Sam Harris Slaughters Christianity

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Except there is evidence of extraterrestrial life, evidence which this scientist use to prove their points. Like for instance the evidence of bacteria in Martian soils and meteorites.

So again, claiming that there ISN'T such a thing would be more stupid than claiming there is by this point.

You've just shifted the goal posts again. First of all, there's indicators of extraterrestrial life, but not incontrovertible proof.

Secondly, this still doesn't offer any proof for deities. If you showed me sufficient evidence that ancient peoples met these other life forms and based their religions off of them, I would consider it.

Instead, not only does such evidence not exist, but there is evidence to the contrary. A great many of these religions were direct evolutions/offshoots of other religions, with the vast, vast majority of ancient deities being given human or animal features and traits, ascribed earthly powers and attributes (the power to control storms and floods, the power over horses, the power over families), etc. At most it went out to the observable sky, like the constellations. Humans based their mythologies off their imagination, but at no point is there an indication that their gods were derived from these advanced races that you suggest.

Whether you're talking about depictions of Zeus, Thor, Ra, the Dragon Kings of the Four Seas, or even the Christian God, what you look at is not a representation of some advanced extraterrestrial race, but the natural world (including humans and animals) being transposed into mythology to help explain events that could not have been explained by their knowledge of science at the time. For creatures of an alternate race, many ancient gods and goddesses looked awfully a lot like humans, or if not then animals like birds, dogs and bulls. Perhaps because it was humans projecting themselves and the animals they saw around them into these mythologies, and not extraterrestrial races?

Originally posted by SunRazer
Whether you're talking about depictions of Zeus, Thor, Ra, the Dragon Kings of the Four Seas, or even the Christian God, what you look at is not a representation of some advanced extraterrestrial race, but the natural world (including humans and animals) being transposed into mythology to help explain events that could not have been explained by their knowledge of science at the time. For an alternate race, many ancient gods and goddesses looked awfully a lot like humans. Perhaps because it was humans projecting themselves into these mythologies, and not other races?

👆 Wonderfully articulated.

Originally posted by SunRazer
You've just shifted the goal posts again. First of all, there's indicators of extraterrestrial life, but not incontrovertible proof.

Secondly, this still doesn't offer any proof for deities. If you showed me sufficient evidence that ancient peoples met these other life forms and based their religions off of them, I would consider it.

Instead, not only does such evidence not exist, but there is evidence to the contrary. A great many of these religions were direct evolutions/offshoots of other religions, with the vast, vast majority of ancient deities being given [b]human or animal features and traits, ascribed earthly powers and attributes (the power to control storms and floods, the power over horses, the power over families), etc. At most it went out to the observable sky, like the constellations. Humans based their mythologies off their imagination, but at no point is there an indication that their gods were derived from these advanced races that you suggest.

Whether you're talking about depictions of Zeus, Thor, Ra, the Dragon Kings of the Four Seas, or even the Christian God, what you look at is not a representation of some advanced extraterrestrial race, but the natural world (including humans and animals) being transposed into mythology to help explain events that could not have been explained by their knowledge of science at the time. For creatures of an alternate race, many ancient gods and goddesses looked awfully a lot like humans, or if not then animals like birds, dogs and bulls. Perhaps because it was humans projecting themselves and the animals they saw around them into these mythologies, and not extraterrestrial races? [/B]

No i haven't.

The fact of Extraterrestrial life existing would proof the existence of Gods. Since it would make perfect sense of what our ancestors were experiencing which is a Super Advance Alien race.

Our Ancestors didn't had Cameras to record their viewings, they had to but use Earthly examples to communicate their sightings.

Imagine we get to create a time machine. You travel to the past with a machine gun and kill a couple of Greeks, they'd likely consider you Zeus.

You are right, our Ancestors' lack of knowledge over advanced science would have them consider such things as deities.

