Zone1 Is Atheism Depressing?

[Meriweather]

What you do is switch it around. And not just that tried to argue that your claim doesn't need to be proven, (tested). Simply telling me I need to "seek him", and rejecting my assertion that you're claiming I simply need to assume it true.

The reason it is not being switched around is that first there must be something before you to measure. If someone were to say to me, "I don't understand density, so I don't believe in it," I would ask them to find eggs, water and salt. You want to question God, so likewise, find God and bring what you found to me. Any science experiment--even the easiest--requires work. If someone told me they couldn't be bothered to bring eggs and water to the table, that is a clear statement they could not care less about learning about density. Those who cannot bring God to the table could not care less about learning of or knowing God.

 

[Meriweather]

When I was in middle school, I had a great science teacher. His VERY first lesson was focused on one notion. Question everything. Throughout the year he routinely gave wrong information, to drill home the point the check your notes. He changed how I look at the world today by making me understand, that critical thinking requires healthy skepticism especially your own preconceptions. I don't think the science curriculum has changed to such an extent, that that's not part of it anymore?

(Bold added by me.) Bring me the "thing" you about which you have a question. At the very least, bring knowledge of what you wish to question. Your science teacher would have said the same thing. I know. I teach science. Science is a very hands on class.

 

[forkup]

I know how science works. It begins with what is measurable and observable of physical objects and phenomenon. Then it presents a testable hypothesis. From these tests theories are formed. What it does not begin with are questions such as, "Why do unicorns have horns?"

To have a question about God is to have some knowledge of God and or belief. As God is not a physical being, there is nothing physical to observe or measure.

ding presents valid arguments for a creator, using the formation of the universe as something physical, something measurable.

As God is not a physical being, there is nothing physical to observe or measure.

Also of course not true. You can measure the amount of people gaining benefits from being prayed for. You can observe that there's ten's of thousands of different religions and schism within religions. All making different God claims. At best only one can be actually true. You can observe that you can't find geological evidence of a global flood. You can calculate how animals would spread among the world if they started out from 2 specimens in one place. As I said you can throw out Genesis. Something that you claim is simply a work of literature. A view that would have gotten you burned at the stake in previous centuries by your fellow Christians. Etc. etc. You even make the same claim I'm making here.

@ding presents valid arguments for a creator, using the formation of the universe as something physical, something measurable.

You are getting stuck in your own logic here.

Let's just assume you mean, you can prove something by indirect means. As I just shown this is true. But does creation prove the existence of a creator? I don't think so. Since it assumes a form of intelligence behind the process. Not to mention, assuming that creation requires a creator means God has to have had a creator, and that creator has to have a creator, etc.etc. And since you are a science teacher I assume you know that there are other possibilities for creation being considered? Not only that, it makes the God idea so nebulous it becomes almost meaningless and the idea that this God somehow is a part of people's lives or even worse worthy of veneration totally unaddressed.

In any case, "I don't know" is in my view the only intellectually honest answer to explain creation.

 

[forkup]

The reason it is not being switched around is that first there must be something before you to measure. If someone were to say to me, "I don't understand density, so I don't believe in it," I would ask them to find eggs, water and salt. You want to question God, so likewise, find God and bring what you found to me. Any science experiment--even the easiest--requires work. If someone told me they couldn't be bothered to bring eggs and water to the table, that is a clear statement they could not care less about learning about density. Those who cannot bring God to the table could not care less about learning of or knowing God.

As I said in my previous posts. I gave you several things that you can measure about God claims. And I gave you a very easy test. One that you rejected by claiming that you can't test God. Why you can't? Because he's "immeasurable". So you rejected a test because I can't test him. Perfectly circular argument.

In your density experiment. What would you say to the student who rejected your experiment because you're not allowed to test the non-existence of density?

That would make it non-falsifiable now wouldn't it? And what's the value of a non-falsifiable hypothesis?





Just because you reject those things (in my view completely arbitrarily) that doesn't make them "immeasurable." It just means that you don't want to measure them that way.

 

[forkup]

(Bold added by me.) Bring me the "thing" you about which you have a question. At the very least, bring knowledge of what you wish to question. Your science teacher would have said the same thing. I know. I teach science. Science is a very hands on class.

I've posed the same question. Several times, in several ways. I'll do it again.
.
"Can you give a scientifically sound reason to believe in the God hypothesis in general and your own Christian God in particular?