Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

One more time.

Science doesn't make any claims whatsoever in relation to God.

Secondly, Science is not a 'thing' or a 'person' that says something - it's a method a tool for understanding the nature of the universe, a field of discovery, nobody owns it, they use it to find out information.

Thirdly, the 'people' that make up the scientific community have 'worldviews' that they have arrived at using their 'reason', and they are not all Atheists like your good self.

Fourthly the methods for using our 'reason' that ALL of these people use, including yourself, are used both in relation to discovery when using a scientific method as they are in arriving at our 'worldviews'.

Your worldview seems to be an odd type of scientism - that almost personifies it in some strange God like fashion that needs to be defended from the strawman God that you have created in your head. Which quite frankly I find abrasive as it is odd, it's like Spock gone wrong with a keyboard.

lmaopml wrote: »

You really don't get it. Science 'DOES' use that kind of thought, people CAN think in the abstract, something CAN be both ON and OFF, and not only in the binary, otherwise there would be no progress using the 'Scentific' Method. Patterns, spacial awareness, the abstract, the math, what's observable lead to research etc. that leads to more research....

I'm not sure if you don't understand the question or you are just ignoring it. I imagine it is the latter.

If you can know with confidence that God exists and is how Christianity claims, why can science not have the same confidence in this knowledge.

Why is God not part of the model attempting to describe everything we know about what exists. If you can know God exists and is God rather than say Zeus or Baal, why is that knowledge part of the grand collection of scientific knowledge.

How can you know this with confidence, but the same methods you used to know this cannot be used in science.

You know he exists. All the Christians here know he exists. Should he not be included in a scientific list of the things we know exist? Science knows electrons exist. It knows pulsars exist. God is not found in this list, but you know he exists.

You have flip flopped from saying science is concerned with truth so it has nothing to say about God, to saying a moment ago that science does use all these thing (which isn't true)

I imagine you are just knee jerking out responses without thinking properly about what you are being asked. To save me having to ask again consider the question properly this time. Science is a method for discovering knowledge about the reality around us, knowledge we can have confidence in. You believe God exists, that is knowledge and you have confidence in it. Yet for some reason science has nothing about God in it. If you can be confident in this knowledge why is that the case?

Zombrex wrote: »

What? God's existence isn't true? Are you secretly any atheist.

Whether God exists or not is a true or false question about reality. Whether the universe was created is a true or false question about reality. Whether that creator is the Christian god is a true or false question about reality. Whether Jesus rose from the dead is a true or false question about reality.

Some how you and other Christians have decided the answers to those questions is true and you, I imagine, have confidence in that answer.

So again why can science not use this or the method you used to arrive at these conclusions, given that all science is interested in is an accurate concept of how reality really is.

Edit: And just to clarify 'Science' doesn't use anything, it's not a 'thing' in and of itself, it's a LOT of diverse people working together in order to seek truth. A method, a tool, and it's for everybody to get excited about.

If you can have confidence in the truth of these things, why can't science?

You really don't get it. Science 'DOES' use that kind of thought, people CAN think in the abstract, something CAN be both ON and OFF, and not only in the binary, otherwise there would be no progress using the 'Scentific' Method. Patterns, spacial awareness, the abstract, the math, what's observable lead to research etc. that leads to more research....

It's just that your particular way of rationalising your 'worldview' as 'above' anothers, is limited to empirical evidence by deduction - which is fine, you can do that if you want to and it will serve a purpose no doubt for you, but you cannot demonstrate without defeating yourself that your idea of how knowledge is garnered is limited to your extremely narrow philosophy - and that's what it is, it's a philosophy, a binary one.

The 'God' that you often refute is a strawman, and NOT the one that Christians believe in for very good reasons, because they followed the trail, they searched, they observed, they followed that worldview and are convinced - you are just going to have to get over it I think and use the bridges the engineers built.

lmaopml wrote: »

Very simply, because science is in search for the 'truth' of the nature of our universe, follows the leads where they go, and so it should, and so it does and has positively nothing to 'say' about God. It just gives us a better understanding and appreciation for the intricate beauty around us......and Christians CAN and do appreciate that, and can and are and always have been scientists.

God is not now, and never will be under a microscope, or telescope.

What? God's existence isn't true? Are you secretly any atheist.

Whether God exists or not is a true or false question about reality. Whether the universe was created is a true or false question about reality. Whether that creator is the Christian god is a true or false question about reality. Whether Jesus rose from the dead is a true or false question about reality.

Some how you and other Christians have decided the answers to those questions is true and you, I imagine, have confidence in that answer.

So again why can science not use this or the method you used to arrive at these conclusions, given that all science is interested in is an accurate concept of how reality really is.

If you can have confidence in the truth of these things, why can't science?