Again saying there is no God/Supreme Beings is really irrational/stupid not only in a logical sense but also in a scientific one.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
No i haven't.

The fact of Extraterrestrial life existing would proof the existence of Gods. Since it would make perfect sense of what our ancestors were experiencing which is a Super Advance Alien race.

Our Ancestors didn't had Cameras to record their viewings, they had to but use Earthly examples to communicate their sightings.

Imagine we get to create a time machine. You travel to the past with a machine gun and kill a couple of Greeks, they'd likely consider you Zeus.

You are right, our Ancestors' lack of knowledge over advanced science would have them consider such things as deities.

No. You can't just try to fit random jigsaw puzzles together and claim you've solved the mystery. I need indisputable proof that the ancients met extraterrestrial races, not that "this seems logical, so it must be right!".

You completely ignored what I said above. Where are the machine guns in Greek mythology? "Logic" follows exactly what I said: Zeus was the God of the Sky and lightning, considered among the ultimate aspects of the universe. Hence the Ancient Greeks depicted Zeus as the King of the Gods and a hyper-masculine individual. There is no evidence that they encountered otherwordly races. Greek mythology, and a great many others, make it blatantly clear what the ancient peoples were deifying: themselves and nature on Earth. Show me extraterrestrial influences anywhere in these mythologies. How is that they are constantly referring to earthly natural phenomena in their myths? How is it that never once do they refer to something that we can't find an equivalent to in our world today? If they met extraterrestrials, their mythologies would reflect it by depicting some extraterrestrial technology. You have not been able to identify a single example of that.

I don't see how this even makes sense to you. You're arguing that there's a chance that these ancient peoples met extraterrestrial races, therefore gods must exist? Non sequitur logic. Furthermore, you completely neglected the chance that the ancient Greeks and Chinese and Romans did not meet any extraterrestrial race, and instead derived their mythology purely from our own world. The latter scenario is the one any and all evidence points to, by the way.

Again saying there is no God/Supreme Beings is really irrational/stupid not only in a logical sense but also in a scientific one.

Nope, it's completely rational for both. No incontrovertible evidence exists for other life in the universe, and the only things we have seen even the slightest indication for have been limited to extremely primitive life forms like bacteria. Obviously they were not the influences for our ancient religions, which as I have pointed out are all earthly in nature. You can find the influences for Jupiter and Thor and Set all in our world.

You also made a huge jump by suggesting that someone who time travelled to Ancient Greece with a machine gun could have passed for Zeus, to the idea of a genuine God (ie. Christian God). You're running away with fantasy and fan-fiction and not once have I seen any passable degree of proof. Do you know the process before any scientific theory becomes accepted? That's what needs to be applied here, not joining discordant dots together like some cheesy detective story.

If you think a certain deity exists, you need to show evidence that said deity exists. You can't run of presumptions and possibilities and try to link them together; that doesn't work. That's called a conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
👆 Wonderfully articulated.

Thanks.

If you actually manage to teach this guy something and get him to approach this topic from a different angle, hats off to you.

Originally posted by SunRazer
No. You can't just try to fit random jigsaw puzzles together and claim you've solved the mystery. I need indisputable proof that the ancients met extraterrestrial races, not that "this seems logical, so it must be right!".

You completely ignored what I said above. Where are the machine guns in Greek mythology? "Logic" follows exactly what I said: Zeus was the God of the Sky and lightning, considered among the ultimate aspects of the universe. Hence the Ancient Greeks depicted Zeus as the King of the Gods and a hyper-masculine individual. There is no evidence that they encountered otherwordly races. Greek mythology, and a great many others, make it blatantly clear what the ancient peoples were deifying: themselves and nature on Earth. Show me extraterrestrial influences anywhere in these mythologies. How is that they are constantly referring to earthly natural phenomena in their myths? How is it that never once do they refer to something that we can't find an equivalent to in our world today? If they met extraterrestrials, their mythologies would reflect it by depicting some extraterrestrial technology. You have not been able to identify a single example of that.

I don't see how this even makes sense to you. You're arguing that there's a chance that these ancient peoples met extraterrestrial races, therefore gods must exist? Non sequitur logic. Furthermore, you completely neglected the chance that the ancient Greeks and Chinese and Romans did not meet any extraterrestrial race, and instead derived their mythology purely from our own world. The latter scenario is the one any and all evidence points to, by the way.

Nope, it's completely rational for both. No incontrovertible evidence exists for other life in the universe, and the only things we have seen even the slightest indication for have been limited to extremely primitive life forms like bacteria. Obviously they were not the influences for our ancient religions, which as I have pointed out are all earthly in nature. You can find the influences for Jupiter and Thor and Set all in [b]our world.

You also made a huge jump by suggesting that someone who time travelled to Ancient Greece with a machine gun could have passed for Zeus, to the idea of a genuine God (ie. Christian God). You're running away with fantasy and fan-fiction and not once have I seen any passable degree of proof. Do you know the process before any scientific theory becomes accepted? That's what needs to be applied here, not joining discordant dots together like some cheesy detective story.

If you think a certain deity exists, you need to show evidence that said deity exists. You can't run of presumptions and possibilities and try to link them together; that doesn't work. That's called a conspiracy theory. [/B]

Ahem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings

God's real bro

Originally posted by SunRazer
No. You can't just try to fit random jigsaw puzzles together and claim you've solved the mystery. I need indisputable proof that the ancients met extraterrestrial races, not that "this seems logical, so it must be right!".

You completely ignored what I said above. Where are the machine guns in Greek mythology? "Logic" follows exactly what I said: Zeus was the God of the Sky and lightning, considered among the ultimate aspects of the universe. Hence the Ancient Greeks depicted Zeus as the King of the Gods and a hyper-masculine individual. There is no evidence that they encountered otherwordly races. Greek mythology, and a great many others, make it blatantly clear what the ancient peoples were deifying: themselves and nature on Earth. Show me extraterrestrial influences anywhere in these mythologies. How is that they are constantly referring to earthly natural phenomena in their myths? How is it that never once do they refer to something that we can't find an equivalent to in our world today? If they met extraterrestrials, their mythologies would reflect it by depicting some extraterrestrial technology. You have not been able to identify a single example of that.

I don't see how this even makes sense to you. You're arguing that there's a chance that these ancient peoples met extraterrestrial races, therefore gods must exist? Non sequitur logic. Furthermore, you completely neglected the chance that the ancient Greeks and Chinese and Romans did not meet any extraterrestrial race, and instead derived their mythology purely from our own world. The latter scenario is the one any and all evidence points to, by the way.

Nope, it's completely rational for both. No incontrovertible evidence exists for other life in the universe, and the only things we have seen even the slightest indication for have been limited to extremely primitive life forms like bacteria. Obviously they were not the influences for our ancient religions, which as I have pointed out are all earthly in nature. You can find the influences for Jupiter and Thor and Set all in [b]our world.

You also made a huge jump by suggesting that someone who time travelled to Ancient Greece with a machine gun could have passed for Zeus, to the idea of a genuine God (ie. Christian God). You're running away with fantasy and fan-fiction and not once have I seen any passable degree of proof. Do you know the process before any scientific theory becomes accepted? That's what needs to be applied here, not joining discordant dots together like some cheesy detective story.

If you think a certain deity exists, you need to show evidence that said deity exists. You can't run of presumptions and possibilities and try to link them together; that doesn't work. That's called a conspiracy theory. [/B]

HAHAHAHA! It's funny! You claim am evading things when i've addressed your questions with questions of my own, which you yourself have failed to answer in a complete way, just like I have failed to answer yours in a complete way.

Now, there is something you need to remember when debating Theology, there will never be enough evidence! On neither side.

That's why Religion is about something you choose to believe more than something that is proven. There will never be enough evidence to make it true nor enough evidence to rebuke it (At least there is none now). That's why when we talk about religion we also talk about Faith.

So in this topic, don't expect me to be giving you concrete evidence! There is simply none!

HOWEVER! My purpose in this entire debate isn't to PROVE RELIGION but to show you that YOUR OWN PROVES against it aren't concrete neither

You are claiming that the Religions are but primitive poorly-scientific answers to the Nature of this World, which isn't really the case!

You say that a primitive specie would have well-depicted an Extraterrestrial intervention to a point in where we would be able to differentiate between Gods and Aliens, but the truth is quite another.

For instance (SINCE YOU CLAIM I HAVEN'T ADDRESS YOUR POINTS), when the Europeans colonized the Americans 500 years ago. The American's depicted and viewed the European counterparts as Gods!

A very clear example of this would be the Aztecs and Maya tribes which called the Spanish "Sons of the Sun" due to their light skin color and hair!

Furthermore many other tribes considered them Gods!

So again, if 500 years ago, people from one continent depicted people from another as deities, then how would people 2000-3000 years ago picture extraterrestrial contact!!? Again your points don't make more sense than mines.

So, yes, you MIGHT BE RIGHT, Gods are the interpretation of Primitive minds to Nature. But since you have no concrete evidence to prove it then you might be wrong.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Ahem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings

God's real bro

Yeah.

Sounds much like Ancient Astronauts kind of thing! 😂

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If you actually manage to teach this guy something and get him to approach this topic from a different angle, hats off to you.

Impossible. There are no other angles to approach this topic.

Speculation and soft evidence is all there is when debating Theology. So i don't see what are you expecting of me.

Further proof of an Extraterrestrial intervention would be in some of the things constructed by our Ancestors.

Even today with modern technology, scientists still struggle to understand how things like the Pyramids of Egypt, Stonehenge, Machu Pichu, Europe's Stone Spheres, and many other artifacts and buildings from the past. Things like these are even considered impossible to replicate with modern technology

Again, there are mysteries that even our science has failed to unmasked from this civilizations. Maybe they weren't that primitive after all.....Or maybe they weren't alone in making this magnificent things.....

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
HAHAHAHA! It's funny!

Calm thy tits.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
HAHAHAHA! It's funny! You claim am evading things when i've addressed your questions with questions of my own, which you yourself have failed to answer in a complete way, just like I have failed to answer yours in a complete way.

No, you've failed to answer me at all. I've not seen anything resembling an acceptable standard of evidence for any deities.

Now, there is something you need to remember when debating Theology, there will never be enough evidence! On neither side.

No, there will never be enough evidence on your side because the entire premise of your position rests not on mathematical theory, objective and empirical data, and trials of validation, but on pure faith in literature ultimately deserving no distinction from the works of Jane Austen or J. K. Rowling when it comes to scientific credibility. Or on wild fantasies of what "might be possible". Unfortunately the extent of your evidence lacks a relationship with the extent of your imagination.

I am completely open to the prospect of God existing in some form; if I can be provided the evidence to analyse it. That hasn't happened yet. So https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14jEhdqa5Z4.

That's why Religion is about something you choose to believe more than something that is proven. There will never be enough evidence to make it true nor enough evidence to rebuke it (At least there is none now). That's why when we talk about religion we also talk about Faith.

And it's fine to believe in a religion, but claiming that there is a god(s) out there with the certainty that you have demands an acceptable level of evidence. Based on your previous responses, you simply cannot show that to me and are now asking for my charity in lowering the acceptable standard of proof so you can coerce me with wild speculative possibilities about the gods that might exist.

So in this topic, don't expect me to be giving you concrete evidence! There is simply none!

It's good that you've conceded this much.

HOWEVER! My purpose in this entire debate isn't to PROVE RELIGION but to show you that YOUR OWN PROVES against it aren't concrete neither

No. You made an assertion that it's ridiculous to say there isn't a God or Supreme Being, or many of them (ie. that there is definitely a God or Supreme Being, or multiple of them). A positive assertion like that requires evidence on your part.

I'm not sure why you're focusing on "proof against" the position when you haven't proven it to begin with. That's like trying to analyse how someone tears down a wall that hasn't even been built yet. Any argument made without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

You are claiming that the Religions are but primitive poorly-scientific answers to the Nature of this World, which isn't really the case!

I gave you some examples and rationalisations of why that was the case. Dismissing them off-hand shows that you've got a confirmation bias, but not that you've got a proper case against them. Please have the courtesy to engage me on the same standard that I am using to engage you.

Explain to me why the Gods are virtually always human-like or animal-like, including the Christian God. The influences are alarmingly obvious.

You say that a primitive specie would have well-depicted an Extraterrestrial intervention to a point in where we would be able to differentiate between Gods and Aliens, but the truth is quite another.

For instance (SINCE YOU CLAIM I HAVEN'T ADDRESS YOUR POINTS), when the Europeans colonized the Americans 500 years ago. The American's depicted and viewed the European counterparts as Gods!

A very clear example of this would be the Aztecs and Maya tribes which called the Spanish "Sons of the Sun" due to their light skin color and hair!

Furthermore many other tribes considered them Gods!

So again, if 500 years ago, people from one continent depicted people from another as deities, then how would people 2000-3000 years ago picture extraterrestrial contact!!? Again your points don't make more sense than mines.

This doesn't make sense. Ancient peoples were capable of expressing encounters with foreigners in their stories. You're showing me that right now by citing that the Aztec and Maya civilisations were able to make reference to the Spanish foreigners.

You would expect that if they encountered extraterrestrial peoples, they would at least attempt to convey such unprecedented and alien elements in their stories. It should not be difficult to point out examples to me.

So, yes, you MIGHT BE RIGHT, Gods are the interpretation of Primitive minds to Nature. But since you have no concrete evidence to prove it then you might be wrong.

I have the analyses of historians and the myths themselves to back up my points. And no, I can't be absolutely certain beyond all doubt that what I claim was always the case, but the case I can present is one of structured logic and evidential basis that can withstand infinitely more scrutiny than your wishful thinking about things that you can't offer me any evidence or logical explanation for.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Further proof of an Extraterrestrial intervention would be in some of the things constructed by our Ancestors.

Even today with modern technology, scientists still struggle to understand how things like the Pyramids of Egypt, Stonehenge, Machu Pichu, Europe's Stone Spheres, and many other artifacts and buildings from the past. Things like these are even considered impossible to replicate with modern technology

Again, there are mysteries that even our science has failed to unmasked from this civilizations. Maybe they weren't that primitive after all.....Or maybe they weren't alone in making this magnificent things.....

God of the gaps fallacy. Science is a system of processes, not an omniscient data bank. There are things we cannot be certain about even today, and probably forever, but generally we can expect deficiencies in the scientific realm to be accounted for over time (as is the trend with history). However, any alternate explanation I consider has to be valid in the first place. Unfortunately, your argument is invalid because it fails to meet the requisite standard of proof.

There's no reason to appeal to the supernatural every time we run into a hurdle with science. History has shown that to be wrong in just about every field (biology and astronomy probably being the two biggest examples). If we get something wrong in science, it's because our instruments, mathematics, and powers of observation have limits. You can see that just by observing the evolution of our understanding of the solar system from the time of Aristotle and why his (relative) contemporaries weren't able to raise a particularly credible argument for a heliocentric model, to the modern era where our technology and mathematics can prove the heliocentric model to be a reality.

If you want to appeal to the supernatural, the onus is on you to provide sufficient evidence to make a workable position. Problems or inaccuracies encountered in science do not make the case for religion on their own.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Impossible. There are no other angles to approach this topic.

Speculation and soft evidence is all there is when debating Theology. So i don't see what are you expecting of me.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Apparently far too much.

LL, your avatar...

I knoowww...

But that's alot of work finding another one.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I knoowww...

But that's alot of work finding another one.

SunRazer and you both...lol

He was a exciting evil icon of power that was fun to think about until recent events. Now his fictional character was tainted by his legacy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
SunRazer and you both...lol

He was a exciting evil icon of power that was fun to think about until recent events. Now his fictional character was tainted by his legacy.

Originally posted by SunRazer
No, you've failed to answer me at all. I've not seen anything resembling an acceptable standard of evidence for any deities.

There is none. If there was compelling evidence to prove the existence of deities what would then be thr purpose of Faith? (Atleast in the Christian/Jewish pantheon)

Originally posted by SunRazer
No, there will never be enough evidence on your side because the entire premise of your position rests not on mathematical theory, objective and empirical data, and trials of validation, but on pure faith in literature ultimately deserving no distinction from the works of Jane Austen or J. K. Rowling when it comes to scientific credibility. Or on wild fantasies of what "might be possible". Unfortunately the extent of your evidence lacks a relationship with the extent of your imagination. [/B]

Nor will there ever be on yours! Else we wouldnt be debating this.

Your empirical/numerical/quantitative way of thinking doesnt necessarily invalidates religion! Thats absurd!

Originally posted by SunRazer I am completely open to the prospect of God existing in some form; if I can be provided the evidence to analyse it. That hasn't happened yet. So https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14jEhdqa5Z4.[/B]

As I said there is no COMPLETE EVIDENCE but i can give you a 1000+ page book which has some historical background aswell as some archeological one.

Originally posted by SunRazer And it's fine to believe in a religion, but claiming that there is a god(s) out there with the certainty that you have demands an acceptable level of evidence. Based on your previous responses, you simply cannot show that to me and are now asking for my charity in lowering the acceptable standard of proof so you can coerce me with wild speculative possibilities about the gods that might exist. [/B]

No i cant. But you have no evidence on your behalf to make your points any better.

Until now you have demamnded evidence whilst you yourself have failed to prove that Gods dont exist.

Originally posted by SunRazer
It's good that you've conceded this much.[/B]

NP

Originally posted by SunRazer
No. You made an assertion that it's ridiculous to say there isn't a God or Supreme Being, or many of them (ie. that there is definitely a God or Supreme Being, or multiple of them). A positive assertion like that requires evidence on your behalf.

I'm not sure why you're focusing on "proof against" the position when you haven't proven it to begin with. That's like trying to analyse how someone tears down a wall that hasn't even been built yet. Any argument made without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.[/B]

There is a book called the bible. There are temples all over the world built to adore such beings. What furher evidence do you require exactly?

Furthermore, what evidence do you have to contradict our Ancestors beliefs?

Originally posted by SunRazer I gave you some examples and rationalisations of why that was the case. Dismissing them off-hand shows that you've got a confirmation bias, but not that you've got a proper case against them. Please have the courtesy to engage me on the same standard that I am using to engage you. [/B]

You have given no proper evidence to contradict our Ancestors beliefs!

Your rationalism has been properly countered by mines.

Originally posted by SunRazer Explain to me why the Gods are virtually always human-like or animal-like, including the Christian God. The influences are alarmingly obvious.
[/B]

Well its clear you arent that familiarized with Religion.

Genesis 1:27 - God created man in his own image...

Many other civilazations around the globe share this belief. So your question should be simple to answer.

Originally posted by SunRazer
This doesn't make sense. Ancient peoples were capable of expressing encounters with foreigners in their stories. You're showing me that right now by citing that the Aztec and Maya civilisations were able to make reference to the Spanish foreigners.

