Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

[pErvinalia]

Everything NATURAL must happen. God is supernatural, allegedly. So, no.

I like your evasive "allegedly" quibble. It shows that you are now unsure of your argument.

No it doesn't. It shows that I think God even existing is bollocks, let alone any of the alleged details of his existence.

Just because you think that someone else thinks that God is supernatural doesn't make it so. You are expressing the Atheist's Fallacy, which uses the circular reasoning of "God cannot exist because believers believe God is supernatural and nothing supernatural can exist, therefore God cannot exist."

God is defined as being supernatural. You're using the Sethist Fallacy, which goes: Anything Seth says is likely based on crap reasoning.

The refutation of your claim is, quite obviously, "Theists are wrong and God is entirely natural but poorly understood by theists."

If God is "natural", then he's not God. He's physics. There's no dilemma with that. The dilemma is saying that science proves a supernaturalist God exists, which is exactly what the twat in the article is asserting.

For you to base your argument on the premise that theists are invariably and infallibly correct about the existence and nature of God is to commit the Atheist's Fallacy.

And you repeatedly inventing fallacies out of thin air is what's known as the "Idiot's fallacy".

[Seth]

Everything NATURAL must happen. God is supernatural, allegedly. So, no.

I like your evasive "allegedly" quibble. It shows that you are now unsure of your argument.

No it doesn't. It shows that I think God even existing is bollocks, let alone any of the alleged details of his existence.

If that's what you believed, you'd just say that. Your temporizing indicates that you are unsure of your conclusions.

Just because you think that someone else thinks that God is supernatural doesn't make it so. You are expressing the Atheist's Fallacy, which uses the circular reasoning of "God cannot exist because believers believe God is supernatural and nothing supernatural can exist, therefore God cannot exist."

God is defined as being supernatural.

By whom? The universe was defined as geocentric once upon a time. Does the definition create the defined object, or does the object exist even without a "correct" definition? You are arguing the former, which is irrational and illogical.

You're using the Sethist Fallacy, which goes: Anything Seth says is likely based on crap reasoning.

Translation: "I don't understand it so I have to protect my ego by hurling insults."

The refutation of your claim is, quite obviously, "Theists are wrong and God is entirely natural but poorly understood by theists."

If God is "natural", then he's not God. He's physics. There's no dilemma with that.

Indeed.

The dilemma is saying that science proves a supernaturalist God exists, which is exactly what the twat in the article is asserting.

Not really. It says that science increasingly makes the case for God. It says nothing whatever about God being "supernatural."

For you to base your argument on the premise that theists are invariably and infallibly correct about the existence and nature of God is to commit the Atheist's Fallacy.

And you repeatedly inventing fallacies out of thin air is what's known as the "Idiot's fallacy".

Why? Someone "invented" every informal fallacy, so why can't I invent one using reason and logic, which is what I have done. If you think the Atheist's fallacy is not a fallacy, then explain why it's not rather than hurling insults. Unless you don't understand it and are blustering in order to preserve your tender ego, which is usually the case.

I've stated the construction of the fallacy, so if you disagree then deconstruct it for us.

[pErvinalia]

Everything NATURAL must happen. God is supernatural, allegedly. So, no.

I like your evasive "allegedly" quibble. It shows that you are now unsure of your argument.

No it doesn't. It shows that I think God even existing is bollocks, let alone any of the alleged details of his existence.

If that's what you believed, you'd just say that. Your temporizing indicates that you are unsure of your conclusions.

And you reading things that don't exist into sentences shows yet again how biased your mind is. Even a refutation and clarification make no difference to a true believer in oneself, like you. We've been through this in the what is an atheist poll. You will never admit that your biases led you astray. Take a look at yourself.

Just because you think that someone else thinks that God is supernatural doesn't make it so. You are expressing the Atheist's Fallacy, which uses the circular reasoning of "God cannot exist because believers believe God is supernatural and nothing supernatural can exist, therefore God cannot exist."

God is defined as being supernatural.

By whom?

By the people who invented the concept of Gods. Why would anyone pray if they didn't think he was supernatural??

