Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[MMI]

OK, let's try again from another angle.

God[s] is/are supernatural, subject to no rule of nature, and wholly unconstrained. His/their "existence" is not the kind of everyday existence you and I can comprehend, but something other entirely. To try to use science, or even rationality, to support a view that there is no god is utterly pointless. Science is concerned exclusively with the natural and has nothing - absolutely nothing - to say on the matter of gods. Likewise, it is impossible to conceptualise the nature of gods, so it is impossible to disprove them by rationalisation.

If you don't believe in god, you can only support your stance by saying it is mere opinion based purely on faith and instinct.

As for scientific theories of creation, they fail in one important aspect: they stop short of the moment of creation because they can find no scientific explanation for it. And they jettison all known science in order to explain the Big Bang as far as they can understand it. Nothing can move faster than light ... yet the universe would not be as it is now were it not for the inflation period ...

According to science there's not enough matter in galaxies for gravity to keep them together, and they should be spinning apart ... but for the effect of dark matter. Yet no-one can find any dark matter or say what it is, although it should be the most plentiful substance there is

Science does not even know what reality is in the natural world - we may only be reflections of (or in) a quantum mechanical universe. How, then, can it even begin to address questions about the supernatural?

[Thorne]

Science is concerned exclusively with the natural and has nothing - absolutely nothing - to say on the matter of gods.

I agree, as long as the gods don't intervene in nature. Like creating things, for example. Or performing miracles. Or even appearing as burning bushes and chatting with their peeps.

Likewise, it is impossible to conceptualise the nature of gods, so it is impossible to disprove them by rationalisation.

Which means it would be impossible to know they exist, even if they did. And it would be impossible for any of us to know what they want, or what they might have done. Unless, of course, they intervene somehow. Which puts them under the microscope again.

If you don't believe in god, you can only support your stance by saying it is mere opinion based purely on faith and instinct.

Even if you DO believe in gods you can only use faith as the basis for your belief.

As for scientific theories of creation, they fail in one important aspect: they stop short of the moment of creation because they can find no scientific explanation for it.

They don't know YET! Doesn't mean they never will. And anyway, saying we don't know does not mean God did it.

And they jettison all known science in order to explain the Big Bang as far as they can understand it. Nothing can move faster than light ... yet the universe would not be as it is now were it not for the inflation period ...

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. As far as I know, no one has claimed that anything is moving faster than light. Yes, two galaxies moving in opposite directions at very high speeds may APPEAR to be moving faster than light RELATIVE to one another, but not relative to the center of expansion. But again, there is much we don't know about conditions at the instant of the Big Bang, and how the laws of nature as we understand them are affected. And again, lack of knowledge does not mean gods.

According to science there's not enough matter in galaxies for gravity to keep them together, and they should be spinning apart ... but for the effect of dark matter. Yet no-one can find any dark matter or say what it is, although it should be the most plentiful substance there is

"Dark matter" is just a term, a placeholder if you will, that scientists use to refer to unknown material which MAY be there. Or perhaps there are some peculiar, non-intuitive laws of nature which we haven't deduced yet. Or any of an almost infinite number of possible NATURAL explanations. And yet again, lack of knowledge does not equal gods.

Science does not even know what reality is in the natural world - we may only be reflections of (or in) a quantum mechanical universe. How, then, can it even begin to address questions about the supernatural?

I'm not equipped to deal with such philosophical questions. As far as I'm concerned they're nothing more than games for bored philosophers to play to keep themselves sane (or to drive others insane). Reality is what we can see, or measure, either directly or indirectly.

So yes, I'm perfectly willing to accept that we do not know everything, and cannot explain everything. But that does not mean it's OK to just make stuff up! Claiming that some kind of supernatural being is responsible for everything, just because it makes you feel good, is just not acceptable. That leads to chaos as everybody is then free to make up anything they like, without evidence or rationale, and claim it to be true, because they have "faith".

[MMI]

Science is concerned exclusively with the natural and has nothing - absolutely nothing - to say on the matter of gods.

I agree, as long as the gods don't intervene in nature. Like creating things, for example. Or performing miracles. Or even appearing as burning bushes and chatting with their peeps.

There you go again, trying to limit the illimitable. If God really did appear to Moses as a burning bush, scientific reality would have been unable to prevent it or explain it; but science's inability to explain the event does not mean it did not happen.

