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.

[EDQ]

there is a derferance between "fath" and "religon"

[Midnytedreams]

But hasn't science in some way proven the existence
It is now known as a scientific fact that , matter is never and can never be destroyed only changed into a new state of being.

The religious believe this proves that when we die,our matter {soul} is released from our body.

No I am not religious zealot that believes it but a question should be raised all people of the world , going back to the first people here have believed in something. Even reincarnation is a transferance of matter. If science wasn't even known then , why did all people believe that you went somewhere... Even before religion this belief existed.

[SadisticNature]

If people want to use the existence of god to do science they'd have to prove the existence of god and then apply those properties. However, the onus of proof in other endeavors is rather different. I've never contended that using god to do science is sensible, or that assuming god exists for the purpose of verifying some scientific fact is useful.

For instance, in theology it would be a rather pointless to argue that you can't prove god exists, therefore you shouldn't study the divine at all. Similarly if you are studying Aquinas and metaphysics, arguing there is no soul will not lead to understanding of the philosophical implications.

Furthermore, there are countless examples where assuming something is true and studying the consequences is very useful, particularly but not exclusively if a contradiction arises leading to a refutation.

In any of these above, assuming the non-existence of god would be pointless and would curb discussion. Just because its correct for science doesn't mean it's correct in general. If something is not known to be true or false there are benefits to looking at the consequences of both truth and falsity often with a context dependence. For example P = NP? is an open conjecture. Looking at the implications of P = NP could potentially lead to a refutation of P = NP by contradiction. Furthermore if P = NP turns out to be true, having studying the consequences in advance, we would have a huge number of immediate results, and a surge in research. Likewise looking at P not equal to NP could lead to a refutation by contradiction, or new results that follow from P not equal to NP. In computer science the correct approach is to study both possibilities.

Since its so often the case that the correct approach is to study both possibilities, I don't see why in this particular case its wrong to study both possibilities calling one study Theology and the other study Science. Particularly since that is what eventually happened in the academic community.

[SadisticNature]

Scientists often believe in unproven conjectures. They have arguments and intuitions and posit theories. These theories are eventually tested. For instance Newton believed that without air resistance any two objects would fall at the same speed. This wasn't tested until well after his death, he had some evidence for it, and some evidence against it, but was able to pick a side without having conclusive evidence. All of theoretical physics is done by reasoned conjectures. The theory of relativity involves objects at speeds we are no where close to producing so can't be experimentally verified for large scales. Yet we still have conjectures, some of which are right and some of which are wrong. Dawkins has even pointed to an example in Biology where the two conjectures were polar opposites, and reasonable scientists held both positions until further evidence ended the debate.

If you present the world with a widespread correct proof that god does not exist you would reduce religions down to a few radical fanatics, determined to deny the truth. In the absence of further evidence however, I contend that both positions are reasonable.

[SadisticNature]

If you prefer replace gravity by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the point remains the same.

As for convincing people in either direction. If you want people to abandon a belief in A you have to show them good reasons for not A, in some cases an outright proof. If you want people to abandon a belief in not A you have to show them good reasons for A, in some cases an outright proof.

My point isn't that you should believe in god. My point is you can't argue its irrational to believe in a conjecture (God) unless you have strong evidence of its falsity, which by many peoples standards you do not.

[Thorne]

My point isn't that you should believe in god. My point is you can't argue its irrational to believe in a conjecture (God) unless you have strong evidence of its falsity, which by many peoples standards you do not.

And my point is that there is ample evidence for the falsity of gods, enough to satisy me and many others, while there is no evidence for the existence of those gods.

And some people, the very religious, would not be swayed by any evidence whatsoever. Even if I could prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist, those people would deny the proofs, call it Satan's work and, if they had their way, hang me from the nearest tree. The depth of their faith is not a testament to the truth of their beliefs, only to their own ignorance.

[Thorne]

Scientists often believe in unproven conjectures. They have arguments and intuitions and posit theories. These theories are eventually tested.

