Posted by: FLPatriot | November 19, 2009

“I don’t know so you can’t know”

I would like to look at this statement we hear so often from Darwinists. Sometimes it goes like this:

“It is ok to say I don’t know the answer to a question (like the origin of existence) but don’t tell me you know the answer”

It is an illogical comment to say that sine you don’t know the answer that someone else does not know the correct answer. It is such an arrogant statement to make that since you don’t know something that it is not possible for someone else to have the answer.

If Darwinists thought about this they would have to agree that God is a possibility as an answer, oh no I dropped the g-bomb now the Darwinists will create a rabbit trail and go after my religious beliefs instead of staying the topic of logical debating. Before you can move on to the debate of whither God is the correct answer or not you must first decide if God is an option.

So here is your mission if you choose to accept it:

Is God an option? If not, why not?



  1. “It is an illogical comment to say that sin[c]e you don’t know the answer that someone else does not know the correct answer.”

    It makes sense if the person claiming to know can’t demonstrate with any good evidence how they know, or provide any good evidence for what they say they know being true.

    “Is God an option? If not, why not?”

    Sure it’s an option. Just like leprechauns, universe-creating dragons and Time Lords from Gallifrey.

    ANYTHING is an option. The question is, and will always remain, what does the evidence point to?

  2. Fine. God is an option, once we remove tiny, pink invisible unicorns as an option.

  3. “I don’t know because after careful study and contemplation, I’ve determined it’s not possible to know.” Would be more accurate.

  4. morsecode: The evidence I have seen points toward an intelligent creator. No matter how much twisting Darwinists try to do the signature of God is easily found when you open your eyes.

    Ian: Just because you have determined it is not possible does not make it impossible for everyone.

  5. “The evidence I have seen points toward an intelligent creator.”

    The evidence you have seen is not good, scientific evidence. So while it may be good enough for your personal belief, and your personal belief alone, it is not science.

  6. That shows how your presupposition gets in the way. You have prejudged the scientific evidence I have seen based solely on the knowledge it goes against your beliefs. Why does that not surprise me.

  7. “You have prejudged the scientific evidence I have seen”

    I haven’t prejudged. I’ve judged based on what I have heard and read from you and other Christians/apologists/creationists in the past.

    If you have actual, good scientific evidence I’d love to see it. It would be the first bit of good scientific evidence from a creationist I’d ever seen.

  8. mcoville,
    “I don’t know so you can’t know”

    It’s not that you can’t know, it’s that you don’t know. You’re just “certain” because a book told you, which was written 2,000+ years ago by shepherds and prophets that were probably epileptics.

    Is God an option? If not, why not?

    Of course your god is an option. So is everyone else’s. And so is the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pink Unicorns… They’re all legitimate “options.” Why should we take those options seriously though?

  9. Dan: I am certain because I have seen the results of God’s work. I can honestly testify to God’s presence.

    I would love to have a theological discussion about the existence of any of your gods, which one to trust in? But when it comes to science we can just put them all under the label of “intelligent designer”.

  10. mcoville,
    I am certain because I have seen the results of God’s work. I can honestly testify to God’s presence.

    Yes, as I discussed in the other thread I’ve recently been commenting on, I’m not doubting that you perceive your god’s work and presence. What you do not have is anything to persuade me that it’s anything more than a false perception however.

  11. And that is the heart of the problem. Just because you are not persuaded does not make it false.

  12. Also mcoville,
    To put my comment from ~20min ago into context with the one above from a few hours ago, I should clarify….

    In addition to saying that
    1) Yes, you are certain that the book that you proclaim to be the word of your god is correct.
    2) And yes, you perceive the works of your god and his presence.
    3) But you don’t test these possibilities as hypotheses.

    I’m saying that your certainty about what you perceive to be correct blinds you. You jump right to affirming such assertions without actually double-checking the veracity of the claims or corroborating the assertions with any independent data. It’s just like when Jonathan Wells tried claiming that the centriole looks like a machine, and claimed that that was all the evidence needed. That sort of reasoning led Catholics to persecute Galileo for claiming that the sun didn’t really orbit the Earth, even though it appeared as though it does.

    And really, that’s about the intellectual level of your evidence of “results of God’s work”: The appearance of the sun orbiting the earth is EXACTLY on par with the appearance of the complexity of the eye (for example) as being designed.

    Which is why a good scientist approaches the subject that he’s studying as if he were trying not to fool themself. Was the experiment done correctly? Was it a fluke? What if the data was skewed by another variable? Etc., etc.

    All any of us atheists is trying to do is to get you to apply the same analysis, question superficial appearances, and demonstrate something resembling intellectual substance. Not these vacuous assertions.

  13. and…
    And that is the heart of the problem. Just because you are not persuaded does not make it false.

    Which is exactly why I’m also a Teapot Agnostic. Are you? ::rolls eyes::

  14. I am not sure how to interject this, but it might be useful to note that science starts from a position of ignorance. Through empiricism and the scientific method, science then does its best to discard the wrong answers. To my mind science is concerned as much with eliminating wrong answers as it is with finding the right answers.

    Theism begins with the presupposition of absolute knowledge and waits until something chips away at that knowledge to demonstrate it to be wrong.

    The latter is a recipe for being wrong most of the time.

    “Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.” — Thomas Jefferson

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: