can be said to exist, it was not created by humans but rather discovered, but cannot be proven using the empirical methods. Thus we can see that science itself is founded upon the basis of things that definitely exist, but cannot be proven using the scientific method.

Thus the argument that science cannot prove the existance of God cannot be an argument in favour of athiesm, since science itself presupposes the idea that there are things that do exist which cannot be emperically proven.

This is not in itself a proof of God's existence, but rather a demonstration of the fact that science does not lead to atheism. Nor is it a suggestion that science somehow "does not work". Clearly science is useful to explain how the universe works. All I'm trying to say is that the argument "God doesn't exist because science hasn't proven him" doesn't work.

Cliffnotes edition

- Atheists argue that God does not exist because there is no scientific evidence for him

- This argument presupposes that only things that have scientific evidence for them can be said to exist

- However, there is no scientific evidence for the idea that only that with scientific evidence can be said to exist (there is no scientific proof for empiricism)

- Empiricism is founded upon things that are not themselves empirically testable.

- Thus the argument that God doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence is disproved by the nessecating of scientific evidence itself.

Views: 1304

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Tl;dr-  "I see your science and raise you tautology!  Your move, Atheists."

What is your source for saying that "logic was discovered but cannot be proven by experimental methods"?

Well for a start, look at numbers. They definitely exist, but were not discovered by experimental methods. The same is true of the law of non contradiction. The law would be true regardless of whether there were any humans or not.

And how do we know that the scientific method was discovered, but always existed, just like numbers.

Because if you invented the scientific method, it would be arbitrary, and everything it discovered would not be objectively true. Also, human minds are not absolute, but logic is.

I think that although the scientific method works, it isn't wrong to say that the scientific method was arbitrarily created. The scientific method isn't a THING that can be created or discovered, it's just a way of thinking. Same with logic.

But you can't have a different way of thinking to logic. You can't have an alternative type of thinking where the law of non-contradiction (for example) doesn't work.

can you show me how numbers were discovered? where do i look to find them?

I just think that it is asinine to argue against anyone's beliefs system, and these arguments over religion are really stupid. I don't care if this "post" or whatever you want to call it creates a major concession in terms of argument for atheists, I just don't think the arguing should occur in the first place. Trying to fill someone with reason is like trying to fill someone with faith.

At least give people the common courtesy not to try to "disprove" what they believe in. Fankyou.

At least give people the common courtesy not to try to "disprove" what they believe in. Fankyou.


Why? It's debate. Why shouldn't such things be discussed in a debate forum?

I would have to agree with Kristen on this. You can call it a debate all you want, but sooner then later it becomes a pissing contest. Both sides screaming that the other is wrong and no one walks away feeling refreshed or enlightened as a good debate should go.

I'm sorry, but this NEVER comes up as an issue when Atheists try to prove Christians wrong. I'm calling bias on your argument.

This is an argument. A debate. I am not simply screaming at the other side that they are wrong. I have given an argument, a reason, a critique. This isn't a "pissing contest" as you so insultingly put it. If I had just said something like "Athiests are stupid because they don't listen to the Bible when it says God's there" then you might have a point. But the fact that I've offered a genuine critique and then you don't even bother to engage with the material, and then just go and say "whatever, you're just saying their wrong, they say you're wrong. It's all the same" isn't really fair. It's not the same, and it's not simple. Trying to tarnish it over to make out like it is, is just unfair, degrading, insulting and rude. Try not to be any of those things in the future.

RSS

Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service