Likewise, it is impossible to conceptualise the nature of gods, so it is impossible to disprove them by rationalisation.

Which means it would be impossible to know they exist, even if they did. And it would be impossible for any of us to know what they want, or what they might have done. Unless, of course, they intervene somehow. Which puts them under the microscope again.

And your point is what, exactly? The only "knowledge" believers claim is the "certainty of faith". Where believers witness an intervention by god, they see a miracle. Faith and miracles go beyond your scientific rigour, which is irrelevant to a believer on the question of belief.

If you don't believe in god, you can only support your stance by saying it is mere opinion based purely on faith and instinct.

Even if you DO believe in gods you can only use faith as the basis for your belief.

That's not a problem. Belief and faith are the level at which this discussion should proceed, not whether there is evidence for something that cannot be evidenced.

As for scientific theories of creation, they fail in one important aspect: they stop short of the moment of creation because they can find no scientific explanation for it.

They don't know YET! Doesn't mean they never will. And anyway, saying we don't know does not mean God did it.

I applaud your affirmation of faith, with which I heartily concur.

But it seems to me that if a believer says, "God did it," our answer should be, "We don't know," not "He didn't!"

And they jettison all known science in order to explain the Big Bang as far as they can understand it. Nothing can move faster than light ... yet the universe would not be as it is now were it not for the inflation period ...

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. As far as I know, no one has claimed that anything is moving faster than light. Yes, two galaxies moving in opposite directions at very high speeds may APPEAR to be moving faster than light RELATIVE to one another, but not relative to the center of expansion. But again, there is much we don't know about conditions at the instant of the Big Bang, and how the laws of nature as we understand them are affected. And again, lack of knowledge does not mean gods.

I refer you again to the concept of inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29). Basically, at some early point during the Big Bang
the whole universe expanded from the size of a proton to the size of a grapefruit far quicker than the speed of light.

Of course, explanations are offered, but without inflation, the universe does not satisfy scientific predictions, so inflation has to be "fixed". How much more convincing does that make science than the Creation story in Genesis? At least God took a week to finish his work, giving light much more time to illuminate it.

According to science there's not enough matter in galaxies for gravity to keep them together, and they should be spinning apart ... but for the effect of dark matter. Yet no-one can find any dark matter or say what it is, although it should be the most plentiful substance there is

"Dark matter" is just a term, a placeholder if you will, that scientists use to refer to unknown material which MAY be there. Or perhaps there are some peculiar, non-intuitive laws of nature which we haven't deduced yet. Or any of an almost infinite number of possible NATURAL explanations. And yet again, lack of knowledge does not equal gods.

So, when scientists realised current theories about the universe would not work, they "invented" something which would "fill in" until a proper explanation is found?

If you are now admitting science is invention - even if only partially - then your cry that gods are a fiction is pure hypocricy.

I agree that lack of knowledge does not equal gods, but neither is an absence of knowledge sufficient to say there are no gods.

Science does not even know what reality is in the natural world - we may only be reflections of (or in) a quantum mechanical universe. How, then, can it even begin to address questions about the supernatural?

I'm not equipped to deal with such philosophical questions. As far as I'm concerned they're nothing more than games for bored philosophers to play to keep themselves sane (or to drive others insane). Reality is what we can see, or measure, either directly or indirectly.

So yes, I'm perfectly willing to accept that we do not know everything, and cannot explain everything. But that does not mean it's OK to just make stuff up! Claiming that some kind of supernatural being is responsible for everything, just because it makes you feel good, is just not acceptable. That leads to chaos as everybody is then free to make up anything they like, without evidence or rationale, and claim it to be true, because they have "faith".

Didn't we just see you saying that scientists made stuff up? Yes, here it is:

"Dark matter" is just a term, a placeholder if you will, that scientists use to refer to unknown material which MAY be there.

I'm an atheist not because there is no evidence for a god, but because I simply don't believe the stories I have heard.

[Thorne]

There you go again, trying to limit the illimitable. If God really did appear to Moses as a burning bush, scientific reality would have been unable to prevent it or explain it; but science's inability to explain the event does not mean it did not happen.

Perhaps not, but there would be a burned bush to investigate, wouldn't there? In fact, scientists have not been able to even confirm the existence of Moses or the Exodus, outside of the Bible. One would think that several million, or even several hundred thousand, people trekking across the Sinai peninsula for 40 years would have left a mark.

