Science Vs. Atheism (ritual, Creator, Darwin, Moses, Deist)

[The Voice of Reason]

Whether one is agnostic, atheistic, theistic, etc. is immaterial to any scientific explanation of Gods existence (or non-existence).

When Sprinkles says that he will accept the existence of white crows when one is brought to him, he is simply stating that without empirical knowledge, the burden of proof is on the Theist, not the Atheist or Agnostic.

The very title of this thread is misleading - as Sprinkles is pointing out, I would ask "Does science show us any proof of the existence of God". The answer is an unresounding NO. Then again, I don't know of any scientific search being conducted for the existence of God. Far to many of the Theists that post on this site manipulate quotes (and misquotes) by scientists to try to prove their point. '

Unlike the vast majority of the threads, at least this one started off without assuming that we all adhere to a given religions view of God and his attributes. Unfortunately, it looks as though the downward spiral is beginning in that direction.

[Mr Spinkles]

Orthodox-- I'll give you a more thorough reply later, when I have more time and energy. I don't have as much time for this forum as I used to.

Basically, I think the very best you can do (and indeed I don't think you have even done this as of yet) is prove the existence of "something [we don't know what] that makes [the physical constants you were talking about] more likely for life to occur". If you want to call that "something" god, fine. I think it would be more accurate and make much more sense simply to say "We do not know what causes physical constants to favor life". Remember, "something" causes lightning, and back in the old days the Greeks called that something "Zeus". Others called it "Thor". Just don't make the mistake they did, and personify this 'god' with unproven qualities.

But, as I said, I don't think you have even gotten that far. I am still not sure if you have shown that other values for physical constants were more likely than the ones our universe ended up with....I will reread your post and give you a more thorough (but concise) response later.

[Orthodox]

Deut. 32.8,

Your post and the few that followed it have highlighted to me the need to make obvious the non-christian nature of this thread. Although I am a Christian I am not presenting scientific evidence for the Christian God here, I am merely presenting some mostly unaffiliated (religiously, that is) facts to illuminate the divergence of contempory atheism from contempory science. What I have previously refered to as God I shall forthwith call the 'numinous', meaning something supernatural (in sense that it is outside nature) and not necessarily personal. I apologise for the confusion that my oversight has generated, I seem to have unintentionally misdirected the thrust of this argument.

I said that "The belief in an infinite universe is the crux of Atheism, in the absence of it atheism is groundless".

That is absolute nonsense. Atheism is no more and no less than the assertion of insufficient evidence to warrant a belief in Deity.

Are you sure you are not speaking of agnosticism? Atheism is the belief that there is comprehensive evidence for no deity (namely, a universal absence of evidence), not just that so far there is no evidence for him in our experience. If you claim that you have no evidence so far of deity all you are saying is that you as of yet have 'no knowledge' of him, that's what agnostic means, 'a gnosis' (no knowledge - greek). Atheism is the assertion of sufficient evidence to warrant a disbelief in deity. Do you have this (I presume you are an atheist?)?

In addition; belief in an eternal and un-begun universe is the crux of atheism. If atheism says that there is no numinous and the universe is all that exists, then any concept of a beginning/creation/ignition is offensive to it. A beginning which requires ignition by something outside of the field of spacetime we exist in is an affront to atheism. Wouldn't you agree? Secular science has shown that the universe was most probably begun by 'something' (a conclusion that is not drawn from the 'constants' I spoke of in previous posts), hence, atheism is unscientific.

To which God or Gods are you referring? What are its/their attributes, and how did you come to be aware of them? How might they be verified?

In this thread all I am doing is positing the existing of the numinous (I hope I cleared this up above). Regardless of it's personality (if it has one) or it's attributes the existence of the numinous is an affront to atheism. It's existence as the 'beginner' is supported by the current scientific cosmological models.

perhaps you are merely being disingenuous.

How so? About what? To whom? Are you trying to say that I wasn't disappointed? I was.

Thanks mate,
Orthodox

[Orthodox]

Voice of Reason,

Whether one is agnostic, atheistic, theistic, etc. is immaterial to any scientific explanation of Gods existence (or non-existence).

Perhaps, but whether ones belief is scientific is material to it. That is what this thread is about, atheism being out of line with science. I am happy to debate the philosophical fall downs of atheism elsewhere.

When Sprinkles says that he will accept the existence of white crows when one is brought to him, he is simply stating that without empirical knowledge, the burden of proof is on the Theist, not the Atheist or Agnostic.

I realise this, and short of showing you the fundemental equations of the singularity theorum and GR I can't be much more overt in my 'proof', if you can understand the equations and want to see them they are all over the internet. I have shown that the science calls for the intervention of the numinous in the beginniong of the universe. It also, probably, requires intervention in the initial conditioning of the universe (I stress that the first call for the numinous is not based on reasoning from the initial conditions, (the 'constants')). Now the burden of proof is on the atheist to to show why this science is wrong.

The very title of this thread is misleading - as Sprinkles is pointing out, I would ask "Does science show us any proof of the existence of God". The answer is an unresounding NO.

Yes, GR, Singluarity theorem.

Far to many of the Theists that post on this site manipulate quotes (and misquotes) by scientists to try to prove their point.

Are you speaking of me here? If so, when? I would like to know for future reference that is all, I know something about quotes went on with Mr. Spinkles and someone else there for a while.

Unlike the vast majority of the threads, at least this one started off without assuming that we all adhere to a given religions view of God and his attributes. Unfortunately, it looks as though the downward spiral is beginning in that direction.

I did mean to set the thread out like that and have not tried to change it, whatever I may have appeared to have said. When I spoke of 'God' I did so for convienience not to imply a christian God. Sorry, my mistake.

Mr. Spinkles,

Take your time in resonse to the thread, I hadn't meant to goad you or anything in my last post, I simply directed my remark at the large number of 'viewers' who haven't contributed. You mentioned that you hadn't read enough to be fluent in this region of debate, it is best then that you do become fluent and then come back and we will have a proper and fair debate.

Anyway, about what you said.

Basically, I think the very best you can do (and indeed I don't think you have even done this as of yet) is prove the existence of "something [we don't know what] that makes [the physical constants you were talking about] more likely for life to occur".

I am showing that science demonstrates two things. One, something else (the numinous - whatever that may be) was required to begin the universe. And two, this something appears to have adjusted and fine tuned the 'constants' to favour life. No more, no less. The existence of the numinous is not supposed to be based on a statment like, "given the unlikely-hood of the constants 'something' must exist outside".

Remember, "something" causes lightning, and back in the old days the Greeks called that something "Zeus". Others called it "Thor". Just don't make the mistake they did, and personify this 'god' with unproven qualities.

Yes, but according to science there is a cause for the universe, and this cause is not part of nature. That is not just a presumption, science requires it to be apart from the universe. In the case of lightning people started off thinking that it was from a god, they used science to find it's real cause. However in the case of the big bang, most scientist from 1850 - 1965 believed that the universe was 'steady state' because that seemed to be common sense, then, when the singularity theorem showed that GR necessitates a beginning (and beginner) scientists changed their minds, not for convieniance or peace of mind but for reason's sake.

I am still not sure if you have shown that other values for physical constants were more likely than the ones our universe ended up with....I will reread your post and give you a more thorough (but concise) response later.

I look forward to it mate.
Orthodox

[anders]

For those who believe in one or more eternal and infinite God(s), it should be equally easy to believe in an eternal universe. If you believe in causation, everything including any supernatural entity must have its cause etc. Many religions have a concept of cyclical time. You have only to look at Gen. 1:1: "In a beginning ..."; it very clearly doesn't say "In the beginning". So why can't the universe be cyclical and eternal?

On physical constants, please fasten seatbelts.

The anthropic priciple states that the fact there are human beings can be used as an explanation in physics, that this fact can explain the values of the physical constants and why the laws of physics are as they are.

This is a shocking statement, which seems to turn the whole idea of physics upside down. But it is no crackpot theory at all. It is discussed in a course on the uncertainty principle and the limits of knowledge at the department of philosophy at the University of Göteborg, Sweden, and is backed by a paper from the Institute of theoretical physics at the same university, supported by the Swedish Natural Research Council.

One small quote: "The renowned Chinese astrophysicist Fang Li Zhi argues that physical laws are comprehensible to man simply because only laws of this form are comprehensible to man."

Controversial? Of course, and I don't understand much of the argumentation yet. For more, you can start with http://brandt.kurowski.net/projects/...ew.cgi?doc=631.

[The Voice of Reason]

Orthodox-

Are you speaking of me here? If so, when?

Actually, no, I wasn't referring to you. I was speaking in the broader sense - that is to say that many people enter into what starts as a debate based on rational thought, then it slowly degrades into mishmash. For what it's worth, I'm following this thread more closely than most - you have done an excellent job so far of stating your position(s).

I have shown that the science calls for the intervention of the numinous in the beginniong of the universe. It also, probably, requires intervention in the initial conditioning of the universe (I stress that the first call for the numinous is not based on reasoning from the initial conditions, (the 'constants')). Now the burden of proof is on the atheist to to show why this science is wrong.

