🕯️ Traditions Does God Exist?

[fabbriche]

May philosophical consensus ba? Really?

Ano ang kinalaman ng numbers(statistics/quantity over quality)sa truth or metaphysical inquiry?

I'm an agnostic-atheist/agnostic-christian btw.

73% ng lahat ng mga philosophers ay atheist. 14% lang ang theist at un ay mga philosophers of religion lang. Mas strong, logical at convincing ang mga evidence at philosophical arguments ng Atheism kesa theism. Kahit mga scientists karamihan puro mga atheist lalo na sa fields ng physical sciences halos lahat atheist na.

Atheism ang consensus sa science at philosophy. Hindi kelangan ng god para i-explain ang universe at walang evidence na totoo ang god. Ung mga natural phenomena na god lang dati ang explanation gaya ng thunder, lightning, plagues, eclipses, diseases, etc., may scientific explanations nang lahat. Hindi sila supernatural. Pati origin ng universe malapit lapit nang maexplain ng mga scientists na hindi kelangan ng god at supernatural. Puro natural processes lang.

Wala nang puwang god sa science at philosophy ngaung 2019.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

maraming diyos

 

[bandwagon]

73% ng lahat ng mga philosophers ay atheist. 14% lang ang theist at un ay mga philosophers of religion lang. Mas strong, logical at convincing ang mga evidence at philosophical arguments ng Atheism kesa theism. Kahit mga scientists karamihan puro mga atheist lalo na sa fields ng physical sciences halos lahat atheist na.

Atheism ang consensus sa science at philosophy. Hindi kelangan ng god para i-explain ang universe at walang evidence na totoo ang god. Ung mga natural phenomena na god lang dati ang explanation gaya ng thunder, lightning, plagues, eclipses, diseases, etc., may scientific explanations nang lahat. Hindi sila supernatural. Pati origin ng universe malapit lapit nang maexplain ng mga scientists na hindi kelangan ng god at supernatural. Puro natural processes lang.

Wala nang puwang god sa science at philosophy ngaung 2019.

Of course that is a fallacy. Argumentum ad populum or bandwagon. You are assuming that the opinion of the majority is the valid one. Truth doesn't care no matter how much or less holding it. Quality of thoughts isn't evenly distributed. Mathematical assumptions can not validate moral or metaphysical questions.

How do you know that God doesn't or can't exist? Would you be more specific on what/whose God you are debunking or refuting?

 

[fabbriche]

Of course that is a fallacy. Argumentum ad populum or bandwagon. You are assuming that the opinion of the majority is the valid one. Truth doesn't care no matter how much or less holding it. Quality of thoughts isn't evenly distributed. Mathematical assumptions can not validate moral or metaphysical questions.

How do you know that God doesn't or can't exist? Would you be more specific on what/whose God you are debunking or refuting?

You do realize that academic philosophers are the ONLY expert when it comes to addressing the question of God's existence, right? And that the opinion of the majority of them basically echos the philosophical consensus or is the definitive representation of the state of the philosophical profession.

Philosophers hardly agree on one philosophical stance in any philosophical issue but when it comes to God's existence, it's pretty much settled at this point. Professional philosophers are overwhelmingly atheistic - 72.8% reject belief in God, while only 14.6% are theists, and 12.6% remain agnostic or accept an intermediate option (source: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). This is the professional testimony that has the only true relevance to the God debate, not the even the testimony of scientists (who themselves are majority atheist), as they only study the natural world and usually have nothing to say on metaphysics.

While this can be miscontrued as a type of an argumentum ad populum, it is a non-fallicious example of ad populum as academic philosophers are logical and highly intelligent elite group of people who are in a position to know of what they speak and have an authority of what they are discussing. A fallacious type of ad populum would be the theological belief of most people in the general population or the position of teachers, nurses, politicians or similar non-experts on the same issue.

