From: posting-system@google.com Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 2:42 PM To: brian@holtz.org Subject: Re: Questions for theists Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: brian@holtz.org (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Questions for theists References: <29c16047.0201201120.20bd234f@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.236.1.8 Message-ID: <29c16047.0201231441.71a26550@posting.google.com> "Gurnemanz" wrote > > while outlines of naturalistic explanations are being formed > > for the origins of life and the universe itself. > > > if it is possible > to furnish a scientific explanation, that does not > mean that naturalism is thereby established. It does, if there is nothing that theism explains any better than naturalism. > >what significant gaps in the universe's design will > >be left for your god to explain? > > My own position accords with that of Gould: theology and science > are complementary, and each have their respective domains. Gould's oft-cited "non-overlapping magisteria" position would be accurate if applied to science and philosophy, but is not accurate when applied to science and religion. The empirical and metaphsyical claims of religions are subject to the same validity criteria as any other such claims. Since Darwin, thoughtful religionists (like you) have abandoned wholesale the empirical claims of their religions, but cling tenaciously to the metaphysical ones. Even they are a dying breed. In a few centuries they will be almost gone, and we atheists will instead be debating mostly the mystics. > Thus I do not consider that religion appropriately > concerns itself with answering questions better answered by science. > Thus your question is quite redundant. Thus the answer to my question is "none". (That's consistent with the fact that what you call your Argument From Design is nothing more than the Argument From First Cause.) > I don't have time to addrsss *all* of your 'Questions for Theists' > at the moment, although I see nothing very difficult about answering > any of them. Yes, you often seem short of time when debating me :-) , while still having time to endlessly snipe at other people about burden of proof and definition of "evidence". To help you free up time for these other important discussions :-) , I here excerpt just six questions that can each be given a one-word or one-line answer: In how many years do you expect there will be a consensus for your position as widespread as that supporting (say) heliocentrism? (Your answer must include either include the word 'never' or a numerical year plus-or-minus a confidence range.) Do you think there will ever be any compelling new evidence for your god, such as new miracles or physical corroboration of your holy text? Could any possible evidence convert you to a different revelation-based religion, like Zoroastrianism or Sikhism? Could any possible evidence convert you to atheism? Do you believe that eternal torment awaits infidels after death, and if so do you believe it just? What (if any) is your holy book's true prophecy that you think should be most impressive to skeptics? -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net