Faith and miracles go beyond your scientific rigour, which is irrelevant to a believer on the question of belief.

Interesting that you would place these intangibles above science, rather than beneath it. I see science as having evolved from religious thought, finding realistic, natural explanations for those things which religion claim to be supernatural. And as long as faith and belief are kept in the churches and minds of theists they are irrelevant to science.

That's not a problem. Belief and faith are the level at which this discussion should proceed, not whether there is evidence for something that cannot be evidenced.

But how can one discuss atheism using only belief and faith? It is neither. One can believe anything he wishes, can have faith in anything he desires. If he does NOT believe in gods, he is an atheist.

I applaud your affirmation of faith, with which I heartily concur.

An affirmation of trust rather than faith. I trust that science will continue to advance and get ever closer to the answers. I suppose in this connotation the two terms are almost synonymous, but 'faith' has a religious connotation which does not apply. A handicap of the English language, I guess.

But it seems to me that if a believer says, "God did it," our answer should be, "We don't know," not "He didn't!"

"God did it" is a statement of fact, not of faith. As such, the proper response would be, "Prove it." That seems to me to be the biggest chasm between science and religion. When scientists are unable to explain something, they say, "We don't know," and hopefully add, "but we're working on it." The theist's response, though, is generally, "God," which leaves no reason to investigate further.

Basically, at some early point during the Big Bang the whole universe expanded from the size of a proton to the size of a grapefruit far quicker than the speed of light.

Yeah, I skimmed that. Sadly I don't have the math to understand it completely, but from what I can gather it's not all that different from what I said in my last post. And Einstein's equations do not prevent particles from traveling faster than the speed of light, only from traveling AT the speed of light. FTL travel is mathematically plausible. And remember, inflation theory is not proven, but only strongly suggested. Scientists are not saying, "This is how it happened." They are saying, "This is one possibility."

Of course, explanations are offered, but without inflation, the universe does not satisfy scientific predictions, so inflation has to be "fixed".

That's not what the article said. The theory "makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation." That's how theories work. You make a proposal, you make predictions based upon that proposal, then you observe/perform experiments to determine how accurate your predictions are.

How much more convincing does that make science than the Creation story in Genesis?

Well obviously, to me, it is far more likely to have happened naturally than supernaturally.

At least God took a week to finish his work, giving light much more time to illuminate it.

Ahh, but the universe has taken nearly 14 billion years to reach this point in time, and it isn't finished yet! What's a week compared to that? And why would a supposedly omnipotent being require a full week to do it? Why not just wish it all into existence in one blink? And just how did God manage to illuminate the world with light BEFORE making the sun? A supernatural flashlight, perhaps?

So, when scientists realised current theories about the universe would not work, they "invented" something which would "fill in" until a proper explanation is found?

Not quite so blatant as that, but in essence that's how science works! From the beginning of civilization people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. But too many discrepancies in observations occurred, and the "fixes" which had to be made became too cumbersome. So Copernicus "invented" the heliocentric theory, with the Sun at the center. He then used this theory to make predictions regarding the orbits of the planets, and observations proved them to be accurate. Kepler improved the theory, determining that the planets revolved around the Sun in elliptical rather than circular orbits. Fact built upon fact, all confirming the invented hypotheses. So what scientists are saying with dark matter is that certain measurements of the expansion of the universe are not consistent with the current cosmological theory. They could, of course, just scrap the current theory and start all over. But current theory does explain so much else about the observed universe so they "invent" a possible, or several possible, explanations for the discrepancy and then seek to find evidence, through observation, for or against those explanations. In one case, there is a need for there to be more matter in the universe. It's a POSSIBLE explanation, not a confirmed one. Only further observations will determine how accurately that hypothesis works.

If you are now admitting science is invention - even if only partially - then your cry that gods are a fiction is pure hypocricy.

Again, I do not say that gods are necessarily a fiction, only that there is no evidence to show that they are real. Certainly, though, the gods currently worshiped by people are fictitious. Of course, it is possible that ONE of them could be accurate, but since they generally contradict one another it's not possible that they can ALL be real.

I agree that lack of knowledge does not equal gods, but neither is an absence of knowledge sufficient to say there are no gods.

Which I have agreed to multiple times!

I'm an atheist not because there is no evidence for a god, but because I simply don't believe the stories I have heard.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it implies that someone could possibly make up a much more believable story which would convince you, even without proof.

Scientology anyone?