Traditional conceptions of "god" cannot be real since for these gods to exist the supernatural also has to exist because the existence of any such god hinges upon the reality of the supernatural and so far there's no demonstrable evidence that such a domain exists. The "supernatural" is basically a placeholder for things science hasn't explored, discovered or addressed yet. The idea of "god" was conceived and is justified by philosophical arguments which all appeal to scientific ignorance of the cause of certain natural phenomena it was trying to explain. For example, before people knew what caused lightning, thunder, earthquake and eclipse (all natural phenomena), some said they were proofs of the gods. Or medieval people didn't know anything about germ theory so they thought diseases were punishments by god for their misdeeds and the only remedy was to pray them away (not that there is evidence that prayer has ever worked either). These are god of the gaps fallacies. We now know that all these things are not caused by supernatural gods but are rather completely natural and don't require god at all to explain them. Science is slowly getting to the bottom of addressing the origin of the universe and no logical theories in science attribute god as the source of the universe.

Nothing in the universe even its origin requires god or anything supernatural for explanation. Scientific evidence points to the universe being a product of pure natural processes and random chance rather than of intelligent design. There's absolutely no room for a god in the creation and sustenance of the universe that's why belief in god is unwarranted and logically unjustified.

 

[bandwagon]

You do realize that academic philosophers are the ONLY expert when it comes to addressing the question of God's existence, right? And that the opinion of the majority of them basically echos the philosophical consensus or is the definitive representation of the state of the philosophical profession.

Philosophers hardly agree on one philosophical stance in any philosophical issue but when it comes to God's existence, it's pretty much settled at this point. Professional philosophers are overwhelmingly atheistic - 72.8% reject belief in God, while only 14.6% are theists, and 12.6% remain agnostic or accept an intermediate option (source: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). This is the professional testimony that has the only true relevance to the God debate, not the even the testimony of scientists (who themselves are majority atheist), as they only study the natural world and usually have nothing to say on metaphysics.

While this can be miscontrued as a type of an argumentum ad populum, it is a non-fallicious example of ad populum as academic philosophers are logical and highly intelligent elite group of people who are in a position to know of what they speak and have an authority of what they are discussing. A fallacious type of ad populum would be the theological belief of most people in the general population or the position of teachers, nurses, politicians or similar non-experts on the same issue.

Traditional conceptions of "god" cannot be real since for these gods to exist the supernatural also has to exist because the existence of any such god hinges upon the reality of the supernatural and so far there's no demonstrable evidence that such a domain exists. The "supernatural" is basically a placeholder for things science hasn't explored, discovered or addressed yet. The idea of "god" was conceived and is justified by philosophical arguments which all appeal to scientific ignorance of the cause of certain natural phenomena it was trying to explain. For example, before people knew what caused lightning, thunder, earthquake and eclipse (all natural phenomena), some said they were proofs of the gods. Or medieval people didn't know anything about germ theory so they thought diseases were punishments by god for their misdeeds and the only remedy was to pray them away (not that there is evidence that prayer has ever worked either). These are god of the gaps fallacies. We now know that all these things are not caused by supernatural gods but are rather completely natural and don't require god at all to explain them. Science is slowly getting to the bottom of addressing the origin of the universe and no logical theories in science attribute god as the source of the universe.

Nothing in the universe even its origin requires god or anything supernatural for explanation. Scientific evidence points to the universe being a product of pure natural processes and random chance rather than of intelligent design. There's absolutely no room for a god in the creation and sustenance of the universe that's why belief in god is unwarranted and logically unjustified.

You are just being repititious and wastefully expanding the same.line that majority of thinkers are atheist. I already said, the majority is not always the basis for philosophically valid statements. We can also be specific in these point...can you give some atheists(philosophers) on whose ideas or arguments are immune to criticism?

How do you even know that the ideas you espouse or support are scientific or logically irrefutable? Take for example, natural phenomena. Natural phenomena can be described or explained scientifically. Of course, they are because we are living in a seeming rational/lawful/orderly universe and everything(material phenomena) is quantified. Both the atheist and theist agree to this. To some, God is transcendental or beyond the universe..a being that is spiritual and that He sustains this universe or of all the universes that humankind will ever discover. An omnicient and omnipotent God can do this easily without letting Himself be directly known or observable. The question then is not if God exists or can exist but if the Christian God really exists. The God of the philosopher can exist no matter what argument you throw and that material atheists are short of imagination. It does not mean that when we lack good arguments, something doesnt or cant exist. An omnipotent playful transcendent supreme intellect may exist.

 

[bandwagon]

You do realize that academic philosophers are the ONLY expert when it comes to addressing the question of God's existence, right? And that the opinion of the majority of them basically echos the philosophical consensus or is the definitive representation of the state of the philosophical profession.

