Anonymous atheist made this comment to the last post on "Atheist Fear of Gardening."
Please provide links to your evidence that science disproves atheism. This is a truly incredible claim and I cannot wait to read about the God of the Gaps. Or do you have something better? Please share.
It's important to understand the context.He probalby thought I mean creationism. I am not a creationist. Anyone familiar with my blog or Doxa (my site) knows that I am not a creationist, I see no contradiction between belief in God and evolution. The scientific knowledge I have in mind is the disprove of the atheist BS about scinece is the only from of knowledge and only scientific things can be believed. Science itself disproves this becuase it opens up so many vistas of which we have no further knowledge. The silly easy little idea that atheists so often propound, we have the only factual view becuase we just reject everything ot proved by scinece and believe ever thing that is proved, is an ideology. All the while they are spouting that they are swearing "there is no atheist ideology." They are sitting there vehemently denying they have an ideology as part of the ideology they are obviously wailing.
Here is what I said in the Gardening thing, this is what he's referring to:
Atheists will try to mock and ridicule the notion of the inner life. This is because they mock and ridicule anything that doesn't stack up to their ideology about truncated reality. They must collapse reality to eliminate possibles, so one doesn't seek God.the way they do this is to prescribe only one aspect aspect of reality as real, that which is empirically derived from scientific observation. Now a good deal of empirical scientific data disproves atheism but they can't allow that. Evidence which does not support their conclusions they reduce to their canon of prescribed reality by indicting it's scientific nature in all manner of bogus ways. They have to create the idea that only that which supports the ideology is valid. To do this they cling to the surface of reality. Things are only what can be gleaned form surface level facts of existence of physical objects and nothing else. There is no depth of being, they must create confusion about the very concept of being. They will call it abstraction and say it's pretend and so forth. Just as they label faith as "pretending" and what have you. Everything feeds back into the central thesis; reality is surface level only. That is the level of reality for them because that's what their knowledge controls. Anything deep requires thought, and thought is liberating. If one begins to think about reality and what depth means one begins to unravel the mythology that says only transcribe scientifically derived things can be in existence. To unravel that is to step onto the road to belief and they must avoid that at all costs.This means that when I present the evidence you can expect them to deny that is matter, or that is scientific, or that is evidence. They are going to pull the ideolgoical line that it has to prove conclusively without ambiguous up front to such a degree that no sane person can argue with it. There is no such evidence anywhere on anything. Even the most solid scientific evidence can be argued about. All studies can be attacked. Everything can be doubted and their philosophy feeds on doubt. Science is not about proving things. Many philosophers of scinece agree with Karl Popper that scientific hypohtesis can only be disproved not proved. Since athism is essentually a philosphy of doubt, a lack of belief, a negative, its' ideology and it's postiive affirmations masquerade as the absence of something while functioning as the presence of something this is ideal for them, since they feed off of the denial aspect of argument anyway.
Two more observations before we get to the evidence. First of all, I did not say that God can be proved through scientific evidence. I said atheism can be proved wrong. What does that mean? It means that (1) the way scinece works disproves the assertions of the ideology that science is the only knowledge and that atheism is built upon a factual fortress. (2) it means that the basic assumptions under which the atheist ideology works can be contradicted with scientific evidence, that does not equal "God can be proved with science." Secondly, the idea of proving the existence of God is contrary to Christian theology. Not that Christianity is opposed to proving things, but long before modern scinece existed Christian mystics, thinkers,philosophers and religious authorities held to the noting God is beyond our understanding. God is not a thing alongside other things in creation. So what we aim for is rational warrant rather than proof. In other words, the demonstration that there is rational reason to believe a given hypothesis. That doesn't' mean that smaller supporting constructs can't be proved, or at least given Verisimilitude. The major tenets of faith such the reality of God need not be prove because they not amenable to proof, at least not empirical proof. they are not empirical matters. They must be resolved in other ways.
Disproof of the ideology atheists are always spouting, that their view is a big pile of "facts" that prove everything that is worth believing, self referential and self aggrandizing see my three part essay on the limitations of scinece.
Theoretical contradictions at the heart of atheism.
Theoretical contradictions of atheism two: reverse quantum argument.
Traces of God: answering reverse design argument
Modern atheism was established and linked to science by Laplace in his statement about "i have no need of that hypothesis." The hypothesis was God and the reason he had no need of it in his system of scinece was becuase he had naturalistic cause and effect. This basically makes him the father of modern atheism. Yet now atheists gladly jettison naturalistic c/e at least in relation to origins because it's the only way they can avoid the God argument of cosmology. So they are actually giving up the scientific basis upon which they took God out of science (Newton had Made design argument so deeply rooted in modern science he just almost introduced God as a physical law). With reason for excluding God one would think the door is now open again for understanding God as the basis of reality without threatening to destroy scinece.
read all that and on Monday I'll deal with the issue of positive evidence for the reality of God.