• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do atheists think that evolution theory proves that there is no God?

Apex

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
Seyorni said:
The idea that the TOE has anything to say about God or religion exists only in the mind of the religious Right. The connection never occurred to atheists., or biologists, for that matter.
The controversy is a manufactured one; a propaganda tool.
Click to expand...
Did you miss post #5?
 
Cacafire

Cacafire

Member
While the theory of evolution does not disprove god, it is much more useful for humans, in the way of curing diseases and making vaccines, than believing that god made all the species.

I have made an argument for two fatal flaws in creationism, if anyone would care to take a look. It doesn't disprove god. But it does point out two flaws in creationism. Might inform the debate over here as well.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
camanintx said:
As Stephen Hawking put it in "A Brief History of Time", in Quantum Cosmology, "there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?"
Click to expand...

It seems to me Hawking is merely pointing out that god is an unnecessary hypothesis in science, rather than attempting to disprove the existence of god.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
camanintx said:
As Stephen Hawking put it in "A Brief History of Time", in Quantum Cosmology, "there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?"
Click to expand...
Here and now.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Sunstone said:
It seems to me Hawking is merely pointing out that god is an unnecessary hypothesis in science, rather than attempting to disprove the existence of god.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm not familiar with the theory, and doubt that I've ever understood a word that Dr. Hawking has written, which will not stop me from making my ignorant comment.

If God is an unnecessary hypothesis in science, then isn't that the response to the strongest pro-God argument, which is that you need a God to account for the existence of the universe?
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Autodidact said:
Interesting. I'm not familiar with the theory, and doubt that I've ever understood a word that Dr. Hawking has written, which will not stop me from making my ignorant comment.

If God is an unnecessary hypothesis in science, then isn't that the response to the strongest pro-God argument, which is that you need a God to account for the existence of the universe?
Click to expand...
You consider the God of the Gaps to be the strongest po-God argument? :eek:
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
camanintx said:
I guess it depends on how you define God. Since my general definition includes creator of the universe, then a theory that doesn't allow for creation automatically disproves God.
Click to expand...
Your definition does not work generally. In the vast spectrum that is religion, monotheistic creator gods are not the only type of god.
 
logician

logician

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
Interesting. I'm not familiar with the theory, and doubt that I've ever understood a word that Dr. Hawking has written, which will not stop me from making my ignorant comment.

If God is an unnecessary hypothesis in science, then isn't that the response to the strongest pro-God argument, which is that you need a God to account for the existence of the universe?
Click to expand...

Here is the reason I keep saying the onus is on god believers to provide evidence why their god exists, not on the rest of us to say why it doesn't:


"Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.
The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so."
[SIZE=-1]-- Richard Dawkins[/SIZE]
 
Fluffy

Fluffy

A fool
The theory of evolution makes atheism more of a viable position than it was previously.

If every phenomenon in existence is explained naturally then the only room left for God would be the margin of error in the mass of evidence supporting those explanations. Currently, God has a lot more room than this but clearly every naturalistic discovery makes this room smaller. Naturalism can never disprove God for sure. It can only continue to make atheism appear more likely than theism.

If and when a non-naturalistic phenomenon is discovered, this trend will be completely reversed and atheism will be shown false.

*natural in this post means non-divine.

logician said:
Here is the reason I keep saying the onus is on god believers to provide evidence why their god exists, not on the rest of us to say why it doesn't:
Click to expand...
That argument is flawed. It fails to account for the mechanism which carries with it impetus. Why should we have to justify the things we claim to be true? Psychologically speaking, we do not believe things because they are true but because we have been conditioned to believe them.

Heya Storm,
What do you consider to be the strongest pro-God argument?
 
Last edited:
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Storm said:
You consider the God of the Gaps to be the strongest po-God argument? :eek:
Click to expand...
Not so much God-of-the-Gaps as the watchmaker type design argument. In fact IMO that's the only one that has the least appeal. If you take that away, theists are left with their personal religious experience, which as about as much evidential value as the ravings of a schizophrenic.
 
rocketman

rocketman

Out there...
Autodidact said:
If you take that away, theists are left with their personal religious experience, which as about as much evidential value as the ravings of a schizophrenic.
Click to expand...
Just on that last sentence of yours, I would like to point out that there are untold numbers of very gifted sound-minded scientific/technical types in this world who believe in some sort of creator based on personal religious experience, and frankly, ranking the weight of their testimony on par with that of a clinically diagnosed schizophrenic is a distortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top