Philosophers hardly agree on one philosophical stance in any philosophical issue but when it comes to God's existence, it's pretty much settled at this point. Professional philosophers are overwhelmingly atheistic - 72.8% reject belief in God, while only 14.6% are theists, and 12.6% remain agnostic or accept an intermediate option (source: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). This is the professional testimony that has the only true relevance to the God debate, not the even the testimony of scientists (who themselves are majority atheist), as they only study the natural world and usually have nothing to say on metaphysics.

While this can be miscontrued as a type of an argumentum ad populum, it is a non-fallicious example of ad populum as academic philosophers are logical and highly intelligent elite group of people who are in a position to know of what they speak and have an authority of what they are discussing. A fallacious type of ad populum would be the theological belief of most people in the general population or the position of teachers, nurses, politicians or similar non-experts on the same issue.

Traditional conceptions of "god" cannot be real since for these gods to exist the supernatural also has to exist because the existence of any such god hinges upon the reality of the supernatural and so far there's no demonstrable evidence that such a domain exists. The "supernatural" is basically a placeholder for things science hasn't explored, discovered or addressed yet. The idea of "god" was conceived and is justified by philosophical arguments which all appeal to scientific ignorance of the cause of certain natural phenomena it was trying to explain. For example, before people knew what caused lightning, thunder, earthquake and eclipse (all natural phenomena), some said they were proofs of the gods. Or medieval people didn't know anything about germ theory so they thought diseases were punishments by god for their misdeeds and the only remedy was to pray them away (not that there is evidence that prayer has ever worked either). These are god of the gaps fallacies. We now know that all these things are not caused by supernatural gods but are rather completely natural and don't require god at all to explain them. Science is slowly getting to the bottom of addressing the origin of the universe and no logical theories in science attribute god as the source of the universe.

Nothing in the universe even its origin requires god or anything supernatural for explanation. Scientific evidence points to the universe being a product of pure natural processes and random chance rather than of intelligent design. There's absolutely no room for a god in the creation and sustenance of the universe that's why belief in god is unwarranted and logically unjustified.

Can we.be specific?

In what instance/s that the Intelligend Design(ID) theory is debunked?

 

[fabbriche]

Can we.be specific?

In what instance/s that the Intelligend Design(ID) theory is debunked?

Intelligent design is generally regarded as a pseudoscience and rejected by scientists and philosophers just so you know. Evolution explains the universe and the human condition much better than design.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[fabbriche]

You are just being repititious and wastefully expanding the same.line that majority of thinkers are atheist. I already said, the majority is not always the basis for philosophically valid statements. We can also be specific in these point...can you give some atheists(philosophers) on whose ideas or arguments are immune to criticism?

How do you even know that the ideas you espouse or support are scientific or logically irrefutable? Take for example, natural phenomena. Natural phenomena can be described or explained scientifically. Of course, they are because we are living in a seeming rational/lawful/orderly universe and everything(material phenomena) is quantified. Both the atheist and theist agree to this. To some, God is transcendental or beyond the universe..a being that is spiritual and that He sustains this universe or of all the universes that humankind will ever discover. An omnicient and omnipotent God can do this easily without letting Himself be directly known or observable. The question then is not if God exists or can exist but if the Christian God really exists. The God of the philosopher can exist no matter what argument you throw and that material atheists are short of imagination. It does not mean that when we lack good arguments, something doesnt or cant exist. An omnipotent playful transcendent supreme intellect may exist.

You are just being repititious and wastefully expanding the same.line that majority of thinkers are atheist. I already said, the majority is not always the basis for philosophically valid statements. We can also be specific in these point...can you give some atheists(philosophers) on whose ideas or arguments are immune to criticism?

How do you even know that the ideas you espouse or support are scientific or logically irrefutable? Take for example, natural phenomena. Natural phenomena can be described or explained scientifically. Of course, they are because we are living in a seeming rational/lawful/orderly universe and everything(material phenomena) is quantified. Both the atheist and theist agree to this. To some, God is transcendental or beyond the universe..a being that is spiritual and that He sustains this universe or of all the universes that humankind will ever discover. An omnicient and omnipotent God can do this easily without letting Himself be directly known or observable. The question then is not if God exists or can exist but if the Christian God really exists. The God of the philosopher can exist no matter what argument you throw and that material atheists are short of imagination. It does not mean that when we lack good arguments, something doesnt or cant exist. An omnipotent playful transcendent supreme intellect may exist.

