In this episode I discuss atheism, naturalism and if their epistemic standards of evidence insulate their worldview from falsification and create a question begging standard.
Enjoy the show!
Support the Podcast
Want to support the podcast? You can do so here:
Got however a couple of objections, here, from an internet atheist.
ReplyDeleteFirst the argument is, to an importan extent, a strawman, curiously the only guys that I have seen ask for natural evidence of a supernatural god are imaginary atheists made up by apologists...
I have not sworn allegiance to naturalism and evidence does not necessarily have to be natural, or necessarily empirical for that matter, supernatural evidence is fine too, non-empirical evidence is fine as well, the only requirement that has to be met is to demonstrate that such evidence exists and how reliable said evidence is, the fact that that does not seem to be possible is not the problem of atheism, naturalism or science...
I can tell you have a great understanding of the problem of demonstrating supernatural causation, however you don´t seem to notice this is actually a problem for the theists, not for the atheists.
The burned of proof as always lies on those making the assertion, and it is indeed a problem for the theists that have burdened themselves with such an untenable position, that not only there is no evidence for it, but there is currently no method that could pottentially lead to evidence that demonstrates that what they already believe is true...
The rational, reasonable position is to proportion one´s belief in accordance with the evidence, to not believe on something until there is evidence for it; it is not, to believe on something just because you can´t think of a way to provide evidence for it if it were true...
Have few other objections to your video overall, something else worth noting is that you make a false equivalence between the message of ¨I am god, believe in me¨ with DNA, language is not defined through complexity, language is the medium used by a thinking agent to communicate a mesage to another thinking agent.
While ¨I am god¨ is quite a simple sentence, are all words that we thinking agents associate a meaning with, a DNA code has not been demonstrated to have a meaning embedded, the letters that make up a DNA secuence are not actually letters, they are just chemicals interacting with one another, just like the molecule for water H2O.
Is H2O a language? does it become a languageif it is a more complex molecule? is ¨K2,Ca,Na2,Ba¨ part of a language just because it is more complex?...
No, it is not, demonstrate that a thinking agent gave embedded them with a meaning to be discerned by another thinking agent or drop the false comparison.
Great video again, cheers!