Questions to atheists

[s2a]

Shahz, I disagree slightly on the definition of atheism from (probably) most of my fellow atheists here in that I do not define it as mere "lack" of belief in gods. I define it as rejection of belief in gods. That said, I agree with what most have said in this thread. It really depends on how you come to define atheism. It is not so much a religious position as a philosophical position. If you reject belief in gods, then you are an atheist, regardless of whether you are a spiritualist, an animist, a Buddhist, etc. Typically, atheists reject spiritualism, but not all of them do. Typically, atheists do not oppose abortion, but some are quite adamantly opposed to it. Typically, atheists can be called materialists, but not all are. Typically, theists worship gods, but those of the "deist" variety may feel no sense of worship. I would not classify deists as atheists, but they are often little different from atheists in their perspective on the nature of reality. That is, deists tend to believe that the universe is indifferent to the existence of life. Life is just a consequence of the way the universe evolved.

Allow me a moment if you will, perhaps to offer an “enhancement” of your offered atheistic perspective.

I for one, do not consider my claim as an atheist to be a “philosophical” distinction from those that adhere to faith based beliefs of god(s) or “spiritual forces” Not in the least. My understanding is firmly rooted within the constraints afforded by present scientific inquiry and understanding of provable facts… not just opinion and philosophical mutterings… or subject to conjectural ruminations of subjective doubts…

As an atheist, when I say “Gods do not exist”… I’m not proffering some philosophical opinion. I am stating what I understand to be substantiated scientific fact. Stephen Hawking ruffled more that a few feathers recently by presenting his own scientifically derived “disproof of God”…as it were.

He “proved”, in essence, that not only is the notion of supernaturalistic entities unnecessary as explanation of cosmological origins… but took it that further step, to demonstrate scientifically that it would be impossible for any such entity to exist, period.

As an atheist, I can only say… “Thank God”.

Finally, and at last, one of the most brilliant minds of a millennium has dared to confront and confound even like-minded atheists and agnostics with a soundly premised and evidentially supported presentation that “God” (or any number of gods) does not fit within the realm of fact based scientific exploration and inquiry.

Hawking debunks the idea that “science can not disprove the existence of God(s)”. He has. He did. He went there… and presented an evidential and logical case so compelling, so granite solid… that no one yet has even crafted a philosophical rebuttal worthy of serious examination or expansion.

If any doubts remain in your mind after encompassing the full scope and breadth of Hawking’s “God disproof”… then you’re not an “atheist” by any measure of succinct definition after that fact.; Agnostic, Spiritualist, Kung Fu master, Jedi Knight…whatever.

Many Christians claim to be “followers of Christ”… but most of us know that abject claims alone do not validate nor even support the self-allegation.. neither in deeds nor acts nor in words…

…and “philosophically” speaking, the same may even be said of “atheists”.

 

[s2a]

shahz replied:
Wrong, life is all about rewards or punishments. You are rewarded if you're genetically more fit. You are punished if you're not by dying out. Thus life runs counter to your definition of nature and as such life runs counter to the very definition of chaos and lack of purpose. Life itself arose through mysterious means so there's one fine example of randomness that resulted in purpose.

Illustration #1: See above
Your conclusion is predicated upon the premise that “someone” or “something” is existent to either validate or dismiss the relative importance or value of such outcomes. “By mysterious means” (ie “randomness ) is a therefore validation of a purpose of life? Really?

If there was no compelling evidence for a super naturalistic world you wouldn't have the most brillaint minds of all time believing that the universe has some order to it or a force behind it.

Let’s be honest here, shall we? Even genius level thinkers remain human, and retain doubts, fears, and questions about things that seemingly elude definitive answer.

Gee whiz… like why don’t geeky physicists get laid as often as captains of the football team? I dunno. Is it God’s will? Is it the Cosmos intervening? Or might there be a more simple explanation available…?

For me I find the evidence in a lot of things. One example would be the extremely finely tuned mathematics of the universe. The fibonacci sequence is found in all sorts of things, from plants to proteins, ears to seashells, and even the distribution of the stars in the milky way. Is this proof of a designer? No. Is it special? yes. I think it's evidence.

Bully for you, but let’s bear in mind a more realistic and sober perspective, shall we?

