Skip to content

I will be following this closely

February 23, 2009

Freethinker and fellow Secular Humanist (I think – will retract if I’m wrong) Matt Marshall has offered a stoic challenge to the believers of the DE blogging community. If you can prove empirically by March 7th that there is a god, he will perform a default of the proof-bearer’s choice.

Steve Newton has already taken this challenge, but by evidence in his own post about it, I don’t see him being successful. Observe:

So many of my good friends and readers here are confirmed atheists and agnostics that I thought you might have some fun reading (or even commenting upon) my attempts to get Mat decorated…

(my emphasis)

See, if Steve has real scientific, natural proof that God exists, there wouldn’t need to be multiple attempts. Scientific evidence is scientific evidence. In fact, if Steve had this real scientific evidence, I would seriously doubt he would have waited for Matt to offer a tattooing for his evidence. In fact, what Steve will have is special pleas, emotional arguments, and maybe some appeals to personal experience. None of this is scientific evidence.  

Even though Steve has already lost, I look forward to the discussion!

8 Comments leave one →
  1. Mat Marshall permalink
    February 24, 2009 3:12 am

    Secular Humanist sums it up pretty damn well.

    Steve is making a pretty sound argument over at DWA that there is a possibility for God-like activity between universes. However, I maintain that the statistics do not work in his favor. It’s very interesting. I do hate to debate Steve. While it’s always enlightening, it’s enormously tedious as I have to read over his posts two or three times, and will almost without fail find a rebuttal at day’s end.

    For now, he may have me on a technical flaw in my challenge. If anybody is to win the challenge, though, I hope it’s him, as he’s suggesting an Einstein tat.

  2. February 24, 2009 3:25 am

    Steve doesn’t have to make an argument for the possibility of a god. Until we’ve found every fact about the universe, we can’t rule it out.

    Steve has to prove the existence of god per the specifications that you set, and he failed in his first argument, then based almost everything else off of that failed argument.

  3. Mat Marshall permalink
    February 24, 2009 3:50 am

    Agreed. Again, he may have me caught on the technicality that I’m asking for evidence, not proof. However, I’m asking for legitimate evidence, which will inevitably cause some conflict. Should the disagreement continue, I may just get an admittedly awesome tattoo while maintaining that I’m right ;-).

  4. February 24, 2009 11:00 am

    If you want the tattoo, get it anyways 🙂

  5. February 24, 2009 11:00 am

    Also, I hope you don’t mind that I’ve jumped into the argument. If you’d rather I didn’t or put my replies here, rather than at DWA, just let me know!

  6. Mat Marshall permalink
    February 24, 2009 4:59 pm

    Please, stay at DWA. Besides the fact that I enjoy your commentary, it helps to have the whole discussion in one place. 🙂

    I think I said this over at Del Libertarian, but if I win I’ll probably go with Darwin instead. If I’m feeling really comical, I’ll get “Bad Mother Fucker” obscured behind him.

  7. February 24, 2009 5:04 pm

    Damn, that’s the best idea ever!

    I’ll be back at DWA after work, around 20:00. DWA is blocked at work, so I’ll spend more time reading than anything. Sucks, cuz I was wondering if Steve had a response to mine.

  8. Mat Marshall permalink
    February 24, 2009 6:31 pm

    He does, but it’s not to your scientific points so much as it’s just saying that he’s trying to prove a point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: