Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

robinph wrote: »

And what are your reasons for believing that there may be alien life out there?

I find it too hard to believe, given the enormous scale of the universe alone, never mind what might lie beyond it, that there is no other life forms out there, physical / spiritual beings or otherwise.

robinph wrote: »

So the reason for believing in god is because the numbers are too big for you to get your head around:

Yet the reason for beleiving that there is alien life on other planets is because the numbers are too big for there not to be:

If it is possible that there is life existing on other planets then why is it not possible for the same thing to have happened in our case? Or is your god responsible in both the case of earth and also the alien planet, just he didn't think to mention it in the bible or to Jesus?

Your two last posts conflict with each other.

I'll ignore the ad hominem and straw manning of the post, and reply to the rest, if you want to go back to the discussion.

Also it's not my God, God exists / does not exist, whether we exist or not.

I don't see how unless you believe God is an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud.
According to Christianity, God is an infinite spirit and source of all things, and there is much we don't know about God or the universe and beyond.

Cen taurus wrote: »

That takes an understanding of what Science is and what it isn't. It's the how, but it doesn't attempt to, or is it able to answer the why.

"Why" in the context you are using it tends to be another of one of the fuzzy concepts Christians like so much, and tends to translate more accurately into a question of 'who' rather than 'why'.

For example, if you ask "Why is there water on the ground" then a scientific answer might be "Because it is raining, and rain droplets have fallen to the ground". You can then go into increasing detail about the process of how and why it rains.

It is at this point a religious believer might chim in with 'Ah but WHY does it rain in the first place'

What this question tends to be code for is actually the question 'Who decided it would rain'.

Some people, particularly believers in religions, have a hard time with any question that doesn't fit into the concept of agency. In other words they assume that every action must have an agent that is ultimately responsible.

So 'why' is more often more accurately 'who'.

Of course the assertion that there is a 'who' in the first place is an unfounded assumption. Science does not deal with a 'who' unless it is demonstrated that there actually is grounds for supposing a 'who' in the first place.

Cen taurus wrote: »

Science can tell you how to make chemical weapons to fertilizer, it won't tell you if you should use them for good or bad.

That is entirely dependent on how you define "good or bad". Once you have defined what good or bad mean to you science can tell you if using fertlizer achieves your goal.

Cen taurus wrote: »

The realm of Science has its own limits, and does not cover many things in life, from art to love to morality to justice, to spirituality, nor does it attempt to.

Actually science covers all of those things. But often not as believers would like it to. This tends to be more a misunderstanding of what these things are than of science. The problem is thinking notions of love, morality, justice etc are anything more than human opinions, a product of our brain chemistry. A disturbing thought for some, but one that is the closest to reality. And which happily fits into scientific thinking.

A question such as "is it moral to drown a dog" becomes a question of "do I as a human hold the opinion that it is immoral to drown a dog", a question that science can and does answer.

Cen taurus wrote: »

Some people believe their partner loves them, some people don't, some people believe love exists, some people don't, some people believe monet is better than van gough, some people don't. Some people believe its ok to kill other people, some people don't. Science is a useful tool, but won't ever answer all the questions.

That is because there is no answer in the way you are framing the question. That is a category error, rather than anything to do with science.

It is like asking is a + 6 greater than 10. The question itself has no meaning, and thus is unanswerable.

It would be silly though to say this is a question science cannot answer, as if this is a limitation of science, rather than a problem of the lack of meaning in the question.

TheLurker wrote: »

"Why" in the context you are using it tends to be another of one of the fuzzy concepts Christians like so much, and tends to translate more accurately into a question of 'who' rather than 'why'.

For example, if you ask "Why is there water on the ground" then a scientific answer might be "Because it is raining, and rain droplets have fallen to the ground". You can then go into increasing detail about the process of how and why it rains.

It is at this point a religious believer might chim in with 'Ah but WHY does it rain in the first place'

What this question tends to be code for is actually the question 'Who decided it would rain'.

Some people, particularly believers in religions, have a hard time with any question that doesn't fit into the concept of agency. In other words they assume that every action must have an agent that is ultimately responsible.

So 'why' is more often more accurately 'who'.

Of course the assertion that there is a 'who' in the first place is an unfounded assumption. Science does not deal with a 'who' unless it is demonstrated that there actually is grounds for supposing a 'who' in the first place.

That is entirely dependent on how you define "good or bad". Once you have defined what good or bad mean to you science can tell you if using fertlizer achieves your goal.

Actually science covers all of those things. But often not as believers would like it to. This tends to be more a misunderstanding of what these things are than of science. The problem is thinking notions of love, morality, justice etc are anything more than human opinions, a product of our brain chemistry. A disturbing thought for some, but one that is the closest to reality. And which happily fits into scientific thinking.

A question such as "is it moral to drown a dog" becomes a question of "do I as a human hold the opinion that it is immoral to drown a dog", a question that science can and does answer.

That is because there is no answer in the way you are framing the question. That is a category error, rather than anything to do with science.

It is like asking is a + 6 greater than 10. The question itself has no meaning, and thus is unanswerable.

It would be silly though to say this is a question science cannot answer, as if this is a limitation of science, rather than a problem of the lack of meaning in the question.

Science, of which I'm very fond of, does not like anyone asking the question "why" . .
It's not designed for why, any more than Mathematics is the correct tool to explain medieval history. Subjects have their domain.

I'll let Richie here explain to you :

Cen taurus wrote: »

Great, what kind of scientific evidence would prove God, and why ?

What kind of scientific tests would you do, would readings would you take ?