Our planet is orbited with a perfectly sized moon, in orbit about star that is just the right type, in a solar system in just the right place, with a ideal location and composition of elements and such that would allow… life…“just like us”, to miraculously evolve into a life-form (as we know it) and species both self-aware and inherent with the capacities of both reason and curiosity. Wow! It’s almost like it’s karmic destiny!

Or, maybe only until we discover that we are perhaps sharing the cosmos with dozens of similar species...and maybe, just maybe, we unnecessarily attach a special significance to things that seem to be a magical fit... that really such "coincidences" of order and perfection just aren't at all, but as common as hydrogen.

Most deists and pantheists believe in a higher being due to strong anthropic principle and an intuitive feeling that reality is a lot more than we see. It has nothing to do with God bestowing purpose on us.

Ahem, intuition is hardly science, much less a presentable theory. And smart people in many places, situations, and professions profess some super-naturalistic beliefs. So what? Smart people are hardly absent error, or even rational sanity.

Science also provides us with the understanding that at the conception of the big bang there was an infinite order.

A singularity is not the same thing as “infinite order”. It’s just a singularity… order presumes a purpose,,, ya know

Science also states that there are infinite set of universes out there with an infinite set of possibilities.

Well, to be fair, that is one of a few theories proposed to fit current models of understanding within varied possibilities regarding string theory (aka m theory) and some other more esoteric mathematical postulations…, but is hardly evidential or definitive at this point.

But I guess since you already KNOW that it's all bunk and the rest of us and the majority of scientsts are just fools. Thanks for the enlightenment. Sagan, Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Penrose all believed in bunk. I believe in bunk. You just know!

Well, not to pick nits, but Einstein was indeed wrong about many things accepted as fact today in contemporary physics. And yes, I DO know that. Both his ego, and his sensibilities, resisted any notions that were centered around his philosophical perspectives of the human condition as they related to the cosmos. He utterly resisted the very discoveries that Heisenberg put forward, to his dying day.

To note your own use of the word… “belief” (nor philosophy) is not science. It ain’t. Ever.

And to quote Sagan, if I might in paraphrase… “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”. Somehow, he did not mention the need nor proviso excuse of extraordinary personal belief, faith, or doubt as proof. Even genius level people doubt/question their own purpose, and may ultimately fear the inevitability of their non-existence. It’s only human… but not especially compelling proof of anything other that individualized philosophical perspectives (albeit with enhanced understandings).

 

[MD]

shahz replied:
Illustration #1: See above
Your conclusion is predicated upon the premise that “someone” or “something” is existent to either validate or dismiss the relative importance or value of such outcomes. “By mysterious means” (ie “randomness ) is a therefore validation of a purpose of life? Really?

No I'm just saying that purpose exists and arises out of chance from a purely naturalist perspective. Life is purpose biologically. Abiogenesis is still a mystery and yes the means by which it came about set in motion all basic principles in life and as such as basic principles of purpose as we know it.

Let’s be honest here, shall we? Even genius level thinkers remain human, and retain doubts, fears, and questions about things that seemingly elude definitive answer.

Gee whiz… like why don’t geeky physicists get laid as often as captains of the football team? I dunno. Is it God’s will? Is it the Cosmos intervening? Or might there be a more simple explanation available…?

There's a difference between believing in a personal and impersonal god. And yes even geniuses might be wrong which is why your quotes on Hawking putting forth a solid case against God might be as faulty as Newton's case for Deism or Einstein's case for pantheism. It's impossible for verify. By stating you just know you're right implies that you have some sort of proof, which you do not.

Bully for you, but let’s bear in mind a more realistic and sober perspective, shall we?

Our planet is orbited with a perfectly sized moon, in orbit about star that is just the right type, in a solar system in just the right place, with a ideal location and composition of elements and such that would allow… life…“just like us”, to miraculously evolve into a life-form (as we know it) and species both self-aware and inherent with the capacities of both reason and curiosity. Wow! It’s almost like it’s karmic destiny!

The fibonacci series is not just a series of numbers that arise through sheer chance in one sector of the universe. It is an additive sequence of numbers, and is dictated through the angle phi. It has order to it. Phi is an angle by which matter seems to be the most efficiently distributed within the systems with Fibonacci numbers. To find that such an angle produces a sequence of numbers which are additive and this sequence is widely distributed within the universe is pretty astounding to me. I don't care if you don't find it interesting or special, but it defintely shows that mathematical constants are fine tuned in our universe.

Ahem, intuition is hardly science, much less a presentable theory. And smart people in many places, situations, and professions profess some super-naturalistic beliefs. So what? Smart people are hardly absent error, or even rational sanity.

So what makes you so sure that other very same smart people that profess atheism are right? And what makes you know that you are right?

A singularity is not the same thing as “infinite order”. It’s just a singularity… order presumes a purpose,,, ya know

Again you are wrong, I'm not talking about a singularity. What I am stating is actually a theory proposed by Sir Roger Penrose, the mentor of Stephen Hawking. If the law in our universe states that as matter moves from a higher state to a lower state of energy through time, it will revert back to its higher state as we go back in time. Thus as we approach the singularity we are approaching an infinite level of order.

Well, to be fair, that is one of a few theories proposed to fit current models of understanding within varied possibilities regarding string theory (aka m theory) and some other more esoteric mathematical postulations…, but is hardly evidential or definitive at this point.

This theory is gaining quite a bit of evidence, so wrong again.

Well, not to pick nits, but Einstein was indeed wrong about many things accepted as fact today in contemporary physics. And yes, I DO know that. Both his ego, and his sensibilities, resisted any notions that were centered around his philosophical perspectives of the human condition as they related to the cosmos. He utterly resisted the very discoveries that Heisenberg put forward, to his dying day.

To note your own use of the word… “belief” (nor philosophy) is not science. It ain’t. Ever.

Of course it's belief, but your very arrogance at stating that there is no God or designer is a form of belief as well. Hawking has his own set of biases which may lead him to not believe in a God, he has been in a debilitating condition since 21. So his entire proposition, while backed by science, might arise from a sense of anger at his condition.

And to quote Sagan, if I might in paraphrase… “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”. Somehow, he did not mention the need nor proviso excuse of extraordinary personal belief, faith, or doubt as proof. Even genius level people doubt/question their own purpose, and may ultimately fear the inevitability of their non-existence. It’s only human… but not especially compelling proof of anything other that individualized philosophical perspectives (albeit with enhanced understandings).

Dr. Carl Sagan also said 'the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence'. Which is what you claim as you know there is no God.

 

[Alceste]

Some people who identify as atheist, particularly mathematicians, state that they feel the universe has a purpose or intelligence to it. Some believe that it is driven by a force unknowable but present. Others believe that our conciousness survives but there is no God.

This is confusing to me, wouldn't such views classify them as deists or pantheist? Do other atheists hold such views as well? Is this what weak atheism is? Or am I just completely wrong?

I would need to see a specific example of a self-professed atheist claiming to believe the universe had some intelligence or purpose to respond a to what their motives might be.

To answer the your question, yes. One who believes the universe is or is guided by intelligence or purpose is most accurately described as deist, pantheist or panentheist. Atheists are typically naturalists: we tend to believe universe adheres to consistent chemical and mathematical rules that we can come to understand. Those rules are inherent properties of the substance the universe is made of. They at not "created".

 

[s2a]

shahz said:

No I'm just saying that purpose exists and arises out of chance from a purely naturalist perspective. Life is purpose biologically. Abiogenesis is still a mystery and yes the means by which it came about set in motion all basic principles in life and as such as basic principles of purpose as we know it.

Fine. One persons mystery is anothers miracle or perfected purpose I suppose. Biopoiesis itself is hardly a mystery, as replication by experimentation can now be performed in any high school chemistry lab. What remains in question is the catalyst or "spark" that occurred here on Earth to initiate the process. Perhaps cometary/asteroid impact, or maybe billions of generational impacts/interactions of chemical compounds… we may never know.

Whatever you wish to project upon such observable outcomes is yours to peruse and proclaim as “principles in life” as it suits your own sensibilities. I don't see any natural "purpose" in life, except that is simply "is".

There's a difference between believing in a personal and impersonal god.

Well, duh. *face palm* Thank you.

And yes even geniuses might be wrong which is why your quotes on Hawking putting forth a solid case against God might be as faulty as Newton's case for Deism or Einstein's case for pantheism. It's impossible for verify. By stating you just know you're right implies that you have some sort of proof, which you do not.

I’ll be more than pleased to cite the references (a most recent book Hawking wrote, in fact) that presents what he understands as scientific disproof of “god” (it was received with a tad bit of controversy ya know). Do understand that I’m far too dull and dim-witted to offer up his conclusions as my own, ok?

The fibonacci series is not just a series of numbers that arise through sheer chance in one sector of the universe. It is an additive sequence of numbers, and is dictated through the angle phi. It has order to it. Phi is an angle by which matter seems to be the most efficiently distributed within the systems with Fibonacci numbers. To find that such an angle produces a sequence of numbers which are additive and this sequence is widely distributed within the universe is pretty astounding to me. I don't care if you don't find it interesting or special, but it defintely shows that mathematical constants are fine tuned in our universe.

Oh please. You almost sound like an evolution denier now.

“Sheer chance? How absurd! Statistically Impossibobble!”

Again, your premise presumes that the “fibonacci series” is beyond “sheer chance”. Your astonishment at the seeming “fine tuning” of this revelation of discovery is only defined by human understanding and interpretation of mathematics… hardly the stuff of divine origin or evidence of same. Again, I’ll note the “perfect porridge” argument that many point to as some sort of mystical proof of inexplicable (naturally impossible, or divinely set) order within the cosmos. I’ll readily agree that the “rules” of the cosmos do present fairly well established, predictable, and understood “laws” as best as we understand today… but it’s another enormous leap to conclude that “the laws of nature” are somehow “finely tuned”, ie for a “purpose”. They may suit humankind’s “purpose” in finding the best available explanations of what we can test and observe, but your implication presumes that there must be some “Grand Tuning Fork” requisite to the “fibonacci series” as explanation and empirical evidence. The “impossible coincidence” that seems to be a conundrum is in fact a product of our own construct. It’s a simplistic rationalization. “Gee whiz… if I hadn’t been low on gas, I wouldn’t have stopped at that gas station, and then purchased a winning lottery ticket with my spare change. It was almost like it was designed to happen that way! Impossible to believe, but true!”

Another old and tired existential meme... "If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is there to hear it... does it make a sound?"

Yes, of course it does, but no one is there to simply hear it. Duh. (Technology today affords us opportunity to record such events absent human presence, but that's almost cheating really, and ruins the absurdity of the philosophical question itself).

Of course, you can ask, "If no one is there to hear it, then why does the tree fall or make a sound?" It only matters in answer if you believe that both the hearing and the felling of the tree serve or fulfill some sort "purpose". Yet that too remains within the realm of philosophy (existentially speaking) to answer, not science.

So what makes you so sure that other very same smart people that profess atheism are right? And what makes you know that you are right?

It seems that my confidence and self-assuredness annoys you.

I could readily cite a few thousand reasons why I know I’m correct that superstitions and religious mythologies are bunk. But I dare say they would present no immediate interest to you. But I’ll indulge you with some favorites of mine, upon your request

Again you are wrong, I'm not talking about a singularity. What I am stating is actually a theory proposed by Sir Roger Penrose, the mentor of Stephen Hawking. If the law in our universe states that as matter moves from a higher state to a lower state of energy through time, it will revert back to its higher state as we go back in time. Thus as we approach the singularity we are approaching an infinite level of order.

I am familiar with entropy theory. Let’s just say that Penrose and Hawking do not agree upon your conclusion that infinite density equates to an “order”.

This theory is gaining quite a bit of evidence, so wrong again.

I know, but the jury is far from rendering any verdict as yet, especially since even string theory has at least six popular “threads” of it’s own… so… let’s allow the prosecution more time first, shall we? And, even the most hardened proponents of mTheory readily concede that multi-universes and multi-dimensions may be impossible to verify by any experimentation known, or even imagined today. Such is the awkward barrier between the mathematically speculative (yet no less crucial) and physically testable/experimental.

The hope to unify micro and macro physics into one grand unified theory is indeed the “Holy Grail” of contemporary understanding/explanation of our cosmos, but if there is arrogance on display here, it is yours in stating that I am “wrong”, when in fact no credible theoretical physicist today will definitively state what is correct, or “right”.