"Tested" is the key word, here. Anyone can believe anything they like. But can you test your hypotheses?

For instance Newton believed that without air resistance any two objects would fall at the same speed. This wasn't tested until well after his death, he had some evidence for it, and some evidence against it, but was able to pick a side without having conclusive evidence.

Here, too, it was a subject which could be tested. Even if the technology for accurate testing wasn't yet available, a test of the problem could be conceived, and executed. To my knowledge, there are no valid tests for the presence, or absence, of gods. Any tests which have tried to demonstrate the existence of supernatural forces have all failed. You can pick whichever side you want, but when test after test shows that these forces do not exist, and no tests show that they do, then sooner or later you have to admit that you might be wrong.

All of theoretical physics is done by reasoned conjectures. The theory of relativity involves objects at speeds we are no where close to producing so can't be experimentally verified for large scales.

Read this to see one way that relativity was confirmed.

If you present the world with a widespread correct proof that god does not exist you would reduce religions down to a few radical fanatics, determined to deny the truth. In the absence of further evidence however, I contend that both positions are reasonable.

While we cannot prove that gods do not exist, it can be shown that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist. One of the reasons for the demise of the ancient gods, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, etc., is that science showed that the effects which people had ascribed to them (thunder, lightning, wind, storms) were natural effects, following natural laws. Any objective reading of the Bible will show that God, as defined in the Bible, cannot exist. There are just too many internal contradictions, as well as discrepancies with observed nature. So, while it can be reasonable to say that there are no gods because we can find no evidence for them, it is not as reasonable to say that, despite a lack of evidence, there must be gods.

[DuncanONeil]

The key word is actually "eventually"!

"Tested" is the key word, here. Anyone can believe anything they like. But can you test your hypotheses?

Here, too, it was a subject which could be tested. Even if the technology for accurate testing wasn't yet available, a test of the problem could be conceived, and executed. To my knowledge, there are no valid tests for the presence, or absence, of gods. Any tests which have tried to demonstrate the existence of supernatural forces have all failed. You can pick whichever side you want, but when test after test shows that these forces do not exist, and no tests show that they do, then sooner or later you have to admit that you might be wrong.

Read this to see one way that relativity was confirmed.

While we cannot prove that gods do not exist, it can be shown that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist. One of the reasons for the demise of the ancient gods, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, etc., is that science showed that the effects which people had ascribed to them (thunder, lightning, wind, storms) were natural effects, following natural laws. Any objective reading of the Bible will show that God, as defined in the Bible, cannot exist. There are just too many internal contradictions, as well as discrepancies with observed nature. So, while it can be reasonable to say that there are no gods because we can find no evidence for them, it is not as reasonable to say that, despite a lack of evidence, there must be gods.

[DuncanONeil]

While we cannot prove that gods do not exist, it can be shown that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist.

Interesting that you say that God can not be proven to not exist but it is impossible for Gods to exist? Strange would you not say?

[Thorne]

Since its so often the case that the correct approach is to study both possibilities, I don't see why in this particular case its wrong to study both possibilities calling one study Theology and the other study Science. Particularly since that is what eventually happened in the academic community.

No one said it was wrong to study theology. Only that it's wrong to declare your assumptions to be absolute truth just because you want them to be. If you wish to hypothesize a universe with gods, without providing any evidence for those gods, there's no reason you cannot do that. But why should you? If the universe works equally well with gods as without them, why complicate the issues?

[FirstBorn]

Up to 4 your argument makes sense. However once you have asserted by assumption an axiom is true, you can either show it false by contradiction, or you have a model of the universe in which its true, so within that model 5 is certainly wrong. 6 is true, however the same argument can be made about assuming gods don't exist.

7. is a reach that doesn't follow from 1 to 6 at all. It isn't even provably true, as how would you identify divine influence if it were happening in 100% of experiments.

