Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)
Posts: 118
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006
Member Rating: 3.3

Message 9 of 276 (490894)
12-09-2008 2:27 PM

I'm undecided myself, though I don't believe in god, I'm basically open to the idea, and usually in discussions on evolution and creationism, I support the notion that evolution could have been the way god "evolved" everything, as though god was the one doing the pushing.
Now of course there is no scientific evidence for this, there are no tests you can do on god (or any god) that will give the same result every single time.. Meaning its basically unscientific to say its god.
So scientifically its useless to try and say if theres a god or not.. The best you can do is explain how naturalistic means account for the world and the origin of todays species.
And god remains in faith.
But I'm a bit curious, seeing as as any test about god or on god isn't repeatable (atleast not to the point where you have the same results) does that actually mean any test done is useless ?.
This is diverting from the subject a bit now, but I hope I'm making a point, and if not, learning why its not a good point.. But smoking can increase your chance to have cancer. That is well known, but smoking doesn't give you cancer, or doesn't activate the dormant cancer cells in your body. So wouldn't it be technically true that smoking as cause for cancer isn't scientific, seeing as any test done doesn't always give the same result ?
Though I figured that in this case statistics comes in play, where instead of a single test subject, or a few hundred.. You need hundreds of thousands of test subjects and see what happens, and with enough numbers you can give a percentage... Or am I totally off track here ?
So if we were ever going to test any of gods effects, wouldn't we need to do that with mass numbers, so as not to provide a test that will always give the same result, but a percentage result.. 30% of smokers have increased risk of cancer.
Putting this back on topic:
Atheism starts with a naturalistic point of view under the assumption that any god or gods don't exist, or atleast have given no evidence that can be tested in a coherent way.
But does that mean the tests are right and there is no god or gods.. Or the way we're testing something like "the possibility of god existing" is wrong ?
Thats about it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Stile, posted 12-10-2008 8:33 AM Zucadragon has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024