| >But the fact that they were scientists does not lend credence to the additional, unfalsifiable claims they may have made about the universe. I never said it did. Did you read post I was responding to? I was attacking the premise that one can't be both a scientist and a believer in God with the evidence that there have been many scientists who believed in God. In fact your sentence here: >It would be fallacious to discount their scientific work because of this fact is exactly my argument. >Furthermore, just because an assertion (e.g. "there is a God") cannot be proven (or disproven) does not mean it should be free from scrutiny. Never said it should be free from scrutiny. I have no problem with you criticizing my beliefs. What I do have a problem with is the OP asserting that my beliefs make me a poor scientist. And the very specific assumption that belief in God renders one unable to perform scientific inquiry. You seem to agree with me, as does the evidence. >There are two presuppositions you compare: "I think, therefore I am" and "There is a God." Both require at least a very fundamental assumption, but only one has any basis in what we might typically refer to as "evidence." Two options to explain the beginning of the universe and why it doesn't violate causality. A. Causality came into existence with the beginning of the universe and so was never violated. B. An eternal God exists separate from the universe he created There is absolutely no physical way to prove either one. Which one is simpler or more likely is completely subjective. You can't choose camp A with no supporting evidence, and then decide that you are more rational or superior to people in camp B because they lack evidence. |
Your other point:
> "You can't choose camp A with no supporting evidence, and then decide that you are more rational or superior to people in camp B because they lack evidence."
Whoever said I chose camp A? This line of reasoning excludes the possibility of an option C (or D, E, F, etc). Again, argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are shifting the burden of proof and appealing to ignorance. ("There is no proof, therefore they are both equally subjective.")
How about, instead, "there is no proof, therefore we don't know or claim to know." Seems more rational than any of the other options, at least to me.
(Sure, nobody's 100% rational, so we could keep picking these arguments apart all night. I'm happy to agree on a simple "we don't know" for anything not empirically based on the evidence of the senses.)