You would expect that if they encountered extraterrestrial peoples, they would at least attempt to convey such unprecedented and alien elements in their stories. It should not be difficult to point out examples to me. [/B]

Your original claim was that our ancestors had the means to properly identify advanced technology and to depict it in such a way (With the hopes to prove that our ancestors should have been able to identify Alien from God). Now i just proved to you thats no the case.

Its pretty clear, i dont see were it lacks sense. Our Ancestors probably considered Extraterrestrial contact as Gods. Maybe Gods=Aliens.

Just like the Americans thought the Spanish to be Gods due to their physical differences and technological superiority in a similar way would other Ancient civilizations considered extraterrestrial contact.

Well thats what they tried to do. Aliens and their technology was depicted as accurately as they could. The stories of Gods and their powers is nothing but the interpretation of our ancestors to Alien contact.

Technology which our ancestors didnt comprenhend.

What makes you think that the stories about Dragons and Flying Fire Chariots arent the interpretations of Spaceships?

Why you think that there are pictures in 2000+ years stones and caves of weird creatures and unexplicabe things (e.g Dragons, flying serpents, winged people, animal faced persons)? Its obvious our Ancestors were depicting things they didnt understand.

How would you be depicted if wearing a motorcycle helment 3000 years ago? Probably they would think you are some sort of fly-man.

Originally posted by SunRazer I have the analyses of historians and the myths themselves to back up my points. And no, I can't be absolutely certain beyond all doubt that what I claim was always the case, but the case I can present is one of structured logic and evidential basis that can withstand infinitely more scrutiny than your wishful thinking about things that you can't offer me any evidence or logical explanation for. [/B]

I also have such! I cant be certain that all that i claim will always be right neither.

I have offered you evidence e.g American - European interaction which ended in one side considering the other as Gods whilst you claimed that our Ancestors would depict such accordingly (as just humans with more advanced technology).

Youve failed to prove that our ancestors would have been able to properly depict advanced tech.

Originally posted by SunRazer
God of the gaps fallacy. Science is a system of processes, not an omniscient data bank. There are things we cannot be certain about even today, and probably forever, but generally we can expect deficiencies in the scientific realm to be accounted for over time (as is the trend with history). However, any alternate explanation I consider has to be valid in the first place. Unfortunately, your argument is invalid because it fails to meet the requisite standard of proof.

There's no reason to appeal to the supernatural every time we run into a hurdle with science. History has shown that to be wrong in just about every field (biology and astronomy probably being the two biggest examples). If we get something wrong in science, it's because our instruments, mathematics, and powers of observation have limits. You can see that just by observing the evolution of our understanding of the solar system from the time of Aristotle and why his (relative) contemporaries weren't able to raise a particularly credible argument for a heliocentric model, to the modern era where our technology and mathematics can prove the heliocentric model to be a reality.

If you want to appeal to the supernatural, the onus is on you to provide sufficient evidence to make a workable position. Problems or inaccuracies encountered in science do not make the case for religion on their own. [/B]

Hahahahaha! Atleast youve that our current technology isnt that all-knowing.

Now you previously claimed that our ancestors didnt had the intelligence to understand natural processes which misinterpreted as Gods, now however you claim that our ancestors were technologically advanced enough to make things that our technology doesnt comprenhend?

You are contradicting yourself now it seems.

There is a need to appeal to the supernatural when persons whose technology/science is 2000+ prior to ours manages to create things our technology/science fails to comprenhend.

You are claiming that our ancestors ideology was primitive yet their technology wasnt? Is like saying that a person is stupid yet somehow he gets better grades than you.

Your entired argument is based on our ancestors being too stupid to comprenhend natural processes yet now they are too smart.

You are not giving me any compelling evidence on your behalf now SunRazer

Josh, as much as I don't think you'd be able to properly make this argument, you're making mistake by keeping this in the realm of a posteriori (knowledge from sense experience and empirical evidence), whereas the case you need to make is a priori (knowledge such as mathematics, tautology, or as is relevant to this case deductive reasoning).