Of course it's belief, but your very arrogance at stating that there is no God or designer is a form of belief as well.

No, of course it’s not.

A confident unbelief/disbelief in claims that suggest/insist that there is/must be such an entity as best or only explanation is not a "belief". That’s quite a difference, and it’s not just semantical. It’s tiresome to constantly correct people that insist that “unbelief” is it’s own "belief system". It’s not an alternate “belief” to rationally reject insistent claims of fairies, goblins, or the Great Pumpkin as either empirical fact or philosophical truth.; of any other claimed deity/force/spirit as substitute of the aforementioned.

Hawking has his own set of biases which may lead him to not believe in a God, he has been in a debilitating condition since 21. So his entire proposition, while backed by science, might arise from a sense of anger at his condition.

Wow. Talk about fallacious argumentation now. Discredit or disprove his own presented proofs. Those as such are open to any and all peer review and critique (even you).

Questioning his motives is nothing better than fifth grade sandbox spitballing.

Dr. Carl Sagan also said 'the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence'. Which is what you claim as you know there is no God.

He did, and Sagan died as he lived, a most profound and outspoken atheist,..an unbowed unbeliever. Go figure.

If he returns one day soon to share his accountings of an afterlife, or ruminations upon his newly revealed purpose(s) of existence, I’ll be sure to have a listen

 

[MD]

I would need to see a specific example of a self-professed atheist claiming to believe the universe had some intelligence or purpose to respond a to what their motives might be.

To answer the your question, yes. One who believes the universe is or is guided by intelligence or purpose is most accurately described as deist, pantheist or panentheist. Atheists are typically naturalists: we tend to believe universe adheres to consistent chemical and mathematical rules that we can come to understand. Those rules are inherent properties of the substance the universe is made of. They at not "created".

If you go on to earlier pages I have given 4 examples

 

[cablescavenger]

Some people who identify as atheist, particularly mathematicians, state that they feel the universe has a purpose or intelligence to it. Some believe that it is driven by a force unknowable but present. Others believe that our conciousness survives but there is no God.

This is confusing to me, wouldn't such views classify them as deists or pantheist? Do other atheists hold such views as well? Is this what weak atheism is? Or am I just completely wrong?

Do they?

 

[MD]

Whatever you wish to project upon such observable outcomes is yours to peruse and proclaim as “principles in life” as it suits your own sensibilities. I don't see any natural "purpose" in life, except that is simply "is".

I doubt that you're a biologist or even a scientist but anyways the purpose of life is to reproduce. Not that it just 'is'. It has a specific PURPOSE which is to ensure that it survives. Purpose arose out of chance, what don't you understand about that?

I’ll be more than pleased to cite the references (a most recent book Hawking wrote, in fact) that presents what he understands as scientific disproof of “god” (it was received with a tad bit of controversy ya know). Do understand that I’m far too dull and dim-witted to offer up his conclusions as my own, ok?

Most of the brilliant minds of the last century were either agnost, deist or pantheist. Die hard atheists are in the minority. Stephen Hawking is one of them. His argument may be solid and his intelligence far surpasses mine but he is only one of many.

Oh please. You almost sound like an evolution denier now.

“Sheer chance? How absurd! Statistically Impossibobble!”

Again, your premise presumes that the “fibonacci series” is beyond “sheer chance”. Your astonishment at the seeming “fine tuning” of this revelation of discovery is only defined by human understanding and interpretation of mathematics… hardly the stuff of divine origin or evidence of same. Again, I’ll note the “perfect porridge” argument that many point to as some sort of mystical proof of inexplicable (naturally impossible, or divinely set) order within the cosmos. I’ll readily agree that the “rules” of the cosmos do present fairly well established, predictable, and understood “laws” as best as we understand today… but it’s another enormous leap to conclude that “the laws of nature” are somehow “finely tuned”, ie for a “purpose”. They may suit humankind’s “purpose” in finding the best available explanations of what we can test and observe, but your implication presumes that there must be some “Grand Tuning Fork” requisite to the “fibonacci series” as explanation and empirical evidence. The “impossible coincidence” that seems to be a conundrum is in fact a product of our own construct. It’s a simplistic rationalization. “Gee whiz… if I hadn’t been low on gas, I wouldn’t have stopped at that gas station, and then purchased a winning lottery ticket with my spare change. It was almost like it was designed to happen that way! Impossible to believe, but true!”

It seems to me that you are not a scientist but most definitely a philosopher as you tend to ramble on. Scientists like to get to the point. Anyways I never said that the series itself lends purpose to our lives. It lends me to believe that there might be design. It's not proof.

It's an additive series and it's widespread occurence throughout nature lends me to believe it's one of the constants in the universe that is finely tuned. Now if you want to believe that all this came about through chance, the product of a billion multiverse coming in and out of existence giving rise to our own, fine. But to me it represents order and suggests design.

Another old and tired existential meme... "If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is there to hear it... does it make a sound?"

Yes, of course it does, but no one is there to simply hear it. Duh. (Technology today affords us opportunity to record such events absent human presence, but that's almost cheating really, and ruins the absurdity of the philosophical question itself).

Of course, you can ask, "If no one is there to hear it, then why does the tree fall or make a sound?" It only matters in answer if you believe that both the hearing and the felling of the tree serve or fulfill some sort "purpose". Yet that too remains within the realm of philosophy (existentially speaking) to answer, not science.

Acutally this is something being discussed with quantum physics right now which states that consciousness is a direct property of the universe as it collapses wave forms allowing reality to exist. The tree does fall, yes. But the tree fall and does not fall and also sways and what else. It's only through our act of consciousness does it collapse. This isn't a philosophical question, it's a very real question in quantum physics. Now there's the idea that an infinite chain of observers is required to ensure the collapsed wave form. This could be seen as a sort of God consciousness. Sir Roger Penrose himself has stated that consciousness is an integral part of the universe.

It seems that my confidence and self-assuredness annoys you.

I could readily cite a few thousand reasons why I know I’m correct that superstitions and religious mythologies are bunk. But I dare say they would present no immediate interest to you. But I’ll indulge you with some favorites of mine, upon your request

Well you're not really confident, but rather arrogant. Go ahead reveal the secrets of the universe to me.

I am familiar with entropy theory. Let’s just say that Penrose and Hawking do not agree upon your conclusion that infinite density equates to an “order”.

You're familiar with it yet you denied it earlier? Lol you seem to be a little lost. Penrose very much so states that the farther back in time you , the higher amount of order exists. By you putting quotations around the word order, doesn't really validate your claims are true.

I know, but the jury is far from rendering any verdict as yet, especially since even string theory has at least six popular “threads” of it’s own… so… let’s allow the prosecution more time first, shall we? And, even the most hardened proponents of mTheory readily concede that multi-universes and multi-dimensions may be impossible to verify by any experimentation known, or even imagined today. Such is the awkward barrier between the mathematically speculative (yet no less crucial) and physically testable/experimental.

You do realize that Dr. Hawking himself believes in the multiverse/multidimensional theory. Oh so now you'll ramble on about how even he might be wrong. Only you are correct of course, silly me.

The hope to unify micro and macro physics into one grand unified theory is indeed the “Holy Grail” of contemporary understanding/explanation of our cosmos, but if there is arrogance on display here, it is yours in stating that I am “wrong”, when in fact no credible theoretical physicist today will definitively state what is correct, or “right”.

I'm arrogant because you said you know there's no God? :faint:

No, of course it’s not.

A confident unbelief/disbelief in claims that suggest/insist that there is/must be such an entity as best or only explanation is not a "belief". That’s quite a difference, and it’s not just semantical. It’s tiresome to constantly correct people that insist that “unbelief” is it’s own "belief system". It’s not an alternate “belief” to rationally reject insistent claims of fairies, goblins, or the Great Pumpkin as either empirical fact or philosophical truth.; of any other claimed deity/force/spirit as substitute of the aforementioned.

If you cannot provide proof that such a God does not exist then you cannot claim that he does not. I'm not talking about philosophical ramblings, I'm talking about scientifically. There is no way to prove or disprove God. Michio Kaku himself has stated this.

Wow. Talk about fallacious argumentation now. Discredit or disprove his own presented proofs. Those as such are open to any and all peer review and critique (even you).

