Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nagirrac · 26-02-2013 5:25pm

Zombrex wrote: »

The science in your post has literally nothing to do with what you claim are the "implications" of the science.

Perhaps ask Bell, after all all of this is an implication from his theory, right?

There are three aspects to my post on Bell's theory. One is the science, two is the implications of the science, and three is my speculation. It appears you accept the science, do not understand the implications of the science, and are outraged by my speculations. I have no interest in convincing you of my speculations as you have no interest in moving from your rigid scientism. I would encourage you however to read up on what Bell's theory is telling us, and try and understand what a universe where every concept we had of local realism has been shattered.

Unfortunately I cannot ask Bell as he died tragically in 1990, the year he was nominated for a Nobel prize.

marienbad · 26-02-2013 5:38pm

nagirrac wrote: »

The appropriate response on the God question is that the objective evidence from science tells us nothing. Have you read the God Delusion? Do you not think Dawkins is making an argument to try and prove the non-existance of God using science? A careful reading of his book demonstrates he uses science selectively, and picks and chooses to make his argument. He is as entitled to peddle his worldview as anyone, but unfotunately a lot of people interpret him as an authority on the God question, when he clearly is not.

What atheists on this forum need to at least attempt to understand is that knowledge comes from both objective (externally measured) and subjective (internally experienced) sources. There is absolutely no compelling evidence to claim objective sources are more valid, given we don't even know if our objective reality is actual reality. Thats was my point in bringing up Bell's theory, it proves that actual reality is very different to how we observe it. It is very difficult to wrap your head around what a non-local reality is, that all models of local realism are incompatible with the most solid and unshaken scientific theory in the history of science..

There is a very strong argument to be made that our subjective experience is more valid than our objective observations. This is where the discussion should be, and not arguments over who owns science.

Jeez, you probably don't mean it or even realize it but could you tone down the condescension just a little- thanks. And secondly I have no interest in discussing Dawkins . You keep pulling these names - Dawkins Popper Bell - like rabbits out of a hat, but as far as i can see ( which I admit is fairly limited) have no relevance to the discussion. All you are doing is setting up these strawman arguments and then in your own mind knocking them down.

It would appear to me that you have come to the belief in the existance of a deity through faith,intuition , fitting a worldview whatever and are working from that leap of faith to reconcile that view with science.

All the rest of it , local non local subjective objective is really just gobbledigook irrelevancies. Surely science strictly speaking has nothing to say on God - why would it ? It is the co-opting of science by non science individuals and organisations that has created this false dichotomy.

Fanny Cradock · 26-02-2013 5:54pm

marienbad wrote: »

Jeez, you probably don't mean it or even realize it but could you tone down the condescension just a little- thanks. And secondly I have no interest in discussing Dawkins . You keep pulling these names - Dawkins Popper Bell - like rabbits out of a hat, but as far as i can see ( which I admit is fairly limited) have no relevance to the discussion. All you are doing is setting up these strawman arguments and then in your own mind knocking them down.

It would appear to me that you have come to the belief in the existance of a deity through faith,intuition , fitting a worldview whatever and are working from that leap of faith to reconcile that view with science.

All the rest of it , local non local subjective objective is really just gobbledigook irrelevancies. Surely science strictly speaking has nothing to say on God - why would it ? It is the co-opting of science by non science individuals and organisations that has created this false dichotomy.

Whatever about condescension you did actually ask for a name and received it. Stating that you have no interest in discussing Dawkins seems to come a little late in the day.

I see no problem with scientific data being used to shore up any particular religious claim or even undermine it. Would you disagree with this? Also, what false dichotomy are you speaking of?

tommy2bad · 26-02-2013 6:02pm

Originally Posted by marienbad;
It is the co-opting of science by non science individuals and organisations that has created this false dichotomy.

An so we get creationism, I.D. and their mirror images fundamentalist Islam. This is a purely modern phenomena, I doubt anyone before the 19th century ever though of God as something to be proven, it was something you believed or didn't.
Now we are stuck with the 'godddidit'* versus 'physicsdidit' and it is not about that an never was. Who did it isn't the point of faith unless that faith is only a way to control the 'it' in which case it's not faith it's magic.

*handy little term 'goddidit'

marienbad · 26-02-2013 6:07pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Whatever about condescension you did actually ask for a name and received it. Stating that you have no interest in discussing Dawkins seems to come a little late in the day.

I see no problem with scientific data being used to shore up any particular religious claim or even undermine it. Would you disagree with this? Also, what false dichotomy are you speaking of?

I assumed the poster was referring to names on here , maybe I was mistaken and if so fine.

Scientific data is used for everything or should be , it is the selective use, the deliberate misquoting , the supression of, that I have a problem with.

nagirrac · 26-02-2013 6:50pm

marienbad wrote: »

It would appear to me that you have come to the belief in the existance of a deity through faith,intuition , fitting a worldview whatever and are working from that leap of faith to reconcile that view with science.

All the rest of it , local non local subjective objective is really just gobbledigook irrelevancies. Surely science strictly speaking has nothing to say on God - why would it ? It is the co-opting of science by non science individuals and organisations that has created this false dichotomy.

Sorry if it sounded condescending, it certainly was not my intention.

Why would you limit the co-opting of science to non-science individuals? That is my point, co-opting science is done by many scientists as well as non-scientists, on both sides of the fence. Have you not read anything by theistic scientists who argue science demonstrates their beliefs are correct? Sorry for throwing out more names but Bernard Haisch and Gerald Schroeder spring to mind. We can certainly debate their beliefs but we can't dismiss or deny that they are scientists.

What do you think Dawkins, a scientist, is doing other than co-opting science in his anti-theistic ranting? He has convinced millions of people, in particular non-scientists, that science proves the non existance of God. I speak to lots of young people as I have teenage children and I would say 80% of those I have speak to regard The God Delusion as their bible. I think that's tragic as they have never and perhaps will never even consider the possibility of God, as their superficial reading of the book (if they have read it at all) convinced them there is no God and we live in a purposeless universe.

I am a scientist and willingly admit I co-opt science to fit my worldview when it comes to my beliefs. I try and reason what science is telling me in the context of my beliefs, along with what I both objectively and subjectively observe. I think thats what every person does who considers the question posed in this thread. My beliefs have little to do with faith however as I do not identify with any particular religion.

Pushtrak · 26-02-2013 7:01pm

I wasn't really involved in the discussion, but allow me to say something on this co-opting science bit. To me, it isn't using science to argue a position. I see it as a person who isn't a scientist using science to argue a point, or someone who is a scientist but is speaking on a field outside their area of expertise. With this view, co-opting science can be a good or bad thing.

Depending on how honest the facts are being presented, firstly, but also how well informed the person doing so is so they can even be honest with an actual view of the facts. An ignorant person can not be true to the science even with the best of intentions. When you see young earth scientists who are working in a field that would give them no specialized knowledge on how old the planet or universe is, that is them co-opting science, for instance.

Dawkins discusses biology, as it is his field. I don't see how he could co-opt science (when discussing that field).

nagirrac · 26-02-2013 7:24pm

Pushtrak wrote: »

Dawkins discusses biology, as it is his field. I don't see how he could co-opt science (when discussing that field).

Dawkins discusses far more than biology in the God Delusion, but I generally agree with your point that scientists commenting on science outside their field have more credibility than non-scientists. Credibility on subject matter outside science, such as theology or arguments in favor of or against the concept of God, is another matter entirely.

There is no science to back up young earth creationist claims.

Fanny Cradock · 26-02-2013 7:34pm

Pushtrak wrote: »

Dawkins discusses biology, as it is his field. I don't see how he could co-opt science (when discussing that field).

Because some people use their understanding of science to make claims that lie beyond science. This can't be said to be wrong but it should be acknowledged.

Pushtrak · 26-02-2013 7:40pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Dawkins discusses far more than biology in the God Delusion

While I have a copy, it has been a long time since I read it. The quality of what he has to say, then, isn't really something I can speak on.

but I generally agree with your point that scientists commenting on science outside their field have more credibility than non-scientists.

Well, yes, but you do have to have a grain of salt approach too. Just an example that comes to the top of my head, PZ Myers was talking to someone in some random vid somewhere, and the stuff he was saying on astronomy... Well, it isn't his field, so he isn't going to be expected to talk well on the subject.

There is no science to back up young earth creationist claims.

Indeed, and that is when you get dishonest co-opting. There may be those who honestly believe that which they are peddling, but there surely are those who know better, but are just spreading disinformation for whatever reason, be it they think it's for the greater good, personal profit or anything else.

tommy2bad · 26-02-2013 8:22pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because some people use their understanding of science to make claims that lie beyond science. This can't be said to be wrong but it should be acknowledged.

It kind of is wrong, it's a form of lieing at worst and an appeal to authority at it's most innocent. Either way it's dishonest.

marienbad · 26-02-2013 9:07pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Sorry if it sounded condescending, it certainly was not my intention.

Why would you limit the co-opting of science to non-science individuals? That is my point, co-opting science is done by many scientists as well as non-scientists, on both sides of the fence. Have you not read anything by theistic scientists who argue science demonstrates their beliefs are correct? Sorry for throwing out more names but Bernard Haisch and Gerald Schroeder spring to mind. We can certainly debate their beliefs but we can't dismiss or deny that they are scientists.

What do you think Dawkins, a scientist, is doing other than co-opting science in his anti-theistic ranting? He has convinced millions of people, in particular non-scientists, that science proves the non existance of God. I speak to lots of young people as I have teenage children and I would say 80% of those I have speak to regard The God Delusion as their bible. I think that's tragic as they have never and perhaps will never even consider the possibility of God, as their superficial reading of the book (if they have read it at all) convinced them there is no God and we live in a purposeless universe.

I am a scientist and willingly admit I co-opt science to fit my worldview when it comes to my beliefs. I try and reason what science is telling me in the context of my beliefs, along with what I both objectively and subjectively observe. I think thats what every person does who considers the question posed in this thread. My beliefs have little to do with faith however as I do not identify with any particular religion.

I don't want to limit science at all , it is the misuse of science I have a problem with. You can use science all you want to justify, explain , make sense of, whatever worldview you want , and the best of luck to you.
And I really don't care one iota . You can't prove the existance of a deity and I can't disprove it to your satisfaction . If you could it would not be called faith, it would be called science.

But the problem for me begins ( as tommy2bad alluded to in post 5855 , If I read it correctly) when organisations or individuals begin to co-opt selectively science for their own ends. And this is even not that big a deal as long as they keep it to themselves.

And this is the central issue, when organisations misuse science to bolster their arguments in the public sphere and in public policy. And we have a long history of this be it the tobacco industry ,oil and coal companies , religious organisations , political ideologues .

Dawkins et al (imho) are just a reaction to the rise of religious fundamentalism we have witnessed in the last 50 years. And while he may at times come across as a hysterical ould nag he and his ilk are essential to provide some balance in the general discourse .

Just as an aside,as regards the tragic nature of kids and The God Delusion , why so ? I would hope they will read more than One Book in forming their worldview.

J C · 26-02-2013 9:27pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

An so we get creationism, I.D. and their mirror images fundamentalist Islam.

I strongly object to your comparison of mainstream Christians and other montheists, including moderate Muslims who are Creationists to fundamentalist Islam.
For anybody who wishes to argue that Christians who are Creationists aren't mainstream Christians ... can I quote from article 2 of the Forum's Charter
Quote:-
"2. For the purposes of this board 'Christian' means broad assent to historic Christian belief such as is contained in the Apostles' Creed. ."

The first statement in the Apostles' Creed is ... "I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord."

J C · 26-02-2013 9:35pm

marienbad wrote: »

I don't want to limit science at all , it is the misuse of science I have a problem with. You can use science all you want to justify, explain , make sense of, whatever worldview you want , and the best of luck to you.
And I really don't care one iota . You can't prove the existance of a deity and I can't disprove it to your satisfaction . If you could it would not be called faith, it would be called science.

But the problem for me begins ( as tommy2bad alluded to in post 5855 , If I read it correctly) when organisations or individuals begin to co-opt selectively science for their own ends. And this is even not that big a deal as long as they keep it to themselves.

And this is the central issue, when organisations misuse science to bolster their arguments in the public sphere and in public policy. And we have a long history of this be it the tobacco industry ,oil and coal companies , religious organisations , political ideologues .

Dawkins et al (imho) are just a reaction to the rise of religious fundamentalism we have witnessed in the last 50 years. And while he may at times come across as a hysterical ould nag he and his ilk are essential to provide some balance in the general discourse .

Just as an aside,as regards the tragic nature of kids and The God Delusion , why so ? I would hope they will read more than One Book in forming their worldview.

The truth is that both Atheists and Theists are using science to support their respective worldviews.
Atheists have, for a long time, co-opted science to their cause of denying the existence of God ... and Theists are increasingly finding that science can prove the existence of an intelligence(s) of Divine orders of magnitude.

Throughout the 'heady days' of the nineteen sixties and seventies it was confidently predicted that science would eventually reach the point where it would be able to definitively answer the question of whether God exists or not ...
... the Atheists smugly assumed that the answer would be in the negative ... I remember this, because many of my Atheist friends, at the time, confidently assumed that this would be the case ... and my Theist friends were much more uncertain and circumspect as to whether the result would be in favour of God or not - and they has a 'back-stop' position that it might not be possible to use science in this manner at all.

The scientific jury has 'come in' on the 'God question' ... but unfortunately for the Atheists, the verdict is in the affirmative ... and the Atheists have gone into denial ... along with quite a number of Theists ... for some inexplicable reason.

nagirrac · 26-02-2013 9:40pm

There is a big difference though between "creationists" who believe that the universe was created by a supernatural entity and "young earth creationists" who believe in a timeline for creation from a literal reading of their scripture. YEC believers are surely a minority among the worldwide population of Christians, Jews and Muslims?

marienbad · 26-02-2013 9:42pm

J C wrote: »

The truth is that both Atheists and Theists are using science to support their respective worldviews.
Atheists have co-opted science to their cause of denying the existence of God ... and Theists are increasingly finding that science can prove the existence of an intelligence(s) of Divine orders of magnitude.

But only one side uses censorship

J C · 26-02-2013 10:01pm

marienbad wrote: »

But only one side uses censorship

Censorship is the last resort for a defeated argument ... so I guess it will be just as ineffectual in protecting Atheism ... as it has been in protecting any other idea whose time has passed its 'sell-by' date down through the centuries.

J C · 26-02-2013 10:05pm

nagirrac wrote: »

There is a big difference though between "creationists" who believe that the universe was created by a supernatural entity and "young earth creationists" who believe in a timeline for creation from a literal reading of their scripture. YEC believers are surely a minority among the worldwide population of Christians, Jews and Muslims?

Leaving the time-line out of it ... and even the time-line isn't an issue for OEC (Old Earth Creationists) ... there are no fundamental differences ... most Creationists are fully-paid up members of all types of mainstream Churches, Synagogues and Mosques worldwide.

marienbad · 26-02-2013 10:13pm

J C wrote: »

Censorship is the last resort for a defeated argument ... so I guess it will be just as ineffectual in protecting Atheism ... as it has been in protecting any other idea whose time has passed its 'sell-by' date down through the centuries.

So why did you use it then

J C · 26-02-2013 10:31pm

marienbad wrote: »

So why did you use it then

Creationists are sometimes the victims of censorship ... and I have never used it.

I welcome openness and the free-exchange of ideas ... it's some Atheists (and some Theists) who want Creationists (and especially their ideas) banned from schools ... and science ... and everywhere else where a ban can be imposed.

J C · 26-02-2013 10:43pm

... anyway God is great and He lives ... and He loves us all ... and this is all that ultimately matters.

marienbad · 26-02-2013 10:45pm

J C wrote: »

Creationists are sometimes the victims of censorship ... and I have never used it.

I welcome openness and the free-exchange of ideas ... it's the Atheists (and some Theists) who want Creationists (and especially their ideas) banned from schools ... and science ... and everywhere else where a ban can be imposed.

Then I suggest you rething your own post number 5864

J C · 26-02-2013 10:52pm

marienbad wrote: »

Then I suggest you rething your own post number 5864

Why?
Objecting to erroneous stereotyping ... and pointing out salient facts is legitimate ... and has nothing to do with censorship.

marienbad · 26-02-2013 11:16pm

J C wrote: »

Why?
Objecting to erroneous stereotyping ... and pointing out salient facts is legitimate ... and has nothing to do with censorship.

That is not what you did though is it ? Instead of adressing the points raised you tried to shut the poster up by invoking the charter.

