View Single Post
Old 02-09-2007, 02:09 AM   #42
Next-Gen Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Mike Doolittle (Post #41):
That's not what I've said.
That is precisely what you said, quoting:

The Reasonableness of Faith

Given the speculative and untestable extremes of theoretical physics, the belief in a deity as a creator is not really such an unreasonable stance to take...

--Your blog.

If God is transcendent of natural law, how could he be known through observation of natural law alone?
It's not just that your god is outside of natural law, rather that your god is positioned so that it is not falsifiable, even for the purposes of abstract debate. It is your positioning of a supposedly objective entity so that it be proven--while at the same time calling it reasonable--where I take issue with your reasoning.

Mike, it just isn't enough to rhetorically place your god outside of natural law.

Reason and intuition are not mutually exclusive.
No, but wherever they meet are coincidental.

Even though that which is eternal and transcendent logically must exist...
Must it? You've failed to demonstrate that premise as well.

Where is your evidence for a "transcendent" agent? And how is it that your said agent can violate the laws which you've come to base it's existence on? Also, just how strict are those laws if they are able to be defied? Wouldn't the fact the laws are capable of being defied be sufficient evidence to prove that your premise doesn't necessarily follow your conclusion? Who says that an eternal must "logically exist" if there had to be a "creator?" Doesn't the very idea of a first uncaused cause contradict your notion of an eternal? What created the "creator?"

Quote: are refusing to acknowledge it unless it becomes material – unless its very nature is what you wish it to be instead of what it truly is.
I refuse to acknowledge it because you haven't provided one shred of positive evidence to prove any of your hypothesises.


Further, you suggest that I'm somehow missing something when I refuse to acknowledge your unfalsifiable, supposedly objective entities (your god, the supernatural, etc) yet you've repeatedly missed opportunities to demonstrate that these ideas are even worth considering, yet have the audacity to call your position reasonable. If you want to have a logical debate (or claim that you've came to your position logically) then you are going to have base your arguments on falsifiable premises. Otherwise you are only making so many circular arguments. And you are.

Finally, throughout your blog and this thread, you've assigned many presupposed attributes which most do not necessarily apply to all atheists. I find this especially interesting because you are so quick to discard the pigeonholing theism. Why not accept atheism as a big tent?
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote