Naturalism Falsified


1 comment
  1. Chris said:

    “…we haaave positive evidence against the existence of a creator god, there is no bearded man living in the heavens, there is no one going around listening to all our prayers.” He’s right, it’s not enough to show absence of evidence.

    “Absence of evidence is not absence of absence”. Yet this blogger and most of the religious community continue to see “absence of evidence” is areas like the fossil record which is always “quote mined” and “distorted”. That’s as maybe, but it is a fact that zealots do this a lot – enough evidence of that on this blog alone. But show how shallow those arguments are. I look forward to quoting this over and over in response to the child-like attempts to re-write high-school science.

    “Great Prayer Experiment” run by the Templeton Foundation final to find and benefit from intercessional prayer in a double blind experiment. In case you think that is cherry picking, mata analysis of all studies show the same result. SO now we have positive evidence of the non-existence of supernatural being that listens to us.

    As a result, an other common sense observations, place the Abrahamic god (and other like Ra and Odin) in the same category as Father Christmas.

    So after placing the “Absence of evidence is not absence of absence” firmly on the table – he talks of “Absence of evidence of the big bang philosophical causation. This offer no evidence at all – so take us not closer to the existence of a god than that of the tooth fairy or the sand man.

    He goes on to talk about another absence of absence showing us a logically deductively route to a god. He must have the lowest levels of respect for the intelligence levels of those examining this debate properly. The is known as a logical fallacy and you need listen no more once your hear a commentator use one. All cats have four legs, a table has four legs, it must be a cat. This is how absurd the argument is. Something can’t come from nothing, science can’t explain where the universe began, there is a god. It is the way it is presented, the absence of evidence is promoted as evidence – the very thing he tells he that making the case for the existence for Father Christmas fails to deal with!

    “He could not find… He could not.. blah”. More absences that he wished to use as evidence of a creator god. How hypocritical is this commentator going to be in the “guise” of summing up a rational debate that some how gives him credibility. The settling of the “fine tuning” argument is not one where there is certainty that there is a creator on one side and naturalism on the other – this is a fallacious argument and another example of a logical fallacy. But his ability to talk on the subject with an air of confidence – the subliminal message is I am as believable as the worlds greatest scientist – look at me pick holes in their theories.

    This on nonsense of the highest order designed for those with “faith” to hold on to it. Anyone else will be quick to see more than the green shoots of Charlatanism. QED

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: