Jump to content

God Does Not Exist


Mikefight
 Share

Recommended Posts

Extremely poorly argued. It's not the worst atheist argument I've encountered, but it's definitely up there. Had I encountered this dude back when I was a Christian, I would have ripped his argument apart without breaking a sweat.

 

This guy says that existence is defined as "that which consists of either matter or energy." To say this is to pre-assume that everything is physical. If you assume that everything is physical, then you have simply defined God out of existence. This is no more effective an argument than those ontological arguments which try to define God into existence. If he wishes to convince anyone, he must give reasons for people to accept his definition of existence.

 

Moreover, his line of argument assumes that everything that exists must necessarily be empirically verifiable. He gives no reason for this assumption. It's perfectly possible even in a physicalist paradigm that there might be phenomena that we cannot even in theory detect but nonetheless exist. String theory is a perfect example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extremely poorly argued. It's not the worst atheist argument I've encountered, but it's definitely up there. Had I encountered this dude back when I was a Christian, I would have ripped his argument apart without breaking a sweat.

 

This guy says that existence is defined as "that which consists of either matter or energy." To say this is to pre-assume that everything is physical. If you assume that everything is physical, then you have simply defined God out of existence. This is no more effective an argument than those ontological arguments which try to define God into existence. If he wishes to convince anyone, he must give reasons for people to accept his definition of existence.

 

Moreover, his line of argument assumes that everything that exists must necessarily be empirically verifiable. He gives no reason for this assumption. It's perfectly possible even in a physicalist paradigm that there might be phenomena that we cannot even in theory detect but nonetheless exist. String theory is a perfect example.

We can't measure anything less than 10-36m and we can't actually see or detect dark matter.

 

String Theory, if it remains unverifiable, isn't a theory of anything, just a mathematical oddity that is pretty... and at the minute, nothing in strings has been verified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy says that existence is defined as "that which consists of either matter or energy." To say this is to pre-assume that everything is physical.

Right on HadouKen! My favorite biologist argues in effect that "organization" is essential to organsims and yet it does not consist of either energy or matter. That is, it is possible to throw away matter and retain organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A video statement like this would not ring any bells with the True Believers, whose beliefs are based on emotional reaction and fears, not on logic and reason. Concepts of energy and matter don't attract the theist. Rather, it is the emotional reaction of love, caring, and personal interest of a universal being that beckon the reaction. Forgiveness (for some perceived wrong) acceptance, and the promise (for devotion) of some ambiguous immortality trump such basics arguments as mere "existence" of deity. IMO, theists would view this video as irrelevant at best. ("How would you know, if you've never 'opened your heart?' ")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

String Theory, if it remains unverifiable, isn't a theory of anything, just a mathematical oddity that is pretty... and at the minute, nothing in strings has been verified.

 

That depends on your view of the nature of scientific models. If they are merely mathematical/conceptual tools to make predictions about future observations, then you are correct. If, on the other hand, these models are not merely tools for predictions, but also should be taken as saying something about the nature of the things they describe, then it is clearly more than just a mathematical oddity. It may not be a theory, but it is at least a hypothesis that says something about the nature of subatomic particles.

 

The difference between the two views of scientific models (the scientific anti-realist, and the realist, respectively), is that in the first, things like quarks and muons do not necessarily actually exist, but are merely useful descriptions to help us make predictions about observations. In the second, quarks and muons do exist, or at least are claimed to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.