Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Why is atheism untenable? [Spirituality & Religion]

“Gradually, I realized that in the twenty years since I opted for philosophical atheism, a vast, systematic literature had emerged that not only cast deep doubt on, but also, from any reasonable perspective, effectively refuted my atheistic outlook. . . . Today, it seems to me, there is no good reason for an intelligent person to embrace the illusion of atheism or agnosticism, to make the same intellectual mistakes I made.
“As recently as twenty-five years ago, a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism. That is no longer the case. Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution to the anthropic puzzle.”
(Patrick Glynn)
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Zeuro · 26-30, F
And what exactly is your “evidence” for god?
Speedyman · 70-79, M
No need to give evidence for God as creation testifies to a creator. It is up to the atheist to prove he doesn’t exist. @Zeuro
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@Speedyman that’s literally the opposite of how it works. It is up to the theists to prove the existence of their god
Speedyman · 70-79, M
No that is completely wrong. If we believe in a rational universe which we do with Schenectady, a rational creator is logical. If you believe in irrationality - ie we were made by blind, irrational forces, then you don’t even know if your reasoning is rational. @Zeuro
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
This message was deleted by its author.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
This message was deleted by its author.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Speedyman [quote]rational creator is logical[/quote]

Completely backwards

The universe is how it is, and as we are a product of that universe, it will appear rational to us.

Were the universe different, whatever it formed would also see that as rational.
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@Speedyman the universe does not require a rational creator. Everything was created by chance
Speedyman · 70-79, M
So the incredible fine tuning of the universe that makes life possible is chance? And unguided impersonal forced create personal beings Takes an awful lot of blind faith to believe that. You presumably believe in Schodinger’s cat too? @Zeuro
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@Speedyman I don’t have to “believe” in it, it’s science
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Not at all. Science proves nothing. It merely investigates God’s creation. You need to understand that @Zeuro
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@Speedyman your logic is circular
@Zeuro science, by definition, only can provide evidence that theories are incorrect.

Science can not prove that something "is"

Further, science is limited to greek deduction and a little inference ... which addresses less than 10% of the universes phenomenon.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
No yours is. You think that discovering the mechanism means you can dispense with the agency. You are sadly quite wrong here. You misapply science @Zeuro
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@questionWeaver that’s simply not true
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@Speedyman okay boomer
Speedyman · 70-79, M
It is. You need to start thinking straight. You have been brainwashed by post-Enlightenment claims which are simply not true @Zeuro
@Zeuro lol ... it simply is true
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@questionWeaver it is not. There are plenty of things that science proves in the affirmative
@Zeuro science can prove the existence of nothing ... all it does is test hypothesis

You can prove a hypothesis wrong, but you cannot prove it true

Love for you to show me one test, that could prove something inferential was true

You do have studies in logic, philosophy and the scientific method?
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@questionWeaver that’s literally the opposite of how science works. And yes I have
@Zeuro lol ... no you have not
@Zeuro

I hate to say that your logic in here is like a stubborn kid... let's make this a purposeful conversation and have a structured dialogue..

Three questions please:

1. Are you saying that the lack of evidence is the lack of existence??

And based on what you said :

[quote]I don’t have to “believe” in it, it’s science[/quote]

2. Which sciene are you exactly talking about?? Please give us a reference of that science..

3. Please tell me what you think that the purpose of science is??

Thank you...
@Zeuro

Science proves NOTHING true

Since science can not prove anything beyond doubt

Science suggests a hypothesis and cobbles some observations together, that align

There still remains doubt

And truth only exists where there is no doubt

Thus science proves nothing true

But it is good at proving doubt exists