All profits go to the Brother Nathanael Foundation. I believe the success you had at UC Berkeley had something to do with both this Article and the Video you posted.
I have copied and pasted your comments in italicized bold and then inserted my responses below: David, this opening salvo speaks volumes. If you held your atheist beliefs for purely logical reasons, you would not find the need to use angry, forceful rhetoric.
Rather, you would just state your views and arguments plainly and calmly. The discussion has been and seems to remain just as pointless as when it was first offered for determination as to how may angels can dance on the head of a pin. And I have to once again point out what I have pointed out to many atheist readers in the past: Strident rhetoric is what one falls back on when one does not have a logically sound argument.
One sign of a coherent and logically sound argument is its lack of need to engage in such rhetoric. Of course not, because his reasoning was able to stand up on its own, without the need for support from a crutch such as the rhetorical outbursts that you rely upon.
He begins quite correctly by saying that the existence of God can be addressed using the hypothetic approach. The hypothetic approach is applicable to God. The hypothetic approach is integral to science. Therefore all hypotheses are scientific hypotheses.
Therefore the hypothesis of God is a scientific hypothesis. Therefore the hypothesis of God can be tested by scientific experiments.
The data gathered by scientific experiments do not reveal the existence of God. The assertion is based on the claim that science presents no evidence for the existence of supernatural forces or phenomena.
It sounds plausible until you look a little more closely. The argument can be expressed as a syllogism as follows: Science is the study of the physical universe.
Science produces no evidence for the existence of non-physical entities. Therefore non-physical entities such as God do not exist. Again the fallacy is clear. This statement thereby excludes by definition any consideration by science of non-physical causes or events.
The proposition then argues from the silence of science concerning non-material realities that such realities do not exist. In the same way, to define science as the study of the material universe simply prohibits science from making statements about a non-material entity like God.
If the remit of science is deliberately restricted to the physical realm, the fact that science so defined tells us nothing about God has no bearing whatever on his existence or non-existence, as most scientists recognize. Further, David, your angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument against angels and, by extension, God rests on the assumption that only that which is material exists materialism.
But we know right away that materialism is false for the simple fact that our universe is imbued with non-physical properties such as time and space. How much time can you find dancing on the head of a pin under a microscope? None…and, by your logic, this implies that time does not exist.
Another death knell for materialism is the existence of concepts. Where on the head of a pin can your instruments detect the existence of, for example, a mathematical concept?
But my reply to your materialism would not be complete without pointing out that modern physics has completely discredited materialism…as I demonstrate in God Is Real…Why modern physics has discredited atheism.
A couple citations from that essay: Max Planck, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who founded quantum theory writes: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.
Such rhetoric is only necessary in order to attempt to 1 serve as a crutch for an argument that cannot stand up on its own with bare logic and 2 distract attention from the inadequacy of your arguments. You may want to start by responding to my essay titled God Is Real…Why modern physics has discredited atheism, which I linked to above.
Next, you may want to respond to the logically based not faith-based arguments for God presented in my essay titled Is There A God?D.C.'s Political Report hyperlink and list of American Political Parties. Why do third world countries still exist? I was readings up in the new paper a few weeks ago and it said that in north america over 1 billion was spent on cosmetics this year which in turn could have probably saved about over 5million lives in third world countrys.
“the correct response in this case is always to give penicillin” is a causal statement about the effect of giving penicillin. In your scenario, the Glasgow Coma score is an effect modifier. Jan 16, · Why do third world countries/continents still exist? Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Chew Toy Are you asking by what means they still exist or why they haven't been eradicated?
but there are plenty of countries where the military could easily smash the local population and they aren’t third world . This webpage is for Dr. Wheeler's literature students, and it offers introductory survey information concerning the literature of classical China, classical Rome, classical Greece, the Bible as Literature, medieval literature, Renaissance literature, and genre studies.
The existence of the supposed European country of Belgium has been taken as gospel for years by members of the Liberati.
It has long been held up as a shining example of Liberal philosophies in action. However, now is the time the truth be known.