Science and atheism inconsistent?

[Willamena]

I don't think you understand atheists. You certainly don't understand me.

I suggest you read my post #106 if you are interested in understanding (my) atheism.

My post wasn't about you. It was about atheism.

 

[ecco]

Right, the strong atheist is sure in his belief. It has nothing to do with "knowing."

Wrong, for some of us, it has everything to do with knowing.

 

[Willamena]

Wrong, for some of us, it has everything to do with knowing.

Knowing what?

Edit: The topic was this post Science and atheism inconsistent?

If you can support that chart, then I'll have to retract my 'like' of post #106.

 

[blü 2]

Basically the negative statement to what the physicist puts forward; however, it has never been shown how anything can come from nothing. If nothing could never have existed then something has always existed.

For example lets say that an an electron the became into something. An electron would need space, momentum, charge, mass and etc. An electron is not one thing but many things. How could a singularity produce everything from nothing?

I don't think it created things. Instead I hypothesize that mass-energy existed before the Big Bang, and that mass-energy formed the contents of the Big Bang and that the universe is as it is because of the forms and properties of mass-energy.

In that case space and time would exist because mass-energy exists, and not vice versa. And the problem of beginnings goes away.

 

[ChristineM]

But his point was that that is "proof" rather than evidence. And he's right. Evidence is simply facts or information that point at a .

I quoted the OED definition of evidence.

BTW The OED definition of proof is
Proof : evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

 

[Willamena]

I quoted the OED definition of evidence.

BTW The OED definition of proof is
Proof : evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Then I suppose the point is that some people distinguish between the two.

 

[bobhikes]

I don't think it created things. Instead I hypothesize that mass-energy existed before the Big Bang, and that mass-energy formed the contents of the Big Bang and that the universe is as it is because of the forms and properties of mass-energy.

In that case space and time would exist because mass-energy exists, and not vice versa. And the problem of beginnings goes away.

I consider space/time a two dimensional membrane that 3 dimensional mass exists within, the space/time dimension stretches around the 3 dimensional mass trying to compress it to 2 dimensions causing energy.

 

[blü 2]

I consider space/time a two dimensional membrane that 3 dimensional mass exists within, the space/time dimension stretches around the 3 dimensional mass trying to compress it to 2 dimensions causing energy.

Does that mean you think the Big Bang created the universe from energy-free dimensionless absolute nothing? Or do you think the Big Bang occurred within a pre-existing situation?

 

[ChristineM]

Then I suppose the point is that some people distinguish between the two.

The point is that some people misrepresent evidence

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Theists just need to stop worrying about the term "atheist," and what they think it means. The conversation is going nowhere.

Here's the real low-down: You say "I believe that God X exists.", and I say "Well I don't." That's it. That's what it's about. I don't believe in what you believe in. Full stop. And you're going to have to produce something pretty damn convincing to change my mind.

 

[ecco]

Wrong, for some of us, it has everything to do with knowing.

Knowing what?

Knowing that gods are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

 

[ecco]

If you can support that chart, then I'll have to retract my 'like' of post #106.

I wouldn't even try. And thanks.

 

[shunyadragon]

So where is this evidence for the existence of god. I am pretty sure if it existed it would be right up there with the wonders of the world.

As repeatedly indicated there is no objective verifiable evidence either way.

As it stands we still have several evidences that show specific aspects of gods cannot exist.

No such objective evidence exists.

For example no omnipotent god is possible given that matter exists
A caring god is such a weird concept given all the suffering that exists (unnecessarily if such a god was a reality)
What creator god would possibly create a prize creation to worship him/her/it and create an insect or a virus to kill that prize creation

Nothing above represents objective verifiable evidence for the non-existence of God(s). It would part of a pretty good subjective argument against the existence the anthropomorphic God(s) of the Bible, which I do not believe in either.