I have no idea , how can anyone when we don't have a phenomenon manifesting itself ?

marienbad wrote: »

I would be convinced just like any other discovery put through the scientific method.

Can a scientific method measure something which metaphysical?

hinault wrote: »

Can a scientific method measure something which metaphysical?

That depends on your definition of both measure and metaphysics I would assume .

Again not something I think about much.

marienbad wrote: »

That depends on your definition of both measure and metaphysics I would assume .

Again not something I think about much.

Well it was you who suggested a preference for the scientific method, marien.

When you suggest your preference for a scientific method surely you have some idea of what that methodology might entail?

marienbad wrote: »

I found that poster amusing, informative, and open , such a pity you couldn't be a bit more 'christian' in your attitude.

Absolutely agree.

silverharp wrote: »

"you" , why would an individual trust themselves. the God would need to make itself known to the human collective. You must have asked this question now more than a half of dozen times what point are you trying to make? and what what do you glean from the points made so far?

I ask for the same reason I presume atheists keep asking people why they believe, I'm interested in the responses. What I've gleaned so far is that most people asking for evidence, reasons etc. have never thought about what they would accept, why they would accept it, and why it would be evidence / reason. But everybody is different , some people have thought about it and gave examples of what would change their current belief / non belief, and in most cases so far, it's nothing that can realistically be provided by any believer.

I'd be interested to hear if any other atheists out there have any idea's as to what evidence / reason would change their belief and why.

Cen taurus wrote: »

Science, of which I'm very fond of, does not like anyone asking the question "why" . .
It's not designed for why, any more than Mathematics is the correct tool to explain medieval history. Subjects have their domain.

I'll let Richie here explain to you :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

Er, did you even bother to watch the video?

It is exactly the point I was making. When explaining a why you have to be in some familiar framework, otherwise you will continously be asking why without finding any satisfactory answer because the answer must related to the initial framework from which you started.

Feyman ultimate point is saying that he cannot explain 'why' down to any particular level of detail to lay people because they commonly do not have the education in physics to relate what he is saying to anything they are familiar with, and that by using analogies such as 'rubber bands' is cheating and would just end up raising more questions. His point is that the only thing the behaviour of electrons is like is the behaviour of electrons.

But more generally he makes the same point I did, that the question 'why' is more often than not entirely related to the assumptions of the person asking the question, and the answer will vary as to what satisfies the person asking the question.

He doesn't mention religious believers specifically, but as I said above when a religion person asks 'why' they tend to be actually asking 'who'. Or more specifically when a religious person asks 'why' they are asking in the framework 'what agent made that happen and for what reason'. That is the framework religious people ask the 'why' question in. And they will find any answer outside of that framework unsatisfactory.

Of course that framework is based on a large set of unjustified assumptions, the most glaring being the assumption that every action must ultimately have an intelligent agent behind it who choose the outcome for some reason that humans can related to.

Cen taurus wrote: »

I ask for the same reason I presume atheists keep asking people why they believe, I'm interested in the responses. What I've gleaned so far is that most people asking for evidence, reasons etc. have never thought about what they would accept, why they would accept it, and why it would be evidence / reason. But everybody is different , some people have thought about it and gave examples of what would change their current belief / non belief, and in most cases so far, it's nothing that can realistically be provided by any believer.

I'd be interested to hear if any other atheists out there have any idea's as to what evidence / reason would change their belief and why.

I would think it is the exact reverse , most atheists I would say have given these things far more thought that your average believer . And why ? Because most were bought up in some religion or other and had ' a crisis of faith' as its called and after much consideration decided to take a different path.

Most Christians on the other hand have known nothing else since birth and have it reinforced on every occasion and it is even intertwined in the fabric of the State and Constitution . And like a child with a comfort blanket they never outgrow it but never give it mature consideration .In the majority of people they don't even know anything outside the basics of their own religion and are contend to let those on high dictate it for them.

Atheists keep asking these questions of Christians for mainly two reasons -1 Religion is still so pervasive in countries like Ireland that it is impossible to avoid the affects of religion whether one likes it or not, in education ,in health care etc . so we have a vested interest in combatting this effect.

And 2- having thrown off the chains of belief it soon becomes astonishing to us that we ever believed all that stuff and it is a short step to asking why others still do.

Cen taurus wrote: »

non sequitur and an ad hominem fallacy, and a thinking error all in one.

Is it possible to even say hello to you without it being an ad hominem ?

If you want a conversation give over and stop behaving as if you were debating with the Anti-Christ.

TheLurker wrote: »

There is nothing in Christianity that defines a characteristic of God that you could not find in other supposed beings.

Or to put it another way, there is nothing unique about God that would allow me to deferential God from say Zeus or Satan.

As such asking is it really God becomes an irrelevant question, like asking is the invisible unicorn in your basement pink or orange.

Again this is a straw man. The definition of God in Christianity attributes unique characteristics to God, and unless you assign all of Gods characterises to the pink unicorn, and if you assign all of these characteristics to a pink unicorn or an FSM or banana, it’s just another childish name swapping straw man / ad hominem, and does not deal in any way with the subject.

marienbad wrote: »

Is it possible to even say hello to you without it being an ad hominem ?

Sure is, if you are able to post anything civil, or present a single argument for atheism, or against theism, without having to resort to logical fallacies and false premises and ad hominem each and every time.

marienbad wrote: »

If you want a conversation give over and stop behaving as if you were debating with the Anti-Christ.

Looking forward to the day you present arguments, answer questions, and reply to posts, by not attacking posters instead of the post, or delivering useless drive-by one liners.