J C · 26-02-2013 11:30pm

marienbad wrote: »

That is not what you did though is it ? Instead of adressing the points raised you tried to shut the poster up by invoking the charter.

I didn't invoke the Charter ... I merely pointed out the fact that the Charter defines a 'Christian' as having a broad assent to the Apostles' Creed ... and therefore a 'Christian' is by the definition of the Charter a believer in God as Creator of Heaven and Earth.
I agree that the Charter is quite correct that such a broad assent is a basic requirement to be considered a 'Christian'.

marienbad · 26-02-2013 11:32pm

J C wrote: »

I didn't invoke the Charter ... I merely pointed out the fact that the Charter defines a 'Christian' as having a basic adherence to the Apostles' Creed ... and therefore a 'Christian' is by the definition of the Charter a believer in God as Creator of Heaven and Earth.

hair splitting

J C · 26-02-2013 11:42pm

marienbad wrote: »

hair splitting

Its a fact ... and it shows that 'Creationists' aren't the only Christians who believe that God Created Heaven and Earth ... all 'Christians' do so.

J C · 26-02-2013 11:53pm

Goodnight everybody.

Morbert · 26-02-2013 11:58pm

nagirrac wrote: »

There is a very strong argument to be made that our subjective experience is more valid than our objective observations

That position that most atheists, including myself, would find problematic. We believe statements about reality must ultimately be evidenced for others to find them compelling. That reality is quantum mechanical has been comprehensively evidenced. The metaphysical claims of various religions have not.

In fact, I would wager most Christians would not agree with your position above, as literature is full of evidence-based arguments for particular religions. They would presumably disagree with my above statement, and argue that there is indeed evidence for God.

tommy2bad · 27-02-2013 12:12am

Morbert wrote: »

That position that most atheists, including myself, would find problematic. We believe statements about reality must ultimately be evidenced for others to find them compelling. That reality is quantum mechanical has been comprehensively evidenced. The metaphysical claims of various religions have not.

In fact, I would wager most Christians would not agree with your position above, as literature is full of evidence-based arguments for particular religions. They would presumably disagree with my above statement, and argue that there is indeed evidence for God.

Morbert this christian would disagree. I wouldn't disagree that their is evidence of God, I would however disagree that the evidence is the same as empirical evidence we use for science. God isn't for dissection or examination under a microscope.
Theirs more to living than just empirical evidence.
Disagree with niagrac not you

nagirrac · 27-02-2013 2:03am

Morbert wrote: »

That position that most atheists, including myself, would find problematic. We believe statements about reality must ultimately be evidenced for others to find them compelling. That reality is quantum mechanical has been comprehensively evidenced. The metaphysical claims of various religions have not.

In fact, I would wager most Christians would not agree with your position above, as literature is full of evidence-based arguments for particular religions. They would presumably disagree with my above statement, and argue that there is indeed evidence for God.

I agree completely that most Christians would not agree with my position as most Christians base their beliefs on the New Testament and in particular the gospels, and while the texts may not have been written by eye account witnesses they are clearly believed to be handed down from eye witnesses. A minimum for any Christian is to believe in the reality of Jesus Christ as described in the gospels.

However, there is also a strong mystical or subjective tradition in Christianity, both mainstream and fringe. St. Augustine, Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Avila, etc. in mainstream Christianinty and the Christian Gnostic movement.

On QM, I find it hard sometimes to distinguish between physical and metaphysical. Clearly the basic theories of QM have been supported by very solid physical evidence, but many of the interpretations e.g. Everett's many worlds, are highly metaphysical. How do you interpret Bell's theorem without getting into the metaphysical?

Brian Shanahan · 27-02-2013 1:04pm

J C wrote: »

Censorship is the last resort for a defeated argument

No wonder ye creationists are so fond of it.

Zombrex · 27-02-2013 3:33pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

No fear, just caution about the knowability of what we call reality.
I am assuming we are discussing the limits of knowledge rather than the existence of anything at all.
I brought up love, justice, hate, stuff we take for granted as existing but when subjected to examination all we can 'measure' is behavior. Behavior of people, chemicals whatever. (Yes, Brian Shanahan, their are actual studies and experiments you could have linked to). What we prove the existence of isn't love or hate though, it's a set of phenomena. We can repeat the same 'measurement' for religious experience and as easily prove the existence of God.
See how it gets stupid?

You appear to be assuming that "love", "justice" etc exist some how externally to human behaviour? Based on what?

Love is an English word describing a human emotion that humans experience.

Justice is an English world describing a human notion of correct behaviour

etc.

There is no reason, nor need, to assert or assume anything beyond this, nor do I think anyone actually does.

As for God, we can certainly study the human behaviour of belief in God, and we do. What we have found does not point to anything external to human behaviour either.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Why is it that atheists will accept love hate justice mercy as 'real' yet refuse the same acknowledgment to God?

Love hate justice etc are real. They are really human emotions, behaviors and opinions. People fall in love with each other. people hate each other. People think some things are just, and others are not just. All this is studied as part of anthropology.

And I think you would have to go a far way to find an atheist who didn't accept humans believe in gods.

Zombrex · 27-02-2013 3:37pm

lmaopml wrote: »

He/She did say that it was merely his 'speculation' - not a fact, not presented as a fact.

That is not the point, they have nothing to do with each other. His post would have made as much sense as if he said the implications of Bell's theory was that his girlfriend was cheating on him, not a fact just an implication. Er no not even that.

lmaopml wrote: »

I would have more sympathy with your post if he was publishing books or presenting his speculation as a 'fact' like say for instance the way some New Age Spiritualists do, or even some scientists..lol... - on the other hand, it's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black imo, you don't see that you are making a statement about God because of your philosophy and worldview and indeed equate it loosely with scientific fact too.

You are confusing making a statement about theism (which I most certainly am) and making a statement about God. I appreciate that often it is very difficult for theists to tell the difference, since you seem to just assume the existence of your god, but I assure you the two things are different.

lmaopml wrote: »

I think this is what Hawkins may have been talking about - it's like running amok, and instead of enjoying the incredible beauty around us in nature, to try to overextend 'what' we know and put something into it as fact that doesn't add to it, and that it really has nothing to say about in the first place.

You can enjoy the beauty of nature all you like, what I don't get is why you feel the need to enjoy the beauty of nature while asserting God exists.

Nature is not beautiful enough on its own for you?

Zombrex · 27-02-2013 3:42pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Using quantum physics to "prove" god is as valid as using quantum physics to "prove" homeopathy. Quantum is often used by people who don't understand any science in order to "back up" their gibberish, because quantum physics have often been publicly described as weird.

”As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means anything can happen at any time for no reason!"
Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

Quantum physics is the go to for any wacky or unsupported idea a super-naturalist wises to justify. Don't have a clue how your crazy idea is supposed to work, just invoke quantum physics and when someone asks you to explain in maybe a bit more detail, just explain to them that no one understands quantum physics.

One used to invoke magic or a miracle when they wanted to justify something they couldn't actually explain, now it is quantum physics. Though telling nagirrac called it "magic", which frankly speaks volumes.

Zombrex · 27-02-2013 3:50pm

nagirrac wrote: »

There are three aspects to my post on Bell's theory. One is the science, two is the implications of the science, and three is my speculation. It appears you accept the science, do not understand the implications of the science, and are outraged by my speculations.

What you claim are the implications of Bell's theory are not the implications of Bell's theory. They are just some nonsense you made up, I'm in two minds as to whether you just don't understand Bell's theory or you frankly don't care about understanding it and are just happy there is another weird quantum effect that you can hang your nonsense on.

Either way, I wouldn't say I'm outraged, but I certainly am annoyed that you would take the work of this fine scientist and try and coat tail your nonsense on the back of it, without any justification or explanation.

Find me a reputable scientist who agrees with your assessment of what the implications of Bell's theory is.

Zombrex · 27-02-2013 3:55pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Theirs more to living than just empirical evidence.

You might want to tell that to the guy who build a "plane" out of chicken feathers and crashed into the English channel off the cliffs of Dover.

It is easy to say such vacuous fortune cookie things because you have the comfort of being surrounded by scientists who work day in and day out making sure all your medicines, your machines, your computers, your cars etc work as expected.

That gives you the freedom to believe any nonsense you want, and say there is more to life than empirical evidence.