Wery well as for 4. We can tell for absolute sure no deity described in religius writing will actually intervene in the cases where is says they will. That does not exclude the existence of deities. But they clearly arent the ones described in texts. Given that what we chose to work from in 1. is beond the scope of our experiments (or we would have some indication as to the truth of 1.) , what we have spent our time doing is just an expensive day in the lab proving no more or less.

Now lets have som fun with this logic of yours.

1. Assume there are gods, dragons and no sundays.
2. Do our models and theories of the universe still apply?
(well they do save for the testing of religius texts claiming youll be struck by lightning and calendars with sundays, but thats just crap that others belive)

3. Yes, they do, save for those tiny bits we took out answering 2.
4. Then there probably are gods, dragons and no sundays.
5. Is there evidence for gods? (clearly none whatsoever but none against either save for the bits about texts)
6. Gods, dragons and no sundays exist by assumption 1 so in this theory absolutely.
7. Then to the best of our knowledge there are gods, dragons and no sundays.

Now where you messed up badly was 6. "6. Gods exist by assumption 1 so in this theory absolutely."
You put out a theory and a powerpoint demonstration with irelevant graphs then shouted bad science at everyone who called your bluff.

Clearly if you had any intention of proving or disputing assumption 1. youd have done some experiments that would be affected by that assumption.

Since tests came up blank all you got is an assumption or really a hypothesis you cant prove atall. Now your by all meens welcome to keep beliving that your right in that hypothesis. But untill you come up with evidence or atleast results indicating that you could be right. Thats all you get to call it a hypothesis wich is by definition inferior to law and theory.

I will agree that given the infinity of the universe and a bunch of unanswered questions. An agnostic point of wiew would be reasonable. Compared to either side atleast. That is millitant atheism and religius fundamentalism.

However given the fun of messing with peoples minds and all that. Loud blasphemy and atheism offers by far the most fun.

[SadisticNature]

My argument was just a parroting of an argument done in the opposite direction, which also did no tests. I'm not saying its a good argument. In fact I argued in order for the assumption to have value, one of the models has to be contradictory.

I have no problem with calling it the god hypothesis. My argument here is that there is no good proof that god does not exist, and that its not irrational to choose to believe in god.

People are repeatedly claiming I posited that the existence of god is an absolute truth and that's outright hogwash. I've just posited they can't show that belief in god is irrational behavior and they find that offensive. Argue against the claim, don't try and move the goalposts to make the arguments work.

Lastly, why is it that people jump all over me for an exact duplication of someone elses argument in the reverse direction. You aren't doing science you're doing politics in the sense that if it supports your ideas it doesn't matter how bad the work is. I used that argument not because I think its correct, but to demonstrate that the originally posited argument was equally bad. Neither model does any testing.

As a technical point, gods could carry out certain effects in patterns that would appear to be natural laws. The sciences have no way of proving that false, it's just an unlikely explanation that has no predictive power.

Again, I mean more of relativity than just e=mc^2. What about time distortion of two objects moving away from each other each moving at a fraction below the speed of light, hence their relative velocity being greater than light speed? Now, the same problem for an object the size of a spaceship persay so one avoids the potential for complications due to fundamental breakdown (Examples we have are quantum scale and without a grand unifying theory its hard to understand the differences at a larger scale, but its certainly reasonable to predict the fundamental breakdown plays a signficant role).

Also I've never made an argument for a biblical god or a specific bit of mythology, you may have noticed an absence of religious quotes that run rampant in these debates. I mean god here in something close to Einstein's sense of the word. If you want to replace god by "dragons" or "the flying spaghetti monster" I'll make the same arguments.

I never talked about my assumptions being absolute truth, I talked about them being true within a model. This is by definition local truth. As mentioned before, you should read about formal logic and models before wildly misinterpreting my statements and misrepresenting my positions.

[Thorne]

I will agree that given the infinity of the universe and a bunch of unanswered questions. An agnostic point of wiew would be reasonable. Compared to either side atleast. That is millitant atheism and religius fundamentalism.

