Posted by Xavier on March 03, 1999 at 09:09:18:
In Reply to: untenable arguments posted by Boje on March 03, 1999 at 01:51:49:
: Rcpman & Xavier:
: You guys make no sense at all. On one hand, you claim that there is no validity to the mechanics of faith, but on the other hand you demand that we all accept the concept of infinity (without which the entire system of mathematics is groundless) on faith. On one hand, you assert that we should accept un-provable concepts like "string theory", but on the other hand, you claim that concepts concerning the existence of deity are un-provable.
: You claim that there is no God, yet you can’t prove that assertion. You don’t even regard it as being worthy of your effort, yet you spend an inordinate amount of time denouncing the concept. To do that scientifically, you must dis-prove the null hypothesis. That is: you must prove that it is statistically untenable that God exists. Otherwise, you cannot make a "scientific statement" concerning the existence of God. You can’t do that, so stop this inane assertion that "on the basis of scientific evidence" God does not exist.
: Boje
(Xavier)I do not recall ever discussing the concept of infinity or string theory. I also believe that I have stated before that I am more of an agnostic; I have no solid proof that God does NOT exist, nor have I seen empirical evidence as to His existence. I can't speak for rpcman, but you need to read my past posts again. I do not believe that I ever stated that religion was useless or that the pursuit of understanding and acceptance of a higher power was a futile effort. I believe that I stated in oast posts that religion has served important needs in the development of societies and peoples. It is a waste of energy and talent for the scientist to attempt to disprove God. Many scientists, in fact believe in some form of a supreme being. Their goal is to discover the mysteries of the universe through the scientific method. It is far more reasonable for science to stick to this position. However, it should be the goal of the theist to PROVE God in an effort to gain converts. It usually is the fundamentalist theist who attempts to "prove" their position by trying to "disprove" the science that may appear to contradict their positions. I do not believe that science attempts to "prove" their position by attempting to "disprove" the position of theists. If theists believe otherwise, that is their problem, not ours.
Please reference ONE SINGLE post where I make the assertion that scientific evidence suggests that God does not exist. I may have stated that scientific evidence suggests that literal Genesis is false, but then again, most Christians today do not accept that Genesis was meant to be understood literally. It is only the minority fundamentalists that insist upon such an unteneable position. I will allow rpcman speak for himself on your response.