Response to a creationist on this blog.

The post this response was made - click me.

I find creationists to be very interesting creatures :)

They are some of the best bullshitters in the world. This response was written up quickly, I thought I would throw it up for those interested in reading it.






"Your failure to understand theistic arguments does not, in itself, invalidate theistic arguments."

I perfectly understand their arguments and I see the problems with them.

"“God provides the best explanation for…” so and so phenomena."

The origin of the universe is unknown, how can anything be an explanation for an unknown? How can you claim that God is responsible for an unknown, when we don't even know that God exists. You must first prove that this being exists to be able to claim that the being is responsible for something. This is such basic logic, I really hope you are not that stupid.  You cannot use ignorance to explain ignorance. This is a very real hole in your argument, and I find it hilarious that you refuse to except it.

"Let’s be clear, philosophy does not make any scientific claims. "

Of course it does, philosophy makes claims about the way things are. Philosophy is the religion of the pseudo-intellectual. Sociology, psychology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc. is where real truth is found. In other words, truth can only be found utilizing observation.


"Philosophers need only demonstrate - through sound argumentation - that their conclusions are “more probable” than their alternatives. "

This shows a failure in the reasoning ability of such philosophers. You cannot access how probable an unknown is - something that is unknown is unknown. There is no probability with past events, only with unknown future events (that which quantum physics is concerned with). If we knew it all, there would be no probability, probability is a reflection of human ignorance.

"Philosophy makes no attempt to “prove” that God or any god exists – the existence of a god is self-evident to anyone with an open heart and mind."

Nice contradiction. Do you mean the same people that believe in talking snakes and virgin births? Yeah, real open minds, lol (irony at its finest).

" Individually, theistic arguments do not “prove” the existence of God, but collectively, they make a cumulative case that God is the best explanation (given the alternatives) for what we know about the world. "

Not at all :)

Why do you think most scientists are atheists? Those that actually know the most about the world do not typically believe in God.

"scientific naturalism has yet to demonstrate (philosophically or scientifically) that scientific naturalism is more (or even modestly) reasonable than it’s alternative (theism). "

In YOUR opinion.

"Furthermore, since scientific naturalism is the foundation of atheism, it also follows that atheists (proponents of scientific naturalism) are just as religious (if not more so) as theists. "

There is a clear difference between observable reality and imagined reality. You probably have zero idea of what I am referring to. But science (or more specifically the scientific method) is based on observation. The theistic realm is based on the imaginations of the ignorant (those that don't understand the big questions).

"if you have an argument you would like to refute, the burden of proof IS on you to demonstrate that the argument is unsound (a premise is false, or more improbable than an alternative) or invalid (i.e. the conclusion does not follow from the premises)."

Backwards logic. As I said, I do not believe you are truly this unintelligent. Sadly, you will warp logic to maintain an illogical belief. God only exists in your imagination, if you want to keep him there, I would avoid objective reality.