The universe was defined as geocentric once upon a time. Does the definition create the defined object, or does the object exist even without a "correct" definition? You are arguing the former, which is irrational and illogical.

There's zero proof for the object, so we only have the definition to go by. Although, interestingly, "proof" when offered, is ALL supernatural in explanation.

You're using the Sethist Fallacy, which goes: Anything Seth says is likely based on crap reasoning.

Translation: "I don't understand it so I have to protect my ego by hurling insults."

No, it translates to: "I'm sick of dealing with idiots".

The refutation of your claim is, quite obviously, "Theists are wrong and God is entirely natural but poorly understood by theists."

If God is "natural", then he's not God. He's physics. There's no dilemma with that.

Indeed.

Everyone agrees with this, Seth. Stop trying to erect some broken down strawman you can attack.

The dilemma is saying that science proves a supernaturalist God exists, which is exactly what the twat in the article is asserting.

Not really.

Yes really. That is exactly what is implied in this and every argument of it's type. The basic argument is: science can't explain this, therefore God. If science in principle can't explain something, then it isn't within this universe. I.e. it isn't natural. I.e. it is supernatural.

For you to base your argument on the premise that theists are invariably and infallibly correct about the existence and nature of God is to commit the Atheist's Fallacy.

And you repeatedly inventing fallacies out of thin air is what's known as the "Idiot's fallacy".

Why? Someone "invented" every informal fallacy, so why can't I invent one using reason and logic,

The problem is, you have demonstrably crap logic and reasoning abilities.

which is what I have done. If you think the Atheist's fallacy is not a fallacy, then explain why it's not rather than hurling insults.

Get fucked. You don't get to be a troll for 11 months of the year and then for 1 month of the year demand respect. Clean up your own backyard first.

[Seth]

By the people who invented the concept of Gods. Why would anyone pray if they didn't think he was supernatural??

Did man invent God? And does their thinking God is supernatural make God supernatural? Did pre-Copernican cosmological thinking make the sun revolve around the earth?

The universe was defined as geocentric once upon a time. Does the definition create the defined object, or does the object exist even without a "correct" definition? You are arguing the former, which is irrational and illogical.

There's zero proof for the object, so we only have the definition to go by. Although, interestingly, "proof" when offered, is ALL supernatural in explanation.

There is zero proof that you are willing to accept as proof, and you want to think that what proofs are offered are supernatural only because you choose to believe that God is supernatural because it makes it easy for you to dismiss the very idea of God.

But what if God is entirely natural and the proofs are also perfectly natural, but simply misunderstood by humans?

You're using the Sethist Fallacy, which goes: Anything Seth says is likely based on crap reasoning.

Translation: "I don't understand it so I have to protect my ego by hurling insults."

No, it translates to: "I'm sick of dealing with idiots".

Then why are you still posting here?

The refutation of your claim is, quite obviously, "Theists are wrong and God is entirely natural but poorly understood by theists."

If God is "natural", then he's not God. He's physics. There's no dilemma with that.

Indeed.

Everyone agrees with this, Seth. Stop trying to erect some broken down strawman you can attack.

Does everyone agree? Are you everyone's spokesperson?

The dilemma is saying that science proves a supernaturalist God exists, which is exactly what the twat in the article is asserting.

Not really.

Yes really. That is exactly what is implied in this and every argument of it's type. The basic argument is: science can't explain this, therefore God. If science in principle can't explain something, then it isn't within this universe. I.e. it isn't natural. I.e. it is supernatural.

This argument fails on the faulty premise necessary to the logic that holds that our scientific knowledge is complete and perfect. The correct statement is "science has not yet explained God."

For you to base your argument on the premise that theists are invariably and infallibly correct about the existence and nature of God is to commit the Atheist's Fallacy.

And you repeatedly inventing fallacies out of thin air is what's known as the "Idiot's fallacy".

Why? Someone "invented" every informal fallacy, so why can't I invent one using reason and logic,

The problem is, you have demonstrably crap logic and reasoning abilities.

Show your work.

which is what I have done. If you think the Atheist's fallacy is not a fallacy, then explain why it's not rather than hurling insults.

Get fucked. You don't get to be a troll for 11 months of the year and then for 1 month of the year demand respect. Clean up your own backyard first.[/quote]

Ipse dixit quod erat demonstrandum

I win.

[pErvinalia]

No, I win, Seth, because you are the self-confessed troll. Trolls don't get taken seriously, and they don't get to demand to be taken seriously.

[piscator]

Until then, the widget remains a mystery that is neither confirmed nor denied by theology or science.

Do you know what the word "Sophistry" means?

Of course. Do you know what the word "Socratic" means? How about "maieutic"?

Don't know maieutic. Maybe I'll look it up.
Do see you as a victim of sophistry, though a mediocre practitioner. Probably because you push the "Easy" button every chance you get, and halfass is evidently good enough for you, so you're much more likely to fixate on the first hucksterism you come in contact with than a more...committed traveler might.
Not to call you a "Rube" or anything, you're just trying to get by in this ol' world like everyone else, in the way that seems most easiest to you at the time.

Do you think your audience here is unaware of the necessary burden of proof for any assertion, including an assertion of one or more widgets?

What "necessary burden of proof?" When speaking philosophically, as we are, the assertion is taken at face value and the challenger is free to refute the reasoning with reasoning of his own. You're trying to apply a scientific burden of proof to a philosophical and theological discussion, which is improper and pointless.

I wasn't aware baseless assertions carried much weight outside of theological circles, but I'll give it a whirl:

Why should I charitably accept the assertions of a goddamn buffalo fucker? Just because some nasty buffalo fucking buffalo fucker chooses to utter and asseverate, does it mean I should respect his filthy buffalo fucking demands of my time and charitable efforts of refined thought?
So it looks like it's incumbent upon you to prove you're not a buffalo fucker, as I can't.

Do you think, "[The Widget] Remains a mystery neither confirmed or denied" is the same as, "Science Increasingly Makes the Case for widgets"?

Nope.

Solid work.

But the "fine tuning" argument for the existence of God remains valid in spite of the good Rabbi's attempt to refute it. Nothing in physics suggests that God could NOT have fine-tuned the universe (or just earth) to suit human life. The best science has to offer is that both God and "fine tuning" are "unnecessary" because, theoretically, everything can be "explained" by "science" and without "supernatural" involvement.

Nothing in physics suggests you are not a dirty buffalo fucker. The best science can do is say that to most of the rest of us, the very idea is noisome and repellant. Yet the fact remains that you have not offered one shred of proof that you weren't humping buffaloes last night, like a dirty buffalo fucker.
Moreover, everyone already knows the universe is fine-tuned to produce the puddle on my driveway. Why else would it be so warm as to make puddles in Alaska on New Year's Eve? Humanity is hubristic.

But the term "supernatural" as used by would-be scientists in discussing theology and God is simply an evasive shorthand for "I don't understand it, so I'm going to call it supernatural." I've discussed this particular Atheist rationalization several times already, but if you want to do it again, I will.

First, you have to demonstrate you aren't a dirtbag buffalo fucker. After all, who's going to entertain the utterances and asseveration of a scummy buffalo fucker?

The long and short of it is that nothing we know about the physical universe, including the meta-physical theories like "quantum foam" and "membrane universes" in any way preclude the existence of my little buffalo habit. Indeed, there is much more empirical and historical evidence pointing towards the existence of guys humping buffalos than there is against it. Just because that evidence doesn't satisfy some "scientific" skeptics doesn't make it inexorably untrue.

As I've said before, we simply do not know, and that's all anyone can rationally say about the existence or non-existence of my buffalo jones.

Thanks for getting that out for us to consider. I'm sure some of us have never looked at it in that particular night vision apparatus.

[pErvinalia]

First, you have to demonstrate you aren't a dirtbag buffalo fucker. After all, who's going to entertain the utterances and asseveration of a scummy buffalo fucker?

[Animavore]

If there is an infinity of universes in which "everything must happen somewhere" then somewhere there is a universe with God in it. And statistically speaking it's just as likely to be this one as any other.

