>>20054601Science has been just immediate context deduction for without looking at the over all premis of existening and being able to potentially comprehend everything, it means that everything is connected in a metaphysical way, point out to me the desert in a grain of sand and you’ll find that athiesm cannot explain broad context topics using small facts and since the refusal of understanding that a grain of sand as a concept large in part came from a bigger topic than the grain itself, athiests are just turbo anal deductive thinkers at best, and disingenuous at worst.
There is either evidence for god, or there isn’t. In order for their to be a question there must be an answer. Burden of proof doesn’t require that a party proposing the idea NEEDS to propose said idea by necessity, because athiesm as I understand it believes itself to be the default position, meaning it took no evidence or rationale to come to said conclusion, meaning it’s entirely a presupposition in a philosophical context that has nothing to do with science.
So, explain to me why a holistic thinker is wrong when telling you, you are point to a piece of the desert, when you hold up a grain of sand? Both of you are correct, but you essentially are refusing to come to the inevitable conclusion based off of impossible inferences from the fact that you exist in general.
my biggest critique of athiesm, is that your movement has only shown up relatively recently in the last 300 years.
Dawkins admitted that the debate between theism and athiesm has nothing to do with evidence.
Meaning that his position is indeed presupposed on the idea that there is no evidence for God, therefore it MUST be rejected. That’s not even scientific. There is nothing about science that suggests a priori rejecting an idea on the basis of necessity simply because something is inconclusive, that’s contrary to the function of establishing theoretical physics and laws of physics.
