Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

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

J C wrote: »

Censorship is the last resort for a defeated argument

No wonder ye creationists are so fond of it.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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!

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...?

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

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

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

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.

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.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No wonder ye creationists are so fond of it.

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

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

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.

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:

Fanny Cradock

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?

Fanny Cradock

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.

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.

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.:)

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.

Fanny Cradock

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.

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.