God is defined as the First Cause and Uncaused Cause. There can only be one God as per Judeo/Christian/Islamic theology. If God exists then he exists for all and any universes as the Uncaused First Cause.
If there is an infinite regress then it doesn't matter how many universes exist, God can never exist because the Uncaused Cause cannot have a cause external to himself. It doesn't matter how many universes exist, the Uncaused Cause cannot exist in any of them independantly of any other because it cannot be caused within any of them.

Unless you want to make your own definition of 'God'... I'm fine with that... I wonder how the religious might feel, though.

[Seth]

No, I win, Seth, because you are the self-confessed troll. Trolls don't get taken seriously, and they don't get to demand to be taken seriously.

Neener, neener, neener, you smell...

[Seth]

Until then, the widget remains a mystery that is neither confirmed nor denied by theology or science.

Do you know what the word "Sophistry" means?

Of course. Do you know what the word "Socratic" means? How about "maieutic"?

Don't know maieutic. Maybe I'll look it up.
Do see you as a victim of sophistry, though a mediocre practitioner. Probably because you push the "Easy" button every chance you get, and halfass is evidently good enough for you, so you're much more likely to fixate on the first hucksterism you come in contact with than a more...committed traveler might.
Not to call you a "Rube" or anything, you're just trying to get by in this ol' world like everyone else, in the way that seems most easiest to you at the time.

I just don't want to overwhelm your tiny intellect and leave you all confused and crying so I try to keep it simple for the simple minds I routinely encounter here.

Do you think your audience here is unaware of the necessary burden of proof for any assertion, including an assertion of one or more widgets?

What "necessary burden of proof?" When speaking philosophically, as we are, the assertion is taken at face value and the challenger is free to refute the reasoning with reasoning of his own. You're trying to apply a scientific burden of proof to a philosophical and theological discussion, which is improper and pointless.

I wasn't aware baseless assertions carried much weight outside of theological circles, but I'll give it a whirl:

You've not spent much time debating philosophy have you...?

Why should I charitably accept the assertions of a goddamn buffalo fucker? Just because some nasty buffalo fucking buffalo fucker chooses to utter and asseverate, does it mean I should respect his filthy buffalo fucking demands of my time and charitable efforts of refined thought?
So it looks like it's incumbent upon you to prove you're not a buffalo fucker, as I can't.

You falsely presume that anyone cares whether you accept or don't accept anything. I certainly don't. I've told you many times that you're nothing more than a useful idiot in my practice of socratically and maieutically informing and educating the lurking public. My job is to analyze your arguments and then shred them because they are neither rational nor logical as a demonstration in critical thinking and logic for those who visit here hoping for some sort of rational discussion. My role is as the interlocutor who feeds out just enough rope for you to rhetorically hang yourself for the amusement and edification of the lurkers. I could care less what you think about me or anything else, I just use you for my own amusement.

Do you think, "[The Widget] Remains a mystery neither confirmed or denied" is the same as, "Science Increasingly Makes the Case for widgets"?

Nope.

Solid work.

You asked, I answered in terms that I thought you might be able to understand. Evidently I was mistaken about that. My bad.

But the "fine tuning" argument for the existence of God remains valid in spite of the good Rabbi's attempt to refute it. Nothing in physics suggests that God could NOT have fine-tuned the universe (or just earth) to suit human life. The best science has to offer is that both God and "fine tuning" are "unnecessary" because, theoretically, everything can be "explained" by "science" and without "supernatural" involvement.

Nothing in physics suggests you are not a dirty buffalo fucker. The best science can do is say that to most of the rest of us, the very idea is noisome and repellant. Yet the fact remains that you have not offered one shred of proof that you weren't humping buffaloes last night, like a dirty buffalo fucker.
Moreover, everyone already knows the universe is fine-tuned to produce the puddle on my driveway. Why else would it be so warm as to make puddles in Alaska on New Year's Eve? Humanity is hubristic.

Non responsive non sequitur.

But the term "supernatural" as used by would-be scientists in discussing theology and God is simply an evasive shorthand for "I don't understand it, so I'm going to call it supernatural." I've discussed this particular Atheist rationalization several times already, but if you want to do it again, I will.

First, you have to demonstrate you aren't a dirtbag buffalo fucker. After all, who's going to entertain the utterances and asseveration of a scummy buffalo fucker?

So you don't want to discuss it. Fine with me.

The long and short of it is that nothing we know about the physical universe, including the meta-physical theories like "quantum foam" and "membrane universes" in any way preclude the existence of my little buffalo habit. Indeed, there is much more empirical and historical evidence pointing towards the existence of guys humping buffalos than there is against it. Just because that evidence doesn't satisfy some "scientific" skeptics doesn't make it inexorably untrue.

As I've said before, we simply do not know, and that's all anyone can rationally say about the existence or non-existence of my buffalo jones.

Thanks for getting that out for us to consider. I'm sure some of us have never looked at it in that particular night vision apparatus. [/quote]

See what a lame representative of both Atheism and rationality we encounter here? When frustrated because their arguments are shredded and binned before their eyes they have nothing left in their intellectual quiver other than ad hom and drunken blathering.

So much for "rationalia." What a pity.

[Seth]

If there is an infinity of universes in which "everything must happen somewhere" then somewhere there is a universe with God in it. And statistically speaking it's just as likely to be this one as any other.

God is defined as the First Cause and Uncaused Cause. There can only be one God as per Judeo/Christian/Islamic theology. If God exists then he exists for all and any universes as the Uncaused First Cause.
If there is an infinite regress then it doesn't matter how many universes exist, God can never exist because the Uncaused Cause cannot have a cause external to himself. It doesn't matter how many universes exist, the Uncaused Cause cannot exist in any of them independantly of any other because it cannot be caused within any of them.

Unless you want to make your own definition of 'God'... I'm fine with that... I wonder how the religious might feel, though.

Reasonable inference provided that the stated definition is correct. What if it's not?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Need to subscribe to read the full article. The subtitle is a complete non-sequitur. I don't expect the article to get any better.

For WSJ and some other sites, a link will bring the "need to subscribe" page up. However, if the title is put into a search, it will provide a link to the article without the "subscribe" trigger. If you click on the following link, it will show the article as the first on the list, and then you'll be able to bathe in the evangelical muck from Metaxas: Search--"science increasingly makes the case for god"

[Tero]

also summarized
http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/53 ... design.htm
same old thing

[Hermit]

Need to subscribe to read the full article. The subtitle is a complete non-sequitur. I don't expect the article to get any better.

For WSJ and some other sites, a link will bring the "need to subscribe" page up. However, if the title is put into a search, it will provide a link to the article without the "subscribe" trigger. If you click on the following link, it will show the article as the first on the list, and then you'll be able to bathe in the evangelical muck from Metaxas: Search--"science increasingly makes the case for god"

Thanks, but no, thanks. I just looked up the Wikipedia article on Eric Metaxas. That'll do me.

[Animavore]

If there is an infinity of universes in which "everything must happen somewhere" then somewhere there is a universe with God in it. And statistically speaking it's just as likely to be this one as any other.

God is defined as the First Cause and Uncaused Cause. There can only be one God as per Judeo/Christian/Islamic theology. If God exists then he exists for all and any universes as the Uncaused First Cause.
If there is an infinite regress then it doesn't matter how many universes exist, God can never exist because the Uncaused Cause cannot have a cause external to himself. It doesn't matter how many universes exist, the Uncaused Cause cannot exist in any of them independantly of any other because it cannot be caused within any of them.

Unless you want to make your own definition of 'God'... I'm fine with that... I wonder how the religious might feel, though.

Reasonable inference provided that the stated definition is correct. What if it's not?

The thought has occurred to me. Religious people are wrong about lots of things, why not the nature of God himself? Maybe all religion is is a bunch of people faffing off about things they can't, don't and can never know, each of them being fabulously wrong.

There is another rather interesting possibility. Maybe God is wrong about his own nature. Maybe he only thinks he's omniscient. Maybe he only thinks he's uncaused because all he knows is himself and his creation. How would he know that that's all there is?

Think about it. Imagine we lived in a world where no new science had been done for over a thousand years and every time someone thought they'd alighted on something new they Googled it only to find th answer was already out there. Some might be tempted to believe that we know everything - they might be right - but how would they ever truly know?

How would God know he's exempt from the same limitations of knowledge?