Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (46179)	4/4/2002 1:27:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 82486

The author wants to show not only that science doesn't give us evidence for God (I think he does a good job of arguing this) but also that science shows us that God does not exist or at least that science has shown that the existence of God is highly unlikely. I think he fails in this attempt. It was a long article and with a much shorter response I might not address every point, but it seems to me that his main arguments that are used to show that science can and has demonstrated that the existence of God is highly unlikely are 1 - That science produces repeatable results which in the opinion of the author is not consistent with the idea of a God or at least not consistent with the idea of a God that involve himself in the universe because the involvement of God would skew the results. and 2 - That religious people can and have grabbed at different cosmological theories and said something like "see this is highly consistent with God because..." The rest of the article mostly seems to be an attempt to define science and religion, and an attempt to lay out the values of science as the author sees them. The second argument listed above isn't an effective argument for the idea that the existence of God is unlikely. It might be a good counter to the arguments that science shows how God is likely but countering the 2nd idea isn't the same thing as demonstrating that the first idea. is true. The 1st argument is at least more directly relevant to what the author said he wanted to prove, however it falls short. God could intervene in the lives of people without doing so routinely and I see no reason why God would focus these interventions of miracles on scientific experiments. It could be argued that the author effectively supports the idea that it is not unreasonable to believe that God does not exist, but he does not effectively support the idea that it is unreasonable to believe that God does exist, or that science demonstrates that it is unlikely that God exists. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next