0

 

[blü 2]

X — the God, is best defined as ‘That Thou Art’. This is the Vedantic definition. You have to test it. But I can help you by pointing to an Upanishadic story involving BrahmA (creator mind), Indra (leader of the senses) and Virochana (ego demon) from Chandogya Upanishad.

Upanishads

Once Prajapati, the creator of the universe announced, “The Self is the sinless, ageless and deathless One; it has no sorrow nor hunger nor thirst. The goal of all its desire is the Truth, Truth is the one thing worthy of its resolve. It is this Self that has to be sought after, it alone one should seek to know. And one who seeks after the Self and knows it, gains possessions of all the worlds, wins all that is desirable.”
​

Ah me. This asserts without demonstration that a sentient being created the universe, and that 'sin' is an objective quality rather than a human situational construct, and that something called 'Truth' exists but offers no test that will identify it, and ...

Our paths to understanding are quite distinct.

Fortunately we have our humanity in common.

 

[bobhikes]

Does that mean you think the Big Bang created the universe from energy-free dimensionless absolute nothing? Or do you think the Big Bang occurred within a pre-existing situation?

3 dimensional matter always exists within 2 dimensional space/time. Energy comes from space/time compressing multidimensional space into 2 dimensions at some point the multidimensional matter explodes into the big bang. When this energy dies down the process's starts over again. Why is it all our dimensions we can go forward and backward except for time which goes only one direction.

 

[ChristineM]

As repeatedly indicated there is no objective verifiable evidence either way.



No such objective evidence exists.



Nothing above represents objective verifiable evidence for the non-existence of God(s). It would part of a pretty good subjective argument against the existence the anthropomorphic God(s) of the Bible, which I do not believe in either.














0

As repeatedly indicated there is no objective verifiable evidence either way.



No such objective evidence exists.



Nothing above represents objective verifiable evidence for the non-existence of God(s). It would part of a pretty good subjective argument against the existence the anthropomorphic God(s) of the Bible, which I do not believe in either.

0

E=MC2 is objective
Leukemia is objective
The mosquito and ebola virus are objective

 

[blü 2]

3 dimensional matter always exists within 2 dimensional space/time. Energy comes from space/time compressing multidimensional space into 2 dimensions at some point the multidimensional matter explodes into the big bang. When this energy dies down the process's starts over again. Why is it all our dimensions we can go forward and backward except for time which goes only one direction.

Thanks.

Good luck with that.

 

[charlie sc]

These types of discussions, concerning biases, are so ironic and convoluted. It's difficult to examine them in whole or make any sense of them. Critiques against atheism are shockingly poor, not just for their incomprehensibility but how ironic they are. Atheists are concerned over definitions and logical possibilities of god(s). However, theists don't seem to care or want to define god, let alone understand how logically possible god(s) are. They also deny the existence of other god(s) and shockingly ignore the same arguments for other god(s) that they use for theirs(double standards). So, sometimes the only option is to go on the offensive and criticise a non-belief or disbelief(atheism/agnosticism). However, there is no ideology attached and the theist is, literally, doing the same disbelief for other gods or mystical beings.

It's just a whole mess and you can see how atheists steamroll any sense of an argument that does not rest on complete incoherence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

They mostly don't not want to, because if they did, they would find it indefensible. And that would curtail their ability to attack the choices of others.

Actually, atheism is really very defensible, provided that one makes only the claim that there is, so far, no evidence that remotely suggests the existence of any deity active in the world, but if such evidence were produced, my attitude would change.

On the other hands, the religious beliefs of the vast majority of believers in the world is the result, not of study and careful thought, but of indoctrination from birth and a fair dosage of threats of what will happen if you dare to disbelieve. It might convince the believer, but it is not, in and of itself, very convincing from an evidentiary point of view.

 

[ecco]

Actually, atheism is really very defensible, provided that one makes only the claim that there is, so far, no evidence that remotely suggests the existence of any deity active in the world, but if such evidence were produced, my attitude would change.

That's a very wimpy approach and it completely ignores history.