5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"I cannot prove that the earth is not flat.

I cannot prove it is flat."

Yes, you can, with science. Ride the space shuttle, for example.

[cowiz]

"I cannot prove that the earth is not flat.

I cannot prove it is flat."

Yes, you can, with science. Ride the space shuttle, for example.

But the space shuttle has round windows - looking through a round window will make things you look at appear round.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"I cannot prove that the earth is not flat.

I cannot prove it is flat."

Yes, you can, with science. Ride the space shuttle, for example.

But the space shuttle has round windows - looking through a round window will make things you look at appear round.

So step outside and take a look. Try it once without that awkward suit.

[Feck]

Non-existence of evidence is evidence of non-existence. Especially when there should be oodles of evidence.

I think that point has been made in lots of different ways ... but maybe we like to leave wriggle room just because we like watching theists wriggle

Let's face it the definitive answer to theists is " I'm sorry you are deluded "

[Gawdzilla Sama]

At least it's easy to spot the "True Believers"TM, they're impervious to all evidence of the fatal flaws in their "logic". They just don't notice the engine has been built without pistons.

[Theophilus]

Yes we know that ...but "There is a god, he is the christian god, the bible is true (even the bits that are not ) is not a null hypothesis is it ? Honestly do not apply terms like null hypothesis to a faith Null hypothesis is used as a way to statistically prove a theory ! Even without experimentation your theory is not tenable ...and has no evidence other than hearsay that wouldn't stand up in a court room never mind a scientific journal .

Now never use those words again eh or I will demand your raw data = nothing zip nada .

Yep, scientific method just can't really get hold of this subject. And yet, people talk as if science has disproved God. But you and I both know it can't test the God hypothesis - we can't frame it in an way that science can distinguish between "god" and "no god". Which is why even very good scientists have to fall back on rhetoric, polemic and bombast (having to rely on rejecting hypotheses instead of refuting them).

Oh well, life would be boring if everything could be tested I guess.

[Feck]

Yes we know that ...but "There is a god, he is the christian god, the bible is true (even the bits that are not ) is not a null hypothesis is it ? Honestly do not apply terms like null hypothesis to a faith Null hypothesis is used as a way to statistically prove a theory ! Even without experimentation your theory is not tenable ...and has no evidence other than hearsay that wouldn't stand up in a court room never mind a scientific journal .

Now never use those words again eh or I will demand your raw data = nothing zip nada .

Yep, scientific method just can't really get hold of this subject. And yet, people talk as if science has disproved God. But you and I both know it can't test the God hypothesis - we can't frame it in an way that science can distinguish between "god" and "no god". Which is why even very good scientists have to fall back on rhetoric, polemic and bombast (having to rely on rejecting hypotheses instead of refuting them).

Oh well, life would be boring if everything could be tested I guess.

Well then we throw out all science all progress and start believing in anything at all with no evidence ? So observed cause and effect, the reason we can function do not apply to this special case ? I say there is no special case! why does everything get bent ? why is the answer godunnit ever a reason to stop questioning things ? Or can we get on with our lives and improve our knowledge about Everything but god ? Please start making some sense .

Saying the scientific method can't really get hold of this subject is a cheap 'last word' argument scientific method, mathematics, critical thinking has explained almost everything we experience or we can think of . Yet because on no level is a belief in your god provable, tenable, rational, or frankly conceivable You claim that scientific method is at fault ..... when it is much more likely that there is no god . You raise an argument, loose it over and over again and then have the nerve to imply you know better . Theists you want an argument using logic and reason because you can parrot off some crap about the second law of thermodynamics and when nothing you say makes sense off you go running back to LaLa land saying god is a special case that negates thought .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yep, scientific method just can't really get hold of this subject.

Yes, it can. It has dealt with all the fairy tales that have come up.

[colubridae]

Yes we know that ...but "There is a god, he is the christian god, the bible is true (even the bits that are not ) is not a null hypothesis is it ? Honestly do not apply terms like null hypothesis to a faith Null hypothesis is used as a way to statistically prove a theory ! Even without experimentation your theory is not tenable ...and has no evidence other than hearsay that wouldn't stand up in a court room never mind a scientific journal .