Just as Einstein has been shown wrong in many instances, as will Hawking. I do not have the training to criticize his work. But in a 100 years when things become clearer people will attribute some of his errors to his own personal issues just as you have to Einstein.

He did, and Sagan died as he lived, a most profound and outspoken atheist,..an unbowed unbeliever. Go figure.

If he returns one day soon to share his accountings of an afterlife, or ruminations upon his newly revealed purpose(s) of existence, I’ll be sure to have a listen

WRONG again. Sagan was an agnostic.

 

[Alceste]

If you go on to earlier pages I have given 4 examples

I think you gave names, but not examples, if I remember correctly. I've never heard of any of them so I don't know what you were referring to. Can you give a specific quote from one of them?

 

[MD]

I think you gave names, but not examples, if I remember correctly. I've never heard of any of them so I don't know what you were referring to. Can you give a specific quote from one of them?

It should only be three, my mistake. Michio Kaku is an agnostic. Here's a quote from Roger Penrsoe. Roger Penrose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine,[24] and refers to himself as an atheist.[25] In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."[26] Penrose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association."

 

[Alceste]

It should only be three, my mistake. Michio Kaku is an agnostic. Here's a quote from Roger Penrsoe. Roger Penrose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine,[24] and refers to himself as an atheist.[25] In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."[26] Penrose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association."

In this case it seems as though he thinks of the universe as intelligent, so he would be most accurately described as a deist, I think, unless he means something else by the word "purpose".

 

[MD]

In this case it seems as though he thinks of the universe as intelligent, so he would be most accurately described as a deist, I think, unless he means something else by the word "purpose".

'Okay it's a pantheist view. Whatever it is, it's not an atheistic view.'

oops i misread your post, i thought you said he wouldn't be described as a deist.

 

[Copernicus]

If you cannot provide proof that such a God does not exist then you cannot claim that he does not. I'm not talking about philosophical ramblings, I'm talking about scientifically. There is no way to prove or disprove God. Michio Kaku himself has stated this.

I just wanted to single out this paragraph from your last post to S2a. First of all, you seem to be engaging in a lot of appeal to authority, but that is not my issue. You can make a claim that Santa Claus does not exist. Both of us believe that, right? Can you provide a scientific (or empirical) proof that he does not? To the extent that you can provide such a proof, you can also provide proofs that God does not exist. Most of our "factual" beliefs are claims that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Like many atheists, I believe that the existence of God can be proven false beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Alceste]

I just wanted to single out this paragraph from your last post to S2a. First of all, you seem to be engaging in a lot of appeal to authority, but that is not my issue. You can make a claim that Santa Claus does not exist. Both of us believe that, right? Can you provide a scientific (or empirical) proof that he does not? To the extent that you can provide such a proof, you can also provide proofs that God does not exist. Most of our "factual" beliefs are claims that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Like many atheists, I believe that the existence of God can be proven false beyond a reasonable doubt.

I believe there's good evidence that the vast majority of the gods that have thus far been described to me are false beyond a reasonable doubt, but those pantheists are slippery creatures.

 

[Alceste]

'Okay it's a pantheist view. Whatever it is, it's not an atheistic view.'

oops i misread your post, i thought you said he wouldn't be described as a deist.

I got the wrong word anyway, it wasn't a deist comment since a "purpose" doesn't imply the existence of a "creator". It's more of a pantheist or panentheist thing to say.

But, no, strictly speaking, I wouldn't call it an atheistic view unless he explained to me how there can be a "purpose" to something that is not subject to manipulation by an omnipotent intelligence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It should only be three, my mistake. Michio Kaku is an agnostic. Here's a quote from Roger Penrsoe. Roger Penrose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine,[24] and refers to himself as an atheist.[25] In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."[26] Penrose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association."

In this case it seems as though he thinks of the universe as intelligent, so he would be most accurately described as a deist, I think, unless he means something else by the word "purpose".

Here's my problem with that quote: as the Wiki article mentioned, it's from a film. I just had a look at the film (Here: A Brief History of Time - the passage in question starts around 1:12:40); it seems that Penrose is responding to an off-camera interviewer, but we don't get to hear the question that the interviewer asked. I think without that context, it's a bad idea to make the inference that whatever he meant by "purpose" necessarily means some sort of deity.

