That is surely one of the possible interpretation of the current situation. But what is important is what I've said after that part.

I don't have any general disagreement/agreement in what you've said. But just to clear things up.

Well the god-like thing I was talking about is more like an example. There are still some arguments out there that does not consider god as a being but in a form of something else, that is theist and atheist alike. So when I say "one of the possibility", it is just "one" of the several possibility I had in my mind when I think about cases like convergence of ideas. I just chose the one that many people may be familiar with. I would like the discussion to be more general and inclusive of many theories out there.

I agree that religious theists may have more difficulty in adjusting their views in light of new evidence. If the more logical ones of the theists (meaning those who thought themselves out to think that god exist, instead of just blindly believing it) were to see this new evidence, I am quite sure they will adjust their views. That is of course if they are honest, but that goes for atheists too.


Just to note, I actually don't believe that it is necessary that there is a cause to everything. Precisely, I am not saying there doesn't have to be a cause to everything. My view on this "cause and effect" metaphysics thing is more agnostic than anything else. I, myself is an atheist, but I don't necessarily completely reject theism (as long as they are logical).

So the OP is purely based on what I see, as a third-person, of the situation regarding people arguing whether God exist or not. So what I actually think about of the situation regarding God exist or not is irrelevant for now.

The book is too long to read for a little given time I have.

Do you have some short summary of what this new method is?

I agree that science is based on empirical derivation of what can be observed and interpreted from a phenomenon, making it a logical fallacy to believe them to be indisputable truths of the world. Nonetheless, like you said this "empirical derivation" makes good sense, and it works. Not only does it work by itself, but works across many other scientific disciplines and works well. This is true since almost all technological advancement is based on science, and we can actually use them with confidence most of the time. We put faith in what we discover because it works.


So do you suggest you have a better non-fallacious basis that works better? Why would anyone ever come up with questions like "meaning of life" without empirical basis? Science or not, it does not make a difference that we can only come up with questions that are based on what we can experience and interpret from it. Arguments like existence of God is still based on experience because the concept arises from the fact that most of what we experience seemingly have a beginning and our attempt to explain this.