Zombrex wrote: »

You keep not answering the question I've put to you.

Why, if these other methods of discerning accurate information about the reality around us work just as well, does science not incorporate them?

Very simply, because science is in search for the 'truth' of the nature of our universe, follows the leads where they go, and so it should, and so it does and has positively nothing to 'say' about God. It just gives us a better understanding and appreciation for the intricate beauty around us......and Christians CAN and do appreciate that, and can and are and always have been scientists.

God is not now, and never will be under a microscope, or telescope.

Most Christians that I know only go so far to say that there is a Creator and we can only view the beauty of the canvass which tells us something about him......It's astonishingly beautiful - They 'don't' insert the Almight God into the Universe, and they certainly don't limit him, make him small enough to fit into tiny little gaps of knowledge -

Some people 'may' do this, but then some 'people' who are scientists go around giving it gas...Everybody else just watches and then all the crash generalisations come out on both sides, which is the way of the world I guess.

Zombrex wrote: »

I imagine you think that is some sort of gotcha, but yes you actually can. An example would be one of my common sayings in this forum, 1 theory of electromagnetism 40,000 religions.

No, I don't think it is a gotcha. That's why I ASKED A QUESTION. You obviously walk into this forum with your fists raised ready a fight. To be honest, in the past I was probably up for trading blows but not so much nowadays. I prefer to shake the dust from my sandals. So if all you can muster are mean-spirited responses such your last post then please don't expect me to respond. My sandals are awaitin' a shake.

Why I asked my question was because logical positivism - which actually employs empiricism - fell because it failed it own test. It couldn't live up to it's own standard. And despite being amongst the philosophy's chief promoters, A. J. Ayre recognised this when it was pointed out to him in a debate. Afterwards he said all philosophical systems should first pass their own standards.

I actually still don't see an answer to my question. And it is a question, not a "gotcha". So, again, and asked in honest curiosity, how do you demonstrate empirically that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence?

I'm curious myself Fanny, why do you think it necessary to rely on empirical measurement in some areas but not others.

I imagine you are a Christian because of something along the lines of it makes sense to you. Would you be happy if the engineers building a bridge worked on the same principle? Making the bridge as the went along based on what made sense to them, rather than empirically measuring the requirements?

Why ask me and then answer for me?

I'm happy to rely on empirical measurement (why are we talking about measurement now?) when it comes to aeroplanes and bridges. I never said otherwise. But empirical measurement is not in the same ballpark as your claim that empirical evidence is the only type of evidence. There are some recognised problems with the latter. For example, it is argued that logic and mathematical concepts are innate and rational intuitions.

If you wouldn't be happy with that, because they would probably get it wrong and the bridge would collapse, why are you happy with what ever method you used to be a Christian?

Is it simple a case that you dont really know if you are right it just doesn't matter if you are wrong, a bridge is not going to fall over.

I don't understand what you are saying.

lmaopml wrote: »

Zombrex, who said EVERYBODY in this particular case IS disregarding 'important scientific principles' ? The only person that says that happens is YOU, not he, not I, not very many people. YOU are making a judgement call on everybody that believes in God and uses a toaster -

The problem here is that YOU only value with your 'Worldview' one type of reasoning 'deductive' and YOU are the one that is disposing of a key type of reasoning, (but only when it suits) that contributes to the 'Scientific Method' and that's called 'inductive' reasoning, pattern, abstract forms and thoughts etc. - there would be no theoretical physics and multiverse interpretations of scientific data without it.

BOTH are rational types of reasoning - it's you that have limited yourself, not anybody else.

I will grant that if people start twisting or misreprenting scientific test data in order to establish their worldview, and package, rap it, and sell it as fact, than they are and should be refuted - the example you mentioned was Deepak Chopra who is a con artist imo.

However, you have NOT now, or ever shown that God cannot be known by inductive reasoning, and that a 'Creator' exists, and a beginning exists, with unbelievably massive fine tuning - and that indeed science with it's many fields has actually only 'contributed' to the understanding of the astonishing fine tuned faboulous universe we actually live in. That's a mathematic 'FACT'.

You have decided in the chance of such an existence, a Goldilocks room, and that's fine, but you don't like the idea being put back on you that 'chance' has BECOME your God and it's merely using the same logic that applies in the evidence for faith that is 'inductive' reasoning, which is patently unfair and a little dishonest of you.

You keep not answering the question I've put to you.

Why, if these other methods of discerning accurate information about the reality around us work just as well, does science not incorporate them?

Zombrex wrote: »

Contribution to life, what ever that means, is not the issue. We are discussing contribution to knowledge, specifically knowledge about the true nature of reality, what exists and does exist and how things are.