Now never use those words again eh or I will demand your raw data = nothing zip nada .

Yep, scientific method just can't really get hold of this subject. And yet, people talk as if science has disproved God. But you and I both know it can't test the God hypothesis - we can't frame it in an way that science can distinguish between "god" and "no god". Which is why even very good scientists have to fall back on rhetoric, polemic and bombast (having to rely on rejecting hypotheses instead of refuting them).

Oh well, life would be boring if everything could be tested I guess.

No still wrong.
The scientific method can test for god as much as it can test for anything.
And it has. Every scientific experimnet ever undertaken demonstrates the non-existence of god.

The scientific method has gathered as much evidence to show that god does not exist as it has to show that the earth is spherical.

It just can't give 100% proof.

But the chance of there being a god is roughly equivalent to the earth being flat. zero for all intents and purposes.

[Theophilus]

No still wrong.
The scientific method can test for god as much as it can test for anything.
And it has. Every scientific experimnet ever undertaken demonstrates the non-existence of god.

Cool - that paper must surely be in Nature or Science?

So what is the design of the experiment to test whether everything depends on God? And how would you run your controls?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No still wrong.
The scientific method can test for god as much as it can test for anything.
And it has. Every scientific experimnet ever undertaken demonstrates the non-existence of god.

Cool - that paper must surely be in Nature or Science?

So what is the design of the experiment to test whether everything depends on God? And how would you run your controls?

You start by saying, "does this need a god to work?"

[Theophilus]

No still wrong.
The scientific method can test for god as much as it can test for anything.
And it has. Every scientific experimnet ever undertaken demonstrates the non-existence of god.

Cool - that paper must surely be in Nature or Science?

So what is the design of the experiment to test whether everything depends on God? And how would you run your controls?

You start by saying, "does this need a god to work?"

And then I presume, being a good scientist, you design control and test groups. And they'll be......ummmm.....ohhhhh......

And that of course is the problem, there's no way to design in control and test groups. If there is a God you can't have a "no God" group and vice versa. You're left hanging on to your own presuppositional bootstraps with no way of comparing our two alternative hypotheses.

[Feck]

No still wrong.
The scientific method can test for god as much as it can test for anything.
And it has. Every scientific experimnet ever undertaken demonstrates the non-existence of god.

Cool - that paper must surely be in Nature or Science?

So what is the design of the experiment to test whether everything depends on God? And how would you run your controls?

You start by saying, "does this need a god to work?"

And then I presume, being a good scientist, you design control and test groups. And they'll be......ummmm.....ohhhhh......

No science does not apply to god does it ? ........ why should we believe in him then ? I haven't heard a reason yet not one ?A universe full of reasons not too but not one to why ? Science can't disprove god (or unicorns ) why should I believe in god but not unicorns ?

[Theophilus]

No science does not apply to god does it ? ........ why should we believe in him then ?

No, you and I agree it is a question outside of science. So why do so many people believe? Well I suspect you and I will have different answers. I think it is because God draws people to himself (but either not all people are drawn, or not all people respond, depending on whether one takes a Calvinist or Arminianist viewpoint and I vacillate between those extremes much to the chagrin of both my Calvinist and my Arminian friends. I think I'm more in a Calvinist phase at the moment).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No still wrong.
The scientific method can test for god as much as it can test for anything.
And it has. Every scientific experimnet ever undertaken demonstrates the non-existence of god.

Cool - that paper must surely be in Nature or Science?

So what is the design of the experiment to test whether everything depends on God? And how would you run your controls?

You start by saying, "does this need a god to work?"

And then I presume, being a good scientist, you design control and test groups. And they'll be......ummmm.....ohhhhh......

And that of course is the problem, there's no way to design in control and test groups. If there is a God you can't have a "no God" group and vice versa. You're left hanging on to your own presuppositional bootstraps with no way of comparing our two alternative hypotheses.

Congratulations. You just demonstrated that God is unproven and unprovable. SO, why should we believe in such?