I understand why science requires the intervention of the numinouos. I am failing to grasp why this constitutes a refutation of Atheism. Mind you, I am an Agnostic, but I still fail to see why this is inconsistent with Atheism. I simply don't see this as science calling for the existence of God.

Best of luck, mate (first time I've ever used "mate" in this context).
TVOR

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Deut. 32.8,

Your post and the few that followed it have highlighted to me the need to make obvious the non-christian nature of this thread. Although I am a Christian I am not presenting scientific evidence for the Christian God here, ...

Of course you're not "presenting scientific evidence for the Christian God here" -- to the best of my knowledge no such evidence exists. Quite the contrary: unless I overlooked a critical afternoon in one of my science classes, all scientific evidence suggests against a six-day creation event less than 6,000 years ago, a garden guarded by Cherubims and a flaming sword, a global flood, demigods marrying earthly women and spawning evil giants, ultra-long-lived patriarchs, an exodus/conquest ethnogenesis of the Israelites, and the virgin birth of someone who cursed fig trees, infested swine with demons, and rose from the dead along with a bevy of zombie saints who proceeded to stroll the streets of Jerusalem.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

..., I am merely presenting some mostly unaffiliated (religiously, that is) facts to illuminate the divergence of contempory atheism from contempory science

With all due respect, you have done no such thing. At best you have managed to tilt at strawmen of your own creation.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

What I have previously refered to as God I shall forthwith call the 'numinous', meaning something supernatural (in sense that it is outside nature) and not necessarily personal. I apologise for the confusion that my oversight has generated, I seem to have unintentionally misdirected the thrust of this argument.

But you mean to imply something quite beyond the "supernatural" - you are asserting a purposeful deity and a teleological world with zero evidence for either. Otherwise, "supernatural" is simply a synonym for "unknown". In fact, you offer little beyond a tired appeal to some God-of-the-Gaps.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

I said that "The belief in an infinite universe is the crux of Atheism, in the absence of it atheism is groundless".

And the statement is baseless.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Are you sure you are not speaking of agnosticism? Atheism is the belief that there is comprehensive evidence for no deity (namely, a universal absence of evidence), not just that so far there is no evidence for him in our experience.

The domain of epistemology and that of ontology are not the same. Agnosticism addresses what is knowable. Atheism addresses what warrants belief. One can be an agnostic theist (e.g., fideist, deist) much as one can be an agnostic atheist.

Again, I readily acknowledge that the nonexistence of god(s) in not knowable, while asserting that I've been presented with no evidence warranting belief in deity.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

If you claim that you have no evidence so far of deity all you are saying is that you as of yet have 'no knowledge' of him, that's what agnostic means, 'a gnosis' (no knowledge - greek). Atheism is the assertion of sufficient evidence to warrant a disbelief in deity. Do you have this (I presume you are an atheist?)?

Bravo! The strawman has been vanquished, and with a great deal of cleverness as well. Note the equation:

No Evidence = No Knowledge As Yet!

To consumate my defeat at the hands of such brilliant orthodoxy, perhaps I should list all of the many things that I "as of yet have 'no knowledge' of". They would include Ba'al, the Asuras, Kali, the Nephelim, Christ, the Daoine Sidhe, the Unicorn, the Yeti, Von Daniken's Ancient Astronauts, ... -- the list is virtually endless.

Now that you have achieved this purely semantic victory, perhaps you will answer the questions that you have so far ignored. What are the attributes of your deity? How did you come to know of them? How might we confirm them?

Originally Posted by Orthodox

In addition; belief in an eternal and un-begun universe is the crux of atheism.

No, it is not, and repeating the mantra renders it no less erroneous. I am perfectly willing to view the source of the Big Bang as a current mystery yet to be resolved. Sahelanthropus tchadensis is a near hominid species dated to some 6 million years in the past. The electron was 'discovered' about a century ago (J.J.Thomson, 1897). Science is young and, as Darwin once noted:

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)

Originally Posted by Orthodox

If atheism says that there is no numinous and the universe is all that exists, then ...

But this is simply more semantic trickery and strawman construction. Once you define the attributes of you deity and make them accessible to and confirmable by others, we can discuss whether or not it warrants belief. As for the rest, I'm sure you're aware of cosmologies that do not delimit existence to our universe.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

A beginning which requires ignition by something outside of the field of spacetime we exist in is an affront to atheism. Wouldn't you agree?

No.

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Secular science has shown that the universe was most probably begun by 'something' (a conclusion that is not drawn from the 'constants' I spoke of in previous posts), hence, atheism is unscientific.

"Hence"? I'm sorry, but there is simply no there in your therefore. What is unscientific is replacing "we don't know" with "God did it". What is absurd is doing so and believing that you've actually said something of consequence.