Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[SadisticNature]

Dawkins likes to present the idea that scientists question absolutely everything but this is not entirely true. Science, unlike mathematics is built upon a set of unquestionable axioms that constitute the scientific methods.

Most notable of these is empiricism, namely the belief that you can identify all the relevant conditions to an experiment and if you change an irrelevant variable (typically time or location), you can conduct the same experiment with the same results. This presupposes a divine entity has no control over the outcome of your experiments so in a certain sense you have axiomatized away god at least in the sense of a divine entity that intervenes in the world.

Personally I'm an agnostic, I see no good evidence for their being a god. I don't believe you can discover the nature of the universe without working from basic axioms however, and you do have to believe in those axioms in order to get started. If you aren't an empiricist, and don't believe in the scientific method you will not be able to do good science.

Similarly, If you don't accept basic axioms like the value of human life and that human beings have basic inalienable rights in a theory of ethics, your theory of ethics will allow all kinds of atrocities. The common argument that religion makes where accepting certain basic ethical principles implies belief in god is as deeply erroneous. Ethics is not the sole domain of the religion even though religion has influenced the code of ethics and morality throughout history. The vast majority of agnostics and atheists are moral people, and morality is certainly not the exclusive domain of the religious.

In general I find this topic is often way too hostile to be productive.

[SadisticNature]

When I say that the axioms are unlike mathematics I mean that they are non-intuitive.

The axioms of the real numbers are rather believable and you have to be willing to accept them in order to have addition or multiplication at all, the axioms of required for the scientific method have been debated for centuries by philosophers and are still not generally accepted as fact.

For examples see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number
or

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_axiomatization_of_the_reals

[Thorne]

Most notable of these is empiricism, namely the belief that you can identify all the relevant conditions to an experiment and if you change an irrelevant variable (typically time or location), you can conduct the same experiment with the same results. This presupposes a divine entity has no control over the outcome of your experiments so in a certain sense you have axiomatized away god at least in the sense of a divine entity that intervenes in the world.

But this is an absolute necessity in any experiment or study of science. If you presuppose that an entity (ANY entity) can control or alter the outcome of your experiment, what's the point of doing it? The result is meaningless. You can never be sure of any outcome. It's only by assuming that there is NO such entity that the experiment has any meaning.

[FirstBorn]

Funny thing about the seeing an atom argument. I wrote it off as just grasping for straws when i first read the thread. But then encountered it again IRL from pesky doorbell people, usually ill have the common sense to send such people away before they gain momentum, but i was in the mude for a bit of BS so i gave them 5 minutes.

Stupid atom argument comes up.. Well to the best of my rather simple understanding of science the basic principal is hypothesis->theory->law.

That is you think of some idea, "like dropped items fall" thatd be your hypothesis. So you go test that in every way you can think of and others agree with your results. You now promote your hypothesis to a theory... Should you manage to prove that your theory and its mathematics work in every possible scenario you get to call it a law (ie law of gravity).

Now theres no such thing as the atomic LAW. Theres an atomic theory and it does offer models and guidelines as to how chemicals behave. Thus its just a general rule of how atoms and chemicals will most likely act. Models again being a visual representation made entirely to explain things. I dont have to know if atoms exists or if they look like the planet/core model or the goofy bubbely iso models. All i got is a general explanation that just so happens to be more accurate than religius writing.

Pretty much every single religius law (barely hypothesis by science standards) you can prove wrong or inaccurate in your backyard. But some of the more esotheric ideas such as the soul, heaven and hell. Well we will see about those once wer dead. Given the general inaccuracy of religius writing im kinda assuming therell be a surprise for everyone. Prolly just some crappy ingame graphics and the names of the dev team thou.

[SadisticNature]

My point isn't that its not necessary. My point is that Dawkins common arguments against god reduce to:

Assume there is no god (as per assuming the Scientific Method)
Therefore there is no god.

So aren't actually strong arguments against the existence of god.

[FirstBorn]

So aren't actually strong arguments against the existence of god.

Other than the fact that the devine entity insists on not showing up for lab tests.

Now id say assuming the scientific method by itself does not exclude the excistence of a god. But the room where gods could be hiding is shrinking as more and more of the natural world is explained and formulated by science.

Should science eventually bump into some entity fitting the description of a god it would obviusly be recognised as such. But at the moment god is a hypothesis with no experiments defiantely proving or denying existance.