... especially since his talk about how other people's views of the world aren't "fruitful or helpful" suggests to me that he might be talking about a deliberate mental model he's chosen to adopt because he finds it useful, not necessarily his beliefs that he considers grounded in fact.

 

[MD]

I just wanted to single out this paragraph from your last post to S2a. First of all, you seem to be engaging in a lot of appeal to authority, but that is not my issue. You can make a claim that Santa Claus does not exist. Both of us believe that, right? Can you provide a scientific (or empirical) proof that he does not? To the extent that you can provide such a proof, you can also provide proofs that God does not exist. Most of our "factual" beliefs are claims that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Like many atheists, I believe that the existence of God can be proven false beyond a reasonable doubt.

Copernicus I like your posts, they are devoid of arrogance and I thank you for that. I cannot provide proof that God does exist. It is obviously a belief. You cannot provide that he does not exist either. And yes your argument is right. The only reason I put down authorative figures is because they have more scientific respect than I do.

Anyways from all the research I have seen about quantum consciousness, mathematical constants, parapsychology research and my own personal experiences with the supernatural, i have come to the conclusion that there is something out there. Now you can say those are highly speculative theories and I will agree they are. But the point is science is constantly changing and as scientists we must keep an open mind.

What if you did give me your reasonable proof that there is no God? And then what if one day we do come to realize there is this sort of God consciousness required to collapse wave forms which is required for reality. Then what would you say? You would admit you were wrong, wouldn't you?

Now you may say that if and when presented with new evidence you will change your mind. But doesn't that fly in the face of your assertion that you are sure beyond a doubt that there is no God? When Einstein was working on his theory of relativity he was ridiculed, but he eventually prevailed. If he had listened to all the nay sayers we wouldn't have the masterpiece which he crafted. The same way materialists may brush off the out there theories today, but people continue to work on them. And they are picking up steam, one day the very skeptics who called multiverse and quantum consciousness 'woo woo' may be dead wrong. What exists in our reality is far grander than you can imagine, so how can you make a solid argument for no God/being/life force/wtv when the very nature of the universe itself hasn't been fully understood.

I hope you understand my point, and thank you once again for your polite rebuttal.

 

[MD]

Here's my problem with that quote: as the Wiki article mentioned, it's from a film. I just had a look at the film (Here: A Brief History of Time - the passage in question starts around 1:12:40); it seems that Penrose is responding to an off-camera interviewer, but we don't get to hear the question that the interviewer asked. I think without that context, it's a bad idea to make the inference that whatever he meant by "purpose" necessarily means some sort of deity.

... especially since his talk about how other people's views of the world aren't "fruitful or helpful" suggests to me that he might be talking about a deliberate mental model he's chosen to adopt because he finds it useful, not necessarily his beliefs that he considers grounded in fact.

Penrose is working on this theory of consciousness (speculative but has some evidence behind it) called Orch-OR theory with another anesthesiologist called Hameroff and this theory leads one to believe that consciousness is a part of this universe, so it would suggest that the universe has a deeper reality to it that what is observable. It's not an argument for God, but it goes against the very strong atheistic materialist viewpoints that the universe is just a computer. Penrose himself has stated that consciousness is a part of the universe and that the universe works in cycles, rather than out of pure chance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Penrose is working on this theory of consciousness (speculative but has some evidence behind it) called Orch-OR theory with another anesthesiologist called Hameroff and this theory leads one to believe that consciousness is a part of this universe, so it would suggest that the universe has a deeper reality to it that what is observable. It's not an argument for God, but it goes against the very strong atheistic materialist viewpoints that the universe is just a computer. Penrose himself has stated that consciousness is a part of the universe and that the universe works in cycles, rather than out of pure chance.

"Atheist" does not necessarily imply "materialist". If you're trying to figure out whether Roger Penrose is an atheist, you need to stop at "it's not an argument for God." The "but..." afterward is irrelevant to the question.

 

[MD]

"Atheist" does not necessarily imply "materialist". If you're trying to figure out whether Roger Penrose is an atheist, you need to stop at "it's not an argument for God." The "but..." afterward is irrelevant to the question.

You are thinking of God in an Abrahamic sense. A universal consciousness would be akin to God in an eastern religious sense.