You have the freedom to disregard important scientific principles in order to speculate about the existence of God, Jesus or what ever safe in the knowledge that while you are disregarding or ignoring these principles the guy building your bridge, or the doctor operating on you, or the engineer building your computer wont be. Yet you never seem to ask yourself if it is ok for you why is it not ok for him. Well cause the bridge would fall down.

It's the hypocracy I can't stand

Zombrex, who said EVERYBODY in this particular case IS disregarding 'important scientific principles' ? The only person that says that happens is YOU, not he, not I, not very many people. YOU are making a judgement call on everybody that believes in God and uses a toaster -

The problem here is that YOU only value with your 'Worldview' one type of reasoning 'deductive' and YOU are the one that is disposing of a key type of reasoning, (but only when it suits) that contributes to the 'Scientific Method' and that's called 'inductive' reasoning, pattern, abstract forms and thoughts etc. - there would be no theoretical physics and multiverse interpretations of scientific data without it.

BOTH are rational types of reasoning - it's you that have limited yourself, not anybody else.

I will grant that if people start twisting or misreprenting scientific test data in order to establish their worldview, and package, rap it, and sell it as fact, than they are and should be refuted - the example you mentioned was Deepak Chopra who is a con artist imo.

However, you have NOT now, or ever shown that God cannot be known by inductive reasoning, and that a 'Creator' exists, and a beginning exists, with unbelievably massive fine tuning - and that indeed science with it's many fields has actually only 'contributed' to the understanding of the astonishing fine tuned faboulous universe we actually live in. That's a mathematic 'FACT'.

You have decided in the chance of such an existence, a Goldilocks room, and that's fine, but you don't like the idea being put back on you that 'chance' has BECOME your God and it's merely using the same logic that applies in the evidence for faith that is 'inductive' reasoning, which is patently unfair and a little dishonest of you.

tommy2bad wrote: »

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...?

Contribution to life, what ever that means, is not the issue. We are discussing contribution to knowledge, specifically knowledge about the true nature of reality, what exists and does exist and how things are.

You have the freedom to disregard important scientific principles in order to speculate about the existence of God, Jesus or what ever safe in the knowledge that while you are disregarding or ignoring these principles the guy building your bridge, or the doctor operating on you, or the engineer building your computer wont be. Yet you never seem to ask yourself if it is ok for you why is it not ok for him. Well cause the bridge would fall down.

It's the hypocracy I can't stand

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious, Zombrex, can you empirically demonstrate that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence?

I imagine you think that is some sort of gotcha, but yes you actually can. An example would be one of my common sayings in this forum, 1 theory of electromagnetism 40,000 religions.

Do you guys honestly think scientists restrict themselves to empirical measurement just because? No the do it because a few thousand years of human thought has done to the conclusion that it is the only reliable way to gather evidence. If there were better ways, or ways that were just as reliable science would use them too.

It is empirically demonstratable that non-empirical evidence is either wrong as much as it is right or in the case where you cannot tell it is wrong, fails to provide confidence in a belief across the board.

I'm curious myself Fanny, why do you think it necessary to rely on empirical measurement in some areas but not others.

I imagine you are a Christian because of something along the lines of it makes sense to you. Would you be happy if the engineers building a bridge worked on the same principle? Making the bridge as the went along based on what made sense to them, rather than empirically measuring the requirements?

If you wouldn't be happy with that, because they would probably get it wrong and the bridge would collapse, why are you happy with what ever method you used to be a Christian?

Is it simple a case that you dont really know if you are right it just doesn't matter if you are wrong, a bridge is not going to fall over.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious, Zombrex, can you empirically demonstrate that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence?

That's not a trick question, btw.

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

... because He does exist ... and He Created it all ... and He is the only One who can Save us.

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

I accept your thanks ... on behalf of my fellow scientists and myself who do indeed work very hard ... but we're well paid for our work ... and we probably don't work any harder on average than a whole host of other ... equally essential workers within our communities.:)

philologos wrote: »

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.

... there is a continuum of Theistic Evolutionist belief positions right out to God 'lighting the fuse' at the Big Bang ... and Natural Laws taking it from there ...
... I agree that people at this extreme end of the belief continuum, probably wouldn't claim to be Christians at all ... but they are Theists ... and Deists.

lazygal wrote: »

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.

Funnily enough I also reject the notion of a man up in the sky. I know many Chrsitains who do.

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.

I'm curious, Zombrex, can you empirically demonstrate that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence?

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.

Was he trying to 'evolve' flying skills by any chance?:eek:

philologos

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.

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.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No wonder ye creationists are so fond of it.

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

nagirrac

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.

lazygal

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.

philologos

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.

Morbert

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.

nagirrac

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.

tommy2bad

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...?

tommy2bad

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!

Morbert

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

nagirrac

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.