Religius texts however (as far as im informed) have all been proven wrong. That does not finally prove that there is no god, it just says that no human is able to explain the nature and wishes of such an entity.

[Thorne]

Assume there is no god (as per assuming the Scientific Method)
Therefore there is no god.

No, the way it actually works is:
1. Assume there are no gods.
2. Do our models and theories about the working of the universe still apply?
3. Yes, they do.
4. Then there probably are no gods.
5. Is there any evidence to show that there are gods?
6. No verifiable evidence at all. Only wishful thinking and anecdotes.
7. Then, to the best of our knowledge, there are no gods.

So aren't actually strong arguments against the existence of god.

We don't need any arguments against the existence of gods, any more than we need arguments against the existence of fairies, or leprechauns, or golems, or any other such superstitious claptrap. The point is that there is no credible evidence that gods exist. It's not up to science to prove that gods don't exist: it's up to believers to prove that they do, in a testable manner.

[SadisticNature]

If your definition of truth is scientific truth then in order to prove god exists you would likely have to do a series of experiments that verify the presence of god. My definition of truth is scientific truth and on that basis I don't believe in god. However, this is still a matter of premises, you have assumed that the only form of truth is scientific truth, by which you have already asserted the non-existence of god through experimental invariance or other similar properties that postulate results don't happen through miracles or divine intervention.

As for the other point about accumulating evidence based on god not interfering, this is also problematic. You have already assumed a theory which requires the non-existence of god to set up an empirical framework in which experimental results can discover general laws about the universe. Any experiment within this framework cannot then provide evidence for the non-existence of god as it is already assumed.

[FirstBorn]

My definition of truth is scientific truth and on that basis I don't believe in god.

Truth by scientific standards have nothing to do with belief. Should a deity show up in testing idt be a fact thus eliminating the need for beliving in it.

Since no deity has cared enuff to show up as of yet, nobody knows of its existance and any argument for beliving in it is looking rather dodgy. But not definately proven right or wrong.

So if someone set up a god measuring experiment and was able to prove beond dispute that the result would be final and correct. Whatever result came out would have to be the fact wed all have to accept from then on.

Science doesnt work that way thou. When making an experiment you go by whatever you have handy at the moment and work on your current hypothesis. Proving a scientific theory or law wrong in whatever specific case your working, is just good as proving it right.

That is you may with contemporary equipment set out to measure gods non existence (if thats the theory you decide). But if the experiment is supposed to have any merit atall. Any unexpected result would then prove your first assumption about god wrong.

Beliving in god or intelligent life on other planets (any planet including earth in my case) Is well good for the beliver. But without any evidence thats all it is.

Soon as SETI picks up some alien x-factor program, or a deity decides to show up and set the facts straight. Science FACT will get in line and give it the thumbs up.

Belief however is still pointless.

[Thorne]

you have assumed that the only form of truth is scientific truth, by which you have already asserted the non-existence of god through experimental invariance or other similar properties that postulate results don't happen through miracles or divine intervention.

I assert (not assume) that there is only one truth. Something is either true or it is not. It is the purpose of science to ferret out that truth, and to inform us of the rules under which that truth applies. For example, pure water will boil at 100ºC and freeze at 0ºC (the temperature scale being a construct of human measurement, not of the universe itself) under standardized conditions. If you change the conditions you change the temperatures. Science tells us why this happens, and how it happens, and lets us calculate the new temperatures. And science shows that results don't happen through miracles or divine intervention.

As for the other point about accumulating evidence based on god not interfering, this is also problematic. You have already assumed a theory which requires the non-existence of god to set up an empirical framework in which experimental results can discover general laws about the universe. Any experiment within this framework cannot then provide evidence for the non-existence of god as it is already assumed.

That's not true! All the gods have to do is perform a miracle, something which defies the framework of natural laws. Cure all the children born with AIDS; regrow an amputated limb; make the water in our experiment freeze at 20ºC without altering the standard conditions. These things should be child's play for a being that can create the whole universe!

But regardless, the "truth" is that science, or anything else, cannot prove that gods do not exist. All we can show is that, except for that brief period of time at the very beginning of the universe, everything in the universe can be explained without having to resort to divine intervention. So if there are gods, they are irrelevant.