I agree, an agnostic point of view is reasonable. I choose an atheist point of view as a personal preference. I have not seen any compelling evidence of gods in general. Should such evidence be found I would be more than happy to re-evaluate my position. I'm not holding my breath, though.

[DuncanONeil]

WTH is all that list supposed to mean? It goes in two directions at the same time!

Wery well as for 4. We can tell for absolute sure no deity described in religius writing will actually intervene in the cases where is says they will. That does not exclude the existence of deities. But they clearly arent the ones described in texts. Given that what we chose to work from in 1. is beond the scope of our experiments (or we would have some indication as to the truth of 1.) , what we have spent our time doing is just an expensive day in the lab proving no more or less.

Now lets have som fun with this logic of yours.

1. Assume there are gods, dragons and no sundays.
2. Do our models and theories of the universe still apply?
(well they do save for the testing of religius texts claiming youll be struck by lightning and calendars with sundays, but thats just crap that others belive)

3. Yes, they do, save for those tiny bits we took out answering 2.
4. Then there probably are gods, dragons and no sundays.
5. Is there evidence for gods? (clearly none whatsoever but none against either save for the bits about texts)
6. Gods, dragons and no sundays exist by assumption 1 so in this theory absolutely.
7. Then to the best of our knowledge there are gods, dragons and no sundays.

Now where you messed up badly was 6. "6. Gods exist by assumption 1 so in this theory absolutely."
You put out a theory and a powerpoint demonstration with irelevant graphs then shouted bad science at everyone who called your bluff.

Clearly if you had any intention of proving or disputing assumption 1. youd have done some experiments that would be affected by that assumption.

Since tests came up blank all you got is an assumption or really a hypothesis you cant prove atall. Now your by all meens welcome to keep beliving that your right in that hypothesis. But untill you come up with evidence or atleast results indicating that you could be right. Thats all you get to call it a hypothesis wich is by definition inferior to law and theory.

I will agree that given the infinity of the universe and a bunch of unanswered questions. An agnostic point of wiew would be reasonable. Compared to either side atleast. That is millitant atheism and religius fundamentalism.

However given the fun of messing with peoples minds and all that. Loud blasphemy and atheism offers by far the most fun.

[DuncanONeil]

Wery well as for 4. We can tell for absolute sure no deity described in religius writing will actually intervene in the cases where is says they will.

An upright God-fearing man is suffering the effects of a flood. Sitting on his porch an SUV comes along and offers to take him out, he refuses. Sitting on the roof of his porch a canoe comes along offering to take him out, he refuses. Waiting patiently on his roof a helicopter approaches to aid him, he refuses.
The man drowns! In his afterlife he complains that all his years of faith and works went for naught as his God did not provide succor for him. His God replies; "Did not provide!!" "I sent you an SUV, a canoe, and a helicopter, what more did you want!?"

[DuncanONeil]

No one said it was wrong to study theology. Only that it's wrong to declare your assumptions to be absolute truth just because you want them to be. If you wish to hypothesize a universe with gods, without providing any evidence for those gods, there's no reason you cannot do that. But why should you? If the universe works equally well with gods as without them, why complicate the issues?

Proof in the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause ... that which can be called a creator.

[Thorne]

Proof in the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause ... that which can be called a creator.

And what caused the creator?

[SadisticNature]

Proof in the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause ... that which can be called a creator.

Why must time have a beginning and an end, its certainly possible that time is cyclical and thus a chain of causes could in fact be a cycle with no end or beginning.

[Thorne]

But hasn't science in some way proven the existence
It is now known as a scientific fact that , matter is never and can never be destroyed only changed into a new state of being.

No, energy can never be destroyed. Matter is converted to energy all the time, and energy can (theoretically) be converted back to matter.

The religious believe this proves that when we die,our matter {soul} is released from our body.

And just when did someone actually prove that there is a soul?