It frankly doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, and as such it doesn't matter if you can support your beliefs, because you have the privilege and comfort of being surrounded by people for who it does matter, and you get your toaster from them rather than building your own, you get your car from them rather than building your own, you get your medicines from them rather than building your own.

lmaopml · 27-02-2013 4:05pm

You're a live wire today Zombre. Go stick the kettle on and make yourself a nice toasted sandwich or you might require a defribrillator after bursting a gasket

nagirrac · 27-02-2013 4:37pm

Zombrex wrote: »

What you claim are the implications of Bell's theory are not the implications of Bell's theory. They are just some nonsense you made up,
Find me a reputable scientist who agrees with your assessment of what the implications of Bell's theory is.

There are a sum total of zero theoretical physicists who would disagree with what I have said about the implications of Bell's theory. The fact you would even say that demonstrates you do not "get" what quantum physics is telling us. The fact that morbert who knows his physics has not come on here and refuted my earlier discussion on the implkications of Bell's theory, with the obvious exception of the God bit, should be a hint.

Quantum physics is weird enough without anyone speculating on it or attaching it to beliefs in God or New Age ideas. Why do you think the most brilliant mind in the 20th century could not accept its implications? Einstein could not accept the fact that what we think of as local realism was incorrect. Bell set out to prove Einstein right, not prove Quantum theory right. He was trying to find hidden variables that would explain away the weirdness of QM. He didn't find any, and in fact proved in a most profound way that there cannot be any. Hundreds of physical experiments, since Bell's theory in 1964, have verified this and even gone further in proving that entanglement exists even if the particles involved in the experiment were not entangled earlier in the experiment.

Bell's theory starts from the premise that everything we observe as natural phenomena (everything we measure in the world we observe) can be described in theories in the context of realism. The predictions of these theories must differ from QM to validate realism. He designed an ingenious experiment to test his theory. In every case, including the hundreds of experiments ran since Bell, local realism is refuted in favor of QM.

What you may mean by reputable scientists is scientists in other fields, and here you are correct, working scientists in other fields do not consider the implications of QM or Bell's theory. If they did they would have to abandon their realistic philosophy that all their empirical science is based on.

Morbert · 27-02-2013 4:56pm

nagirrac, what specifically do you mean by "realism" in this case?

tommy2bad · 27-02-2013 5:02pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You appear to be assuming that "love", "justice" etc exist some how externally to human behaviour? Based on what?

Love is an English word describing a human emotion that humans experience.

Justice is an English world describing a human notion of correct behaviour

etc.

There is no reason, nor need, to assert or assume anything beyond this, nor do I think anyone actually does.

As for God, we can certainly study the human behaviour of belief in God, and we do. What we have found does not point to anything external to human behaviour either.

Love hate justice etc are real. They are really human emotions, behaviors and opinions. People fall in love with each other. people hate each other. People think some things are just, and others are not just. All this is studied as part of anthropology.

And I think you would have to go a far way to find an atheist who didn't accept humans believe in gods.

First bit in bold;
Answering for myself here so don't all the theists jump on me, I never claimed it did! I believe it dose but that isn't something I would use to decide between an android or OSX or win8 os.
Second bit; But I couldn't throw a stone without hitting an atheist who denies that humans experience God!

tommy2bad · 27-02-2013 5:08pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You might want to tell that to the guy who build a "plane" out of chicken feathers and crashed into the English channel off the cliffs of Dover.

It is easy to say such vacuous fortune cookie things because you have the comfort of being surrounded by scientists who work day in and day out making sure all your medicines, your machines, your computers, your cars etc work as expected.

That gives you the freedom to believe any nonsense you want, and say there is more to life than empirical evidence.

It frankly doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, and as such it doesn't matter if you can support your beliefs, because you have the privilege and comfort of being surrounded by people for who it does matter, and you get your toaster from them rather than building your own, you get your car from them rather than building your own, you get your medicines from them rather than building your own.

For god sake, your sounding like some unfunny version of Sheldon now.
I''m so grateful to science and those that practice it for all the things you mentioned, as grateful as I am to the writers painters and composers for their contribution to the experience my life is to me.

Talk about scientism in the flesh, your constant preaching how science and only science contribute to life...?

nagirrac · 27-02-2013 5:23pm

Morbert wrote: »

nagirrac, what specifically do you mean by "realism" in this case?

The classical mechanics meaning of "realism" i.e. local realism.

