Ray Comfort #fundie

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

"There's no scientific evidence of a god!"

Those who make such claims need absolute knowledge. Somewhere in the universe there may be knowledge they haven’t yet come across, which could be ample evidence. They are therefore forced to say that “as far as I know” there is no evidence. The word “science” simply means knowledge, and there is enough knowledge in the order of Nature that proves that God exists.

29 comments

old comment by CuriousAndMoreCurious

"Those who make such claims need absolute knowledge"
No, we are just lacking any shred of evidence of a deity right now

"Somewhere in the universe there may be knowledge they haven’t yet come across, which could be ample evidence"
The key word here being COULD, and if you find it, let us know, but until then God is in the same category as unicorns and Bigfoot (the hairy beast, not the monster truck)

"They are therefore forced to say that “as far as I know” there is no evidence"
And that is what we are saying. Bring us evidence and we will change our minds

"The word “science” simply means knowledge"
No it doesn't. Science is a process using available evidence to come to a conclusion, not just saying "I know." You have made that claim many times, and you are wrong every time

"there is enough knowledge in the order of Nature that proves that God exists"
No there isn't. That simply means that there are natural processes that act in similar ways. That does not point to an all powerful creator intelligence.

old comment by OHP

And so Ray once again demonstrates his stunning illiteracy (scientific and otherwise). There's no such thing as "maybe" with regards to the existence of evidence. There is only what we do have and what we do not have. "Maybe" is a fine enough reason to pursue investigation but it has zero evidentiary value. We don't convict based on "but maybe" and we don't ignore the evidence we do have for its sake. "But maybe" is a worthless argument in the face of known evidence.

Furthermore, knowledge is not a physical substance to be stumbled upon. The ONLY knowledge that exists is that which we have cultivated & catalogued. There are already words for knowledge that we don't possess, Ray. "Possibility". "Potential". It's possible that the universe is a three layer computer simulation run by a highly evolved race of super intelligent gophers. Martha Stewart could potentially unlock the secret to cheap & easy cold fusion power someday. See the problem yet? Until you DO have evidence, you have no basis for arguing that your position is a factual one. Especially when your position is so wildly out of keeping with what little evidence we do have with regard to similar prospects.

And nature is about as orderly as The Immaterium. It is constantly shifting at every level. Continents heave and warp and fracture, great fountains of molten rock are prone to scorching the land with little warning, lush jungles and grasslands are just a few years of sustained drought away from being rendered barren and rocks the size of cities frequently slam into the worlds of our solar system, some of them even managing to find our world. The results... Well, maybe ask those dinosaurs you know so little about sometime. Or rather, ask the paleontologists who spend their days clearing millions of years of accumulated dirt and rock from atop the aftermath.

And that's just the simpler levels. It gets infinitely more chaotic when you bring the animal world into the mix.

Try again Ray. And by "try again" I don't mean "wipe your short term memory and repeat your just rebutted argument as if it never happened".

old comment by Anon-e-moose

image

Rainbows. They don't physically exist, yet we can see them. We can explain them, nay replicate such easily. We know. Thus evidence. And seeing - Observation - is the basis of scientific fact, and therefore Reality.

Smoke introduced into the airstream in wind tunnel tests. Thus we can see Air. Atoms? Electron Microscopes.

The 'Soul'? Present us with hard, solid, empirical secular peer reviewed evidence of the existence of such, to the satisfaction of we Atheists. Everything else follows from that.

image

Because unless you're prepared to make your 'God' appear to everyone on the planet simultaneously, a la Morgan Freeman in "Bruce Almighty", then what you know is as far away as the next dimension; and Prof. Stephen Hawking has proved the existence of at least eleven of them, so you'd better build that dimensional portal generator, Ray Cumfart, chop-chop!

...oh, and those who placed the Monoliths on Earth, the Moon, and one orbiting Jupiter. They could exist, nay, even be the creators of your 'God'. You can always prove us wrong; "2001: A Space Odyssey"/"2010". The Bible. Hey, one fiction's just as good as another, amirite o Banana Boy?! [/Arthur C. Clarke]

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

29 comments

Confused?