No I am not religious zealot that believes it but a question should be raised all people of the world , going back to the first people here have believed in something. Even reincarnation is a transferance of matter. If science wasn't even known then , why did all people believe that you went somewhere... Even before religion this belief existed.

The fact that so many believe something does not make it real. And reincarnation is, if it's true, a transference of soul, if there is such a thing. And the reason that so many people believe, want to believe, in some form of life after death is because they are afraid of death. It is very difficult to conceive of the universe continuing on without us, that our lives are so short and meaningless to the rest of the cosmos. It's much more comforting to believe that our souls will go somewhere, anywhere, after death. That doesn't make it true, however.

[EDQ]

were di humanty get a set of social rules from. how do we as a people get along. you may not teach the "ten comanents" but for the most part we try to live by them. in less merder. rape and stealing is a good thing.

[Bren122]

time is a function of the universe and therefore can only exist within the universe; when the universe begins, time, however you define it, begins. when the universe ends, time ends.
Cyclical time is not religious, it is astronomical. it has religious overtones because the guys with the brains were often clerics; also, it has often been the only authority sufficiently recognised to enforce changes to calendars as required.
a year is defined as the full circuit of the earth around the sun; a day is the time taken for the earth to fully rotate on its own axis. the two do not match evenly requiring adjustments to ensure that midnight in 10000 does not fall in the middle of the day- hence calendars.
the role of the modern clock is not religious either; it is industrial. the first clocks did not have hands but simply chimed the hours. for the benefit of both workers and employers it evened out the work day- which had been traditionally fixed at dawn to dusk. the clock meant that instead of working 18hours in summer and 6hours in winter, with all the personal, familial and work impacts, you worked a standard day throughout the year.

[SadisticNature]

Why does the universe have to begin or end?

If time is cyclical it could just go expand-collapse forever without beginning or end.

Our understanding of time is very limited.

Much the way when you stand on a sphere (i.e. the earth) the surface around you appears to be flat and you might think the entire earth was flat, from a specific point in time it appears that the past and future are distinct things, but what if 10,000,000,000 years in the future (from a local perspective) the universe has finished its collapse, expands under the previous initial conditions and the same process repeats. We are back to the same point in time, you are still standing there 'making' the exact same decision. (Note this model assumes predestination over free-will).

I might even have a very bad way of explaining something like this as no one has been able to test anything like this. My point is merely that first cause is hardly an established principle of absolute truth on infinite time scales.

[Thorne]

Why does the universe have to begin or end?....

Why does there only have to be one universe? There could be an infinite number of universes out there, all expanding or contracting or exploding or undergoing heat death all at the same time. The fact that we happen to be here, on this planet, in this universe, at this particular instant of time, is simply a cosmic accident. Even as this universe eventually comes to an end, some of the matter and energy from it could interact with matter and energy from one, or two, or countless other universes, eventually collapsing into another cosmic egg, slowly building as it absorbs yet more energy and matter, until finally, billions of years down the road, that one last electron, or one last atom, or one last neutrino, plunges through the event horizon and pushes the egg into another big bang. A new universe is born, comprised of material from countless other universes, like a child with genes from dozens of parents.

And all without any need for sky fairies.

[DuncanONeil]

Whether the universe would expand forever ot collapse on itself has been an issue in astronomy for some time. Recent calculations have concluded that a colapse is not possible.

Why does the universe have to begin or end?

If time is cyclical it could just go expand-collapse forever without beginning or end.

Our understanding of time is very limited.

Much the way when you stand on a sphere (i.e. the earth) the surface around you appears to be flat and you might think the entire earth was flat, from a specific point in time it appears that the past and future are distinct things, but what if 10,000,000,000 years in the future (from a local perspective) the universe has finished its collapse, expands under the previous initial conditions and the same process repeats. We are back to the same point in time, you are still standing there 'making' the exact same decision. (Note this model assumes predestination over free-will).

I might even have a very bad way of explaining something like this as no one has been able to test anything like this. My point is merely that first cause is hardly an established principle of absolute truth on infinite time scales.