Bill Nye debates Ken Ham

[Platapus]

One of the problems with this argument is that both sides have different a priori position or belief.

The theist enters the argument with the belief that there is a god. Absent of any proof to the contrary; the a priori position is affirmed - if you can't prove that god does not exist, then god must exist.

The atheist enters the argument with the belief that there is no god. Absent of any proof to the contrary; the a priori position is affirmed - if you can't prove that god exists, then god must not exist.

Both sides can claim "victory" because the other side can't disprove the opposing a priori position or hypothesis.

However, neither side can prove that their a priori position is valid.

What both sides are missing is that in order to logically prove something, not only do you have to prove "your" hypothesis as being true, you have to prove that a mutually exclusive hypothesis is false.

Which means that first of all, it must be proven that god can not "exist" and "not exist" at the same time. That is an assumption that has not been demonstrated.

What if theists and atheists are both right?

But really, logic does not enter into the argument... that's why it is called "faith".

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Platapus

One of the problems with this argument is that both sides have different a priori position or belief.

The theist enters the argument with the belief that there is a god. Absent of any proof to the contrary; the a priori position is affirmed - if you can't prove that god does not exist, then god must exist.

The atheist enters the argument with the belief that there is no god. Absent of any proof to the contrary; the a priori position is affirmed - if you can't prove that god exists, then god must not exist.

Both sides can claim "victory" because the other side can't disprove the opposing a priori position or hypothesis.

However, neither side can prove that their a priori position is valid.

What both sides are missing is that in order to logically prove something, not only do you have to prove "your" hypothesis as being true, you have to prove that a mutually exclusive hypothesis is false.

Which means that first of all, it must be proven that god can not "exist" and "not exist" at the same time. That is an assumption that has not been demonstrated.

What if theists and atheists are both right?

But really, logic does not enter into the argument... that's why it is called "faith".

I find that a failed argument..that if I don't believe something I must prove it doesn't exist or I could be wrong. I can't prove ghost exist, does that mean they exist? However, if you believe in God, then the burden is on you to prove it, not me to disprove it.

If logic, proof or evidence doesn't enter, then any faith should do...right?

For myself, I'm more agnostic, although I still often find myself muttering at the heavens....I don't know, not that I haven't tried knowing. ...But I don't want faith being taught as science...

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I find that a failed argument..

You are right. It is.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

One of the problems with this argument is that both sides have different a priori position or belief.

But this isn't an argument about Theism vs Atheism. Neither one plays a part here. This particular discussion is about what constitutes "science". The Scientist isn't trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science involves trying to understand what is known, and whether what we see has a supernatural foundation is something that science cannot know. In this particular discussing the Theist is trying to have his faith, through non-demonstrable statements in writings with no scientific background whatever, taught as "science". That is the only question in this particular debate.

[vienna]

It should be noted that science works without any consideration of theism. It is pure reason, argumnet, and proof. If it can't be measured, quantified, experimented upon or reasonably proved, it is of no use to a reasoned approach towards understanding our physical world. Science is an attempt to find out what makes the physical world work; anything else belongs to the realm of philosophers. Scientists are not atheists or antireligious by nature. Many of them have openly expressed a belief in a supreme being; but, they do not, generally, allow such a belief to sway or negate scientific findings. Einstein was very religious, particularly later in his life. It is rather unfair to balnket brush all scientists as atheistic. It is entirely likely science will one day be able to create life from "whole cloth"; it is also entirely likely they will never prove how a soul works...


<O>

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I find that a failed argument..that if I don't believe something I must prove it doesn't exist or I could be wrong. I can't prove ghost exist, does that mean they exist? However, if you believe in God, then the burden is on you to prove it, not me to disprove it.

A lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence. This means that the area of investigation has not been shown to be false. This is the only thing scientific investigation is capable of doing, showing when a theory is false. Theories are never 'proven', a 'proven' theory is only theory that currently lacks counter evidence at this moment in time and within the framework of our ability to measure and gather evidence.

Of course logically speaking, a total lack of evidence does not do very much for the credibility of the concept. It is perfectly reasonable to consider something that has no evidence as being unlikely, but you cannot discount it entirely either. Science only operates within the realm of the observable.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

But this isn't an argument about Theism vs Atheism. Neither one plays a part here. This particular discussion is about what constitutes "science". The Scientist isn't trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science involves trying to understand what is known, and whether what we see has a supernatural foundation is something that science cannot know. In this particular discussing the Theist is trying to have his faith, through non-demonstrable statements in writings with no scientific background whatever, taught as "science". That is the only question in this particular debate.

Yes.

As for young earth creationism (god created the earth in 6 days, and the earth is about 6000 years old) there is significant evidence that the theory is false, and no evidence showing it to be valid, that has not be thoroughly refuted using the scientific method. It has even been refuted by many theologians, going back to when the the timeline was proposed by James Ussher, as the English Bible does not give any evidence of times or dates, or any mention of it being a complete chronology.

This does not mean that intelligent design or theories that some power created, controls, and guides things are false. That area of thinking has no evidence either way and likely never will. Our scientific theories will be forever flawed and imperfect, that is why they are theories, not fact or truth.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

A lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence. etc

Okay, I just quoted enough to act as a reference, but consider the whole.

NeonSamurai said it the best. I don't see what more can be added. I don't mean we shouldn't keep saying what we think, just that I personally can't imagine how it could have been explained better.

[Wolferz]

Adam was a clone?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Adam was a clone?

The theory has merit. After all, how many 'Adams' are there in the world today?

[razark]

Originally Posted by Platapus

The atheist enters the argument with the belief that there is no god.

Strictly speaking the atheist enters with no belief there is a god. An atheist may further believe there is no god, but there is a difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe there is a god".