Atheism Intelligence Correlations - The Strongest Argument for Atheism

[Mendacious]

One thing I find interesting about this thread. Despite the fact that many appear to believe that science has shed greater light on this question (than we was known in the 1600s), I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God. Instead, interestingly, DS cited two facts of modern science (the photon/slit experiment) and our lack of ability to produce computers with conciousness) as evidence that God may exist.

In fact, I would say that Zee Justin's argument/premise is an argument that probably could have been made in principle (though with far less statistical accuracy) by the ancient Greeks very efficiently. (Hell it probably WAS made by some ancient Greek Philosopher).

At its core this remains more a question of philosophy than science.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

how could it? all it can do is help refute arguments presented in support of the existence of god.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

how could it? all it can do is help refute arguments presented in support of the existence of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I will grant the proving a negative is a much more difficult proposition. I suppose the "burden of persuasion" should be on those who say God exists.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I find interesting about this thread. Despite the fact that many appear to believe that science has shed greater light on this question (than we was known in the 1600s), I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God. Instead, interestingly, DS cited two facts of modern science (the photon/slit experiment) and our lack of ability to produce computers with conciousness) as evidence that God may exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science says nothing about God. Period.

I think David is a sloppy thinker in this regard. He believes in a "God of the gaps." When something is unexplained, he considers God to be a rational explanation. That's why the double slit experiment is relevant to him, and why he thinks the justification for believing in God was greater in the past.

But whether or not a phenomenon has been explained has no bearing on the question of God.

[David Sklansky]

"I think David is a sloppy thinker in this regard. He believes in a "God of the gaps." When something is unexplained, he considers God to be a rational explanation. That's why the double slit experiment is relevant to him, and why he thinks the justification for believing in God was greater in the past."

I may have never spelled it out because I thought it was self evident. But you are totally wrong when you say that I think that God is a rational explanation for unexplained events. It is only very specific unexplained stuff that relates to the things that God is supposed to care about, that makes me wonder. The fact that we can't explain why the speed of light is a certain number of proton widths per second is also unexplained, as far as I know. Do you think I think that is evidence for God?

[madnak]

Why do the results of the double-slit experiment represent any greater evidence of God than the values of the universal constants? If religious people had special healing powers, or if prayers had measurable effects, or if very specific religious prophecies came true, it would be another story.

[Tree Surgeon]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that we can't explain why the speed of light is a certain number of proton widths per second is also unexplained...

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, really?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen any arguments based on modern empirical science in this thread that tend to disprove the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every popular definition of God has been refuted by science.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead, interestingly, DS cited two facts of modern science (the photon/slit experiment) and our lack of ability to produce computers with conciousness) as evidence that God may exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I'm concerned, David is an atheist, even if he refuses to call himself one. He acknowledges the possibility of a non omnipotent creator, as do I. But that's more because of the simulation argument than being religious. In other words, if science progresses to the point where we can create universes, that does not make us Gods. We are still mortals.

Furthermore, citing two of the only scientific uncertainties out there as reason to believe in God is completely unfair. Going by past data, it's reasonable to assume we will figure those out within the next 15 years, and more importantly, the burden of proof is obviously on the theists.