The realism of objects that that have a pre-existing value before we measure them and that are only influenced by their immediate surroundings. The realism that is rejected by the Copenhagen Interpretation (developed long before Bell but soundly endorsed by Bell), that is still the view held by the majority of theoretical physicists.

Morbert · 27-02-2013 7:06pm

nagirrac wrote: »

The classical mechanics meaning of "realism" i.e. local realism.

The realism of objects that that have a pre-existing value before we measure them and that are only influenced by their immediate surroundings. The realism that is rejected by the Copenhagen Interpretation (developed long before Bell but soundly endorsed by Bell), that is still the view held by the majority of theoretical physicists.

Ok. But then I should point out that this is distinct from the more common, metaphysical definition of realism. The Copenhagen interpretation, for example, does not say a system is brought into existence by a measurement. The systems is very much a real, mind-independent entity. It simply says the system is not necessarily an eigenstate of dynamical variables like momentum or position.

philologos · 27-02-2013 7:32pm

Morbert wrote: »

That position that most atheists, including myself, would find problematic. We believe statements about reality must ultimately be evidenced for others to find them compelling. That reality is quantum mechanical has been comprehensively evidenced. The metaphysical claims of various religions have not.

In fact, I would wager most Christians would not agree with your position above, as literature is full of evidence-based arguments for particular religions. They would presumably disagree with my above statement, and argue that there is indeed evidence for God.

Well, considering that nagirrac is a deist rather than a Christian we're going to disagree naturally.

The question is God an objective God. From my point of view if we are talking about A) objective reality rather than

subjectivity / postmodern ideology then there should be objective reasons to believe and trust in Him. A lot of Christians myself included would point to the eyewitness accounts that we have concerning the life of Jesus.

That's why I've been challenging nagirrac to tell us a bit more about what he thinks about Jesus Christ as opposed to making deistic arguments against atheism.

Technically deism is a form of atheism, because deism is not theism.

lazygal · 27-02-2013 7:47pm

The notion of god was something I fell for as an impressionable child. I don't blame my parents, sure doing the Irish Catholic thing was the norm. I just realized in secondary school how silly the idea of a man in the sky keeping tabs on me at all times while never showing his face was, and I grew out of believing in any sort of God. Haven't been punished so far. Planning on educating our children that some people fall for the man in the sky stuff but not our family.

nagirrac · 27-02-2013 8:24pm

Morbert wrote: »

Ok. But then I should point out that this is distinct from the more common, metaphysical definition of realism. The Copenhagen interpretation, for example, does not say a system is brought into existence by a measurement. The systems is very much a real, mind-independent entity. It simply says the system is not necessarily an eigenstate of dynamical variables like momentum or position.

I'll have to come back to this later but my understanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that the system is a range of probabilities and a measurement gives rise to a specific eigenstate. The measurement does not have to involve a mind directly.

Meanwhile, what do you think of what I wrote in earlier posts regarding interpreting Bell's theorem and that it's proofs demonstrates that QM violates classical physics not just at the subatomic level but at the macro level.

J C · 27-02-2013 9:11pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No wonder ye creationists are so fond of it.

... we're victims of censorship ... not practitioners of it.:(

J C · 27-02-2013 9:16pm

philologos wrote: »

Technically deism is a form of atheism, because deism is not theism.

Deists are certainly Theists ... and some even claim to be liberal Christians ... some Theistic Evolutionists (who claim that God 'got the ball rolling' at the Big Bang ... and the Laws that God produced then ... took it from there) are technically Deists.

Quote Wikipedia:-
Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which Deists regard with caution if not skepticism.
Deism does not ascribe any specific qualities to a deity beyond non-intervention. Deism is related to naturalism because it credits the formation of life and the universe to a higher power, using only natural processes. Deism may also include a spiritual element, involving experiences of God and nature.

philologos · 27-02-2013 9:20pm

J C wrote: »

Deists are certainly Theists ... and some even claim to be Christians ... many Theistic Evolutionists (who claim that God 'got the ball rolling' at the Big Bang ... and the Laws that God produced then ... took it from there) are Deists.

I don't know:

Theism:

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world

Deism:

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

By the by, I don't agree that theistic evolutionists are deists. Christians who are theistic evolution don't believe that God did a runner, and they believe that God is living and active in creation.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments