Atheists: What's your evidence God doesn't exist? (Revelation, principle, perspective)

[the theoretical scientist]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Cool. Please post some of their peer-reviewed published work establishing a theory of how a god created the universe and the data that supports their theory. Five or ten published articles would be a good start.

I will if I can find any. Unfortunately, the internet is so chaotic that it is extremely difficult to find anything of the sort, at least in my experience.

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

He's not a scientist, just a lawyer and pastor.

Who happened to be an atheist who did some research to try and prove theism false, and ended up becoming a Christian as a result.

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

None of these guys are practicing scientists. They're all members of groups that require their membership to promise to ignore data if it disagrees with a particular modernist interpretation of the two creation stories in Genesis. Because of this, they are not the people I'd look to for an unbiased opinion on scientific matters.

Not true, they all have PhDs, and as far as I can remember, they were all atheists who ended up converting due to their research. I'll have to check the book when I get home.

[the theoretical scientist]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

Well thats ok though does this deity exert some supernatural force on the universe or does it work through natural means?

Because the former is easy enough to test but the later we cannot. All I could do is point to Occam's Razor

Interesting to mention Occam's Razor. It also happens to be one of the arguments used against atheism in aforementioned book.

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

I tend to keep away from books promoting ID.

I would hardly call that unbiased. After all, the result is that you are only reading one side of the story.

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

How so?
Mechanism: undefined, possibly poofing
Entity: undefined
Effects: possibly indistinguishable from natural processes

The entity is definitely definable, and as for the effects, why shouldn't they be virtually indistiguishable from natural processes? The natural processes themselves would have had to have been created by said God.

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

At least with the last one we have a mechanism
and experiments have been made which created proteins by mimicking conditions of the earth at the time.

If you are reffering to the experiment where a spark was shot through an atmosphere and created amino acids, the experiment was disproved, due to the fact that it was not an accurate simulation of the earth's atmosphere at that time.

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

Interesting to mention Occam's Razor. It also happens to be one of the arguments used against atheism in aforementioned book.

Bizarre, I don't see any use for Occams razor on something that makes no claims unless the book is suggesting that atheists need to have a 100% conviction that there is no god. Needless to say thats not true.

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

I would hardly call that unbiased. After all, the result is that you are only reading one side of the story.

Not really, ID itself is based entirely on an argument from incredulity which is in itself a fallacy. That combined with the legal history of ID and that stupid kirk cameron "banana, atheists worst nightmare" video make me really reluctant to waste my time reading a book. A good solution to this would be for you to take a point made in the book and post it using your own words rather than expecting someone else to uncover the hidden secrets of ID

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

The entity is definitely definable

This contradicts:

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

but I never said that it pointed to any particular God.

You can't define it. We don't know that the supernatural entity might be, what it can do, how it got there, what it knows, we don't even know if it has any form of consciousness or assuming it does what it might want if it would like anything.

Simply put all you can say is that if your argument is valid then there is some undefined supernatural entity which some people may call god.

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

and as for the effects, why shouldn't they be virtually indistiguishable from natural processes? The natural processes themselves would have had to have been created by said God.

Exactly and this is what stops us from being able to test this.

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

If you are reffering to the experiment where a spark was shot through an atmosphere and created amino acids, the experiment was disproved, due to the fact that it was not an accurate simulation of the earth's atmosphere at that time.

I'm assuming you are talking about the Miller-Urey experiments.
Icon of Obfuscation

Here you can find more experiments that have been carried out
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/ (broken link)

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist

I will if I can find any. Unfortunately, the internet is so chaotic that it is extremely difficult to find anything of the sort, at least in my experience.

Let's see what you can dig up. Remember that I'm looking for real science here - peer reviewed research in real journals - and not just the personal opinions of people who have scientific sounding titles like those in the book you mention below.

Who happened to be an atheist who did some research to try and prove theism false, and ended up becoming a Christian as a result.

But he's not a scientist by any stretch, nor are the majority of the people he referenced in the book. Remember, you brought this book up to answer a question about scientific research into supernatural origins, not a question like "Gee, I wonder what an ex journalist turned pastor thinks about god creating the world?"

Not true, they all have PhDs, and as far as I can remember, they were all atheists who ended up converting due to their research. I'll have to check the book when I get home.

Not all PhD's are scientists - lots of these guys are philosophers and theologians. They're probably pretty good at what they do, but they're not who I'd go to for expert opinions on science.

And as I mentioned, they all seem to be members of groups which require their members to promise to ignore evidence if it contradicts the group's proscribed literal reading of Genesis. That doesn't reassure me that anything they say is accurate or factual.

[coosjoaquin]

I think another issue is the treating of the "I was once an atheist and then saw the error of my ways" argument as something valid. Since the begining of time, people have converted religions(or lack of). Christian to Muslim, Jew to Buddhist, Hindu to atheist....ect ect. The thing about an Atheist converting to Christianity is that the person can imply that it was done because he/she found some valid proof for this without having to be specific and thus open to scrutiny.


If Dawkins became a scientologist tomorow after attempting to disprove it, then scientology would not have any more basis than it does today. Its an argument of authority(fallacy) to say otherwise.

[TwiloMike]

Originally Posted by TexasNick

The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Examples, we have no evidence that there is no gold on Pluto. But does that mean that there is no gold on Pluto? It's clearly not. So, when does the absence of evidence count as evidence that something does not exist? You guys are saying that the lack of evidence of God counts as positive evidence against God's existence only in the case that if God did exist, then we should expect to see more evidence of God's existance than what we do see. For example, the absence of evidence for a planet between Venus and the Earth is a pretty good reason to believe that such a planet does not exist. Because, if it did exist, we would have all kinds of evidence. Now, apply that now in the case of God. The absence of evidence of God's existance counts as evidence against God's existance only in the case that if God did exist, then we should see more evidence of God's existance than what we do, in fact, see. What I am saying is, if God exists, should we expect to see more evidence of his being, than...say...the orgin of the Universe OUT OF NOTHING, the equisite fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life, the apprehension of a realm of moral and aesthetic values, the radical claims of the ressurection of Jesus from the dead and the immediate experience of the personal fellowship with God? I think the answer is obvioiusly not.

So, you have to prove that it is highly probable, that, if God exists, we should have MORE evidence of his existance than, what we do, in fact, have. I think that is sheer speculation. I don't think that the absence of evidence is at all a positive argument against the existance of God.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

I dunno whom you've been talking to but atheism is the absence of faith in God, not a claim that there is no God. You're confusing atheism with anti-theism.

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by TexasNick

What's your evidence God doesn't exist? I'd be curious to know.

Look at it this way, Nick...

There's just as much evidence for your god as there is for any other god you've ever heard of. And for all the rest you never knew about.

[the theoretical scientist]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Let's see what you can dig up. Remember that I'm looking for real science here - peer reviewed research in real journals - and not just the personal opinions of people who have scientific sounding titles like those in the book you mention below.

I will be sure to post it once I find it, but unfortunately, culminating activities are taking up a lot of time. Darn it all: school sucks.

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

But he's not a scientist by any stretch, nor are the majority of the people he referenced in the book. Remember, you brought this book up to answer a question about scientific research into supernatural origins, not a question like "Gee, I wonder what an ex journalist turned pastor thinks about god creating the world?"

I never said he was. All I said was that he researched the evidence on both sides in an attempt to disprove theism, and then wrote about what he found.

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Not all PhD's are scientists - lots of these guys are philosophers and theologians. They're probably pretty good at what they do, but they're not who I'd go to for expert opinions on science.

They may have degrees in philosophy and theology, but that doesn't automatically disqualify them as scientists. Most (if not all) that have a degree in philosophy or theology also have a degree in a purely scientific field of expertise. So I really don't see why you shouldn't go to them, after all, you have to be darn good to get a PhD.

[the theoretical scientist]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

I think another issue is the treating of the "I was once an atheist and then saw the error of my ways" argument as something valid. Since the begining of time, people have converted religions(or lack of). Christian to Muslim, Jew to Buddhist, Hindu to atheist....ect ect. The thing about an Atheist converting to Christianity is that the person can imply that it was done because he/she found some valid proof for this without having to be specific and thus open to scrutiny.

Why shouldn't it be valid? It's considered to be just as valid when somebody converts to atheism.

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

If Dawkins became a scientologist tomorow after attempting to disprove it, then scientology would not have any more basis than it does today. Its an argument of authority(fallacy) to say otherwise.

Nobody said it would. It would simply prove that Dawkins thought that there was enough evidence to support scientology, nothing else. Anyone who thought that it did prove something else is clearly off their rocker.

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

I think another issue is the treating of the "I was once an atheist and then saw the error of my ways" argument as something valid. Since the begining of time, people have converted religions(or lack of). Christian to Muslim, Jew to Buddhist, Hindu to atheist....ect ect. The thing about an Atheist converting to Christianity is that the person can imply that it was done because he/she found some valid proof for this without having to be specific and thus open to scrutiny.


If Dawkins became a scientologist tomorow after attempting to disprove it, then scientology would not have any more basis than it does today. Its an argument of authority(fallacy) to say otherwise.

you should read Flew's book, where he explains why he switched from atheist to theist.