The existence of widespread human and non-human suffering is incompatible with an all powerful, all knowing, all good God. Discoveries about the origins and nature of the universe, and about the evolution of life on Earth make the God hypothesis an unlikely explanation. Widespread non-belief and the lack of compelling evidence show that a God who seeks belief in humans does not exist. Broad considerations from science that support naturalism, or the view that all and only physical entities and causes exist, have also led many to the atheism conclusion.

Theism was not conceived in a vacuum. It depends on certain philosophical positions being true and work from there. These VERY same positions have much less support in the philosophy world post-Kant because, experts in these sub-disciplines have found better alternatives. If these philosophical positions are untrue, then the arguments for God's existence that depend on them fail.

A few common ones depend on the immateriality of the mind. However, most (65+%) of philosophers of mind accept or lean toward physicalism of the mind. If the mind is physical and not immaterial, several of the most popular arguments for God are defeated.

Another one is metaphysical naturalism also being the philosophical consensus. If metaphysical naturalism is true which is most likely given the evidence we have then there is no supernatural realm that a god can possibly exist.

And what about experts in ethics? Theism links ethics closely with God's will, but philosophers of ethics are also overwhelmingly atheistic. Philosophy of Ethics explains morality as a byproduct of thousands of years evolution rather than emanating from a divine source of which most such forms of morality are obsolete and largely incompatible with the modern world.

Theism is not an isolated philosophical subdiscipline - it depends on many other areas. And expert opinion from these other areas mostly disagrees with the conclusions coming out of the philosophy of religion.

Most, if not all, philosophical arguments for God's existence are either weak or straight up fallacious thus fail upon deep philosophical scrutiny. And if these theistic arguments are completely lacking then belief in god is totally unwarranted which makes the opposite position, atheism, the most or only logical position to hold.

 

[bandwagon]

Intelligent design is generally regarded as a pseudoscience and rejected by scientists and philosophers just so you know. Evolution explains the universe and the human condition much better than design.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Please don't redirect me to a quote or website that is biased against another competing theory or field of inquiry.

FYI, evolution does not invalidate ID.

What makes ID a pseudoscience. Please make a list that we may analyze here.

I am agnostic-atheist/agnostic-christian to be precise and fyi but I try to be open minded and doesnt stop asking exploring and searching queations and answers as much as possible. Let us not put period into the fundamental questions in life as if these questions are answered once and for all. Atheism is a belief just as theism. The beauty in both positions is the espousal of creative arguments. You can not say that atheism is the ultimate truth, not even theism. I do not know. Maybe our knowledge is yet infinitesimal in the eternity or eternal..silence is.better than arrogantly dismissing an equally valid argument.

 

[bandwagon]

The existence of widespread human and non-human suffering is incompatible with an all powerful, all knowing, all good God. Discoveries about the origins and nature of the universe, and about the evolution of life on Earth make the God hypothesis an unlikely explanation. Widespread non-belief and the lack of compelling evidence show that a God who seeks belief in humans does not exist. Broad considerations from science that support naturalism, or the view that all and only physical entities and causes exist, have also led many to the atheism conclusion.

Theism was not conceived in a vacuum. It depends on certain philosophical positions being true and work from there. These VERY same positions have much less support in the philosophy world post-Kant because, experts in these sub-disciplines have found better alternatives. If these philosophical positions are untrue, then the arguments for God's existence that depend on them fail.

A few common ones depend on the immateriality of the mind. However, most (65+%) of philosophers of mind accept or lean toward physicalism of the mind. If the mind is physical and not immaterial, several of the most popular arguments for God are defeated.

Another one is metaphysical naturalism also being the philosophical consensus. If metaphysical naturalism is true which is most likely given the evidence we have then there is no supernatural realm that a god can possibly exist.

And what about experts in ethics? Theism links ethics closely with God's will, but philosophers of ethics are also overwhelmingly atheistic. Philosophy of Ethics explains morality as a byproduct of thousands of years evolution rather than emanating from a divine source of which most such forms of morality are obsolete and largely incompatible with the modern world.

Theism is not an isolated philosophical subdiscipline - it depends on many other areas. And expert opinion from these other areas mostly disagrees with the conclusions coming out of the philosophy of religion.

Most, if not all, philosophical arguments for God's existence are either weak or straight up fallacious thus fail upon deep philosophical scrutiny. And if these theistic arguments are completely lacking then belief in god is totally unwarranted which makes the opposite position, atheism, the most or only logical position to hold.

First of all, what are we really talking here??

Are we trying to answer the question 'Does God exist?' Or the question 'Does the Christian God exist?' These two questions are different, ok? The first question is the real question as far as this thread is concerned.

Science
Evolution
Matter
Metaphysical Naturalism
Philosophy
Etc etc

Do not disprove God's existence. It is self defeating. The list above can be also used to prove God's existence.

Could you be more specific about this philosophical consensus? We are dealing here about the question of God's existence. The fact that not all agree that God exists or does not exist already trash your so called philosophical consensus. Of course there are areas where philosophical ideas converge, agree, compliment or supplement. We are talking here about God's existence and that there is no philosopical consensus about that save that the theists themselves affirm God's existence likewise atheist deny. This is the real philosophical consensus as far as the God issue oa.concerned.

Furthermore, no ideas start from vacuum. Not even theism true..so does atheism. Then what has this to do with the truth or validty of competing sides? Language is like a web..interconnected..how can someone even affirm or deny or create arguments without using ideas or terminologies both from competing sides?

Lastly, metaphysical naturalism is self refuting.
Metaphysical naturalism tries to invalidate real metaphysics whereas, the term itself (metaphysical naturalism) is an irony. Ex. How can metaphysical naturalism explain itself? Where in nature can we see those sign language or logical statements that will say metaphysical naturalism is the ultimate truth?
Truth is.not a material thing or essentially discovered by methodological naturalism. How then that metaphysical naturalism explain the truth of its truth. How can metaphysical naturalism explain thay A is not B or that there is no middle term? How can metaphysical truth form a syllogism? How can metaphysical naturalism speaks for itself without using logic or language? Would you mind to answe?

 

[fabbriche]

Please don't redirect me to a quote or website that is biased against another competing theory or field of inquiry.

FYI, evolution does not invalidate ID.

What makes ID a pseudoscience. Please make a list that we may analyze here.

I am agnostic-atheist/agnostic-christian to be precise and fyi but I try to be open minded and doesnt stop asking exploring and searching queations and answers as much as possible. Let us not put period into the fundamental questions in life as if these questions are answered once and for all. Atheism is a belief just as theism. The beauty in both positions is the espousal of creative arguments. You can not say that atheism is the ultimate truth, not even theism. I do not know. Maybe our knowledge is yet infinitesimal in the eternity or eternal..silence is.better than arrogantly dismissing an equally valid argument.

The Wikipedia article isn't biased. It's merely referencing its gathered collection of information from several external sources and presents them in a clear-cut, concise and well-organized manner. All web resources but religious sources describe Intelligent Design as a pseudoscience. ID is not taken seriously, repeatedly debunked and refuted, and even laughed at in academia. It's not even worth entertaining at this point.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[fabbriche]

First of all, what are we really talking here??

Are we trying to answer the question 'Does God exist?' Or the question 'Does the Christian God exist?' These two questions are different, ok? The first question is the real question as far as this thread is concerned.

Science
Evolution
Matter
Metaphysical Naturalism
Philosophy
Etc etc

Do not disprove God's existence. It is self defeating. The list above can be also used to prove God's existence.

Could you be more specific about this philosophical consensus? We are dealing here about the question of God's existence. The fact that not all agree that God exists or does not exist already trash your so called philosophical consensus. Of course there are areas where philosophical ideas converge, agree, compliment or supplement. We are talking here about God's existence and that there is no philosopical consensus about that save that the theists themselves affirm God's existence likewise atheist deny. This is the real philosophical consensus as far as the God issue oa.concerned.

Furthermore, no ideas start from vacuum. Not even theism true..so does atheism. Then what has this to do with the truth or validty of competing sides? Language is like a web..interconnected..how can someone even affirm or deny or create arguments without using ideas or terminologies both from competing sides?

Lastly, metaphysical naturalism is self refuting.
Metaphysical naturalism tries to invalidate real metaphysics whereas, the term itself (metaphysical naturalism) is an irony. Ex. How can metaphysical naturalism explain itself? Where in nature can we see those sign language or logical statements that will say metaphysical naturalism is the ultimate truth?
Truth is.not a material thing or essentially discovered by methodological naturalism. How then that metaphysical naturalism explain the truth of its truth. How can metaphysical naturalism explain thay A is not B or that there is no middle term? How can metaphysical truth form a syllogism? How can metaphysical naturalism speaks for itself without using logic or language? Would you mind to answe?

AGAIN, things which haven't yet been explained by science do not point to the reality of a god existing. Virtually all of the natural causes humans attributed to gods throughout time have been repeatedly refuted by science. Gods are primitive and fallacious (the Christian god even moreso) ways to explain reality that the idea has already completely lost credence in the academic community that it's not even worth considering at this point. Gods are only man-made projections onto the unknown and unknowable universe that are becoming more and more obsolete, irrelevant and unnecessary with every scientific advancement.

Science and philosophy do not outright disprove god. Arguments for the existence of god draw from metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of time, causality, etc., and so experts in a variety of philosophical sub-disciplines comment with authority on the premises and implications of most, if not all, theistic arguments, and the expert opinion among all these fields are overwhelmingly and STRONGLY atheistic. There is just no scientific and philosophical leg that Theism can still stand on.

Most philosophers (and scientists) today are atheist because both disciplines have trended decidedly in that direction since the Enlightenment (the shift is traditionally attributed to the philosophical works of Hume and Kant, and Darwin's evolutionary theory) and the theistic conclusions of the medieval to the early modern eras are no longer plausible in light of these developments. Most theistic philosophical arguments especially various modern permutations of the cosmological argument are rooted on Aristotelian philosophy of which, in case you didn't know, is now obsolete and largely discredited.

Basically the relevant theistic arguments have already been made and engaged with, and philosophers believe that, given these arguments and their influence on the broader discipline, atheism is much more warranted than theism.

Btw, even in the field of the Philosophy of Religion (the only philosophical subdiscipline theists dominate), the rate of conversion of philosophers from Theism to Atheism after careful and rigorous study of the theistic case is HIGHER than from Atheism to Theism. That alone should tell you the state of the philosophical case for god's existence. It's only a matter of time before Philosophy of Religion ironically becomes atheist as well.

 

[bandwagon]

The Wikipedia article isn't biased. It's merely referencing its gathered collection of information from several external sources and presents them in a clear-cut, concise and well-organized manner. All web resources but religious sources describe Intelligent Design as a pseudoscience. ID is not taken seriously, repeatedly debunked and refuted, and even laughed at in academia. It's not even worth entertaining at this point.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

...but I asked you some list or instances where ID is a pseudoscience or that the theory is fallacious. Where are those specifics?

Again, do not redirect me to a BIASED website. You have a differing opinion regarding wikipedia on its stance on ID. What I really want is that can you present here how ID is a pseudoscience or a debunked theory that we may analyze?

 

[bandwagon]

AGAIN, things which haven't yet been explained by science do not point to the reality of a god existing. Virtually all of the natural causes humans attributed to gods throughout time have been repeatedly refuted by science. Gods are primitive and fallacious (the Christian god even moreso) ways to explain reality that the idea has already completely lost credence in the academic community that it's not even worth considering at this point. Gods are only man-made projections onto the unknown and unknowable universe that are becoming more and more obsolete, irrelevant and unnecessary with every scientific advancement.

Science and philosophy do not outright disprove god. Arguments for the existence of god draw from metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of time, causality, etc., and so experts in a variety of philosophical sub-disciplines comment with authority on the premises and implications of most, if not all, theistic arguments, and the expert opinion among all these fields are overwhelmingly and STRONGLY atheistic. There is just no scientific and philosophical leg that Theism can still stand on.

Most philosophers (and scientists) today are atheist because both disciplines have trended decidedly in that direction since the Enlightenment (the shift is traditionally attributed to the philosophical works of Hume and Kant, and Darwin's evolutionary theory) and the theistic conclusions of the medieval to the early modern eras are no longer plausible in light of these developments. Most theistic philosophical arguments especially various modern permutations of the cosmological argument are rooted on Aristotelian philosophy of which, in case you didn't know, is now obsolete and largely discredited.

Basically the relevant theistic arguments have already been made and engaged with, and philosophers believe that, given these arguments and their influence on the broader discipline, atheism is much more warranted than theism.

Btw, even in the field of the Philosophy of Religion (the only philosophical subdiscipline theists dominate), the rate of conversion of philosophers from Theism to Atheism after careful and rigorous study of the theistic case is HIGHER than from Atheism to Theism. That alone should tell you the state of the philosophical case for god's existence. It's only a matter of time before Philosophy of Religion ironically becomes atheist as well.

The question is..who are these scientists or thinkers? The fact that you can not present a 100% philosophical consensus regarding the God issue invalidates your position. Besides, what is the point of reference for these scientists denying God's existence? What is their criteria or standard or fundamentals as far as God's existence is concerned? Are you sure thay their conclusion is free of biased or presupposed ideas?

Science can not refute God's existence. It can refute.one's claim or arguments. Your claim that God is man-made is even very unscientific and logically fallacious. We are.concerned here about the possible existence of God as real as the existence of the universe or anything. To say that God is man-made is foolishness without scientific basis and a conclusion of a lazy mind.

You are always speaking in conclusion. I mean how can philosophy and science disprove God? Where are your specific and original arguments? Do not parrot other's ideas unless you can refresh them with enlightening arguments that are perfectly irrefutable.

 

[bandwagon]

...but I asked you some list or instances where ID is a pseudoscience or that the theory is fallacious. Where are those specifics?

Again, do not redirect me to a BIASED website. You have a differing opinion regarding wikipedia on its stance on ID. What I really want is that can you present here how ID is a pseudoscience or a debunked theory that we may analyze?

Do not educate me about Kant, Aristotle or Hume..I dont mean that I dont embrace fresh ideas or deny their philosophies. Do not attempt educate me about Nagel, Sartre, Camus, Nietzsche, Barker, Dawkins, Millican, Harris, about philosophy, or history of philosophy, or science and philosophy etc etc..Im sure Im reading these too..

I want specifics or originality..ex.. How can science and philosophy disprove God's existence?Please list your arguments that we may analyze.

 

[fabbriche]

...but I asked you some list or instances where ID is a pseudoscience or that the theory is fallacious. Where are those specifics?

Again, do not redirect me to a BIASED website. You have a differing opinion regarding wikipedia on its stance on ID. What I really want is that can you present here how ID is a pseudoscience or a debunked theory that we may analyze?

I'm not going to dissect how Intelligent Design becomes a pseudoscience. It's exhaustive and I know it's not going to change your mind either way. I'm just informing you because you seem oblivious to the fact that ID is widely regarded pseudoscientific in academia.

 

[fabbriche]

The question is..who are these scientists or thinkers? The fact that you can not present a 100% philosophical consensus regarding the God issue invalidates your position. Besides, what is the point of reference for these scientists denying God's existence? What is their criteria or standard or fundamentals as far as God's existence is concerned? Are you sure thay their conclusion is free of biased or presupposed ideas?

Science can not refute God's existence. It can refute.one's claim or arguments. Your claim that God is man-made is even very unscientific and logically fallacious. We are.concerned here about the possible existence of God as real as the existence of the universe or anything. To say that God is man-made is foolishness without scientific basis and a conclusion of a lazy mind.

You are always speaking in conclusion. I mean how can philosophy and science disprove God? Where are your specific and original arguments? Do not parrot other's ideas unless you can refresh them with enlightening arguments that are perfectly irrefutable.

Multiple statistics and studies already exist showing the overwhelming prevalence of atheism in science and philosophy. Why are you even asking for specific names of atheist scientists and philosophers?

The prevalence of theists only in one philosophical subdiscipline while atheists dominate all others is what shows that theists are the biased ones not atheists. Paul Draper and Ryan Nichols have written a terrific paper on this (Diagnosing Bias in Philosophy of Religion), basically arguing that this prevalence of like-minded philosophers in philosophy of religion has caused the discipline to become insular, stagnant, and fall behind the developments being made in other areas of philosophy (one of these developments being, of course, the move away from theocentric philosophy into a non-theistic paradigm).

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. It can only refute explanations about various natural phenomena attributed to god from the origin of the universe, existence of galaxies, earth, thunder, rain, quakes, humans, diseases, morality, etc., which renders god totally unnecessary. To say that God created the universe, punishes and rewards humans, desires worship, hears and answers prayers despite ABSOLUTE lack of evidence is also unscientific and logically fallacious, heck even baseless, delusional and wishful thinking.

 

[fabbriche]

Do not educate me about Kant, Aristotle or Hume..I dont mean that I dont embrace fresh ideas or deny their philosophies. Do not attempt educate me about Nagel, Sartre, Camus, Nietzsche, Barker, Dawkins, Millican, Harris, about philosophy, or history of philosophy, or science and philosophy etc etc..Im sure Im reading these too..

I want specifics or originality..ex.. How can science and philosophy disprove God's existence?Please list your arguments that we may analyze.

There are no original arguments or counter arguments about the existence of God. The issue has already been rigorously dealt with by philosophers.

The arguments for the existence of God have been decidedly judged as insufficient for proving the existence of God by a supermajority of philosophers. If the arguments for the existence of God fail, then philosophers hold that we have no reason to believe in God, and thus shouldn't believe in God. It's not that they rule out the possible discovery of a God in the future, but given the philosophical tradition leading up to today and all knowledge gained from the sciences, they think the BEST supported position to take is that God doesn't exist (think Russell's Teapot). This is what I mean by them considering the issue to be more or less settled. Philosophers and scientists follow evidence where they lead and they will update their beliefs and veer towards the opposite theological position when actual evidence of God (one that is not based on scientific ignorance and misunderstanding) finally emerges.

 

[bandwagon]

I'm not going to dissect how Intelligent Design becomes a pseudoscience. It's exhaustive and I know it's not going to change your mind either way. I'm just informing you because you seem oblivious to the fact that ID is widely regarded pseudoscientific in academia.

This shows that you can't. All you can say is that ID is a pseudoscience and I am oblivious about it despite the fact that I am asking you to present here why ID is pseudoscience case by case and we may analyze.

 

[bandwagon]

Multiple statistics and studies already exist showing the overwhelming prevalence of atheism in science and philosophy. Why are you even asking for specific names of atheist scientists and philosophers?

The prevalence of theists only in one philosophical subdiscipline while atheists dominate all others is what shows that theists are the biased ones not atheists. Paul Draper and Ryan Nichols have written a terrific paper on this (Diagnosing Bias in Philosophy of Religion), basically arguing that this prevalence of like-minded philosophers in philosophy of religion has caused the discipline to become insular, stagnant, and fall behind the developments being made in other areas of philosophy (one of these developments being, of course, the move away from theocentric philosophy into a non-theistic paradigm).

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. It can only refute explanations about various natural phenomena attributed to god from the origin of the universe, existence of galaxies, earth, thunder, rain, quakes, humans, diseases, morality, etc., which renders god totally unnecessary. To say that God created the universe, punishes and rewards humans, desires worship, hears and answers prayers despite ABSOLUTE lack of evidence is also unscientific and logically fallacious, heck even baseless, delusional and wishful thinking.

Well of course we should go to the specifics of who are these supposed atheists, scientists or philosophers included in your so called philosophical consensus that we may analyze here their all-knowing irrefutable arguments.

If you can't or don't have time, I am safe to say that you argue so incompletely and lacks depth. If we are to argue, suppose to be let us dig deeper into the minds of these people and analyze their thoughts...it is not enough say that atheist Abrakadabra says so and so and hence the truth of atheism is final. I dont think that is the way to arrive to the truth or complete your claims here.

Your claim that atheist even dominates most philosophical disciplines is false. The only truth is that atheism dominates its own philosophical discipline called metaphysical naturalism which this term even is ironic due to the fact that nowhere in material reality explains itself but only by means of philosophication or metaphysical (contrast from the term metaphysical naturalism) exposition. Metaphysics, logic, ethics, mathematics, ontology, science, philosophy in general do not speak directly that God doesnt exist.nor these field of intellectual disciplines speak alone about atheism. Exam of this is Metaphysics where God is one of its foremost subject.

You admit that science can neither prove or disprove God which is the true case. We can only utilize the truths in science to affirm or deny God's existence. Furthermore, we only disprove one's limited claim and not the totality of all knowledge or of infinity of truths. If from the beginning you were more specific about the debunking of the Christian God or at least the Christian understanding of God and not God Himself/herself/itself (a God..an all in all Transcendent God that we have so little or no real knowledge at all). In this case then, we cant logically say that this God is disproved or cant exist. It is more logical to say, no idea or stay in silence.