A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Motor Daddy]

OK. This is why we can't reject all definitions of god. If you define him as a ham sandwich or an elementary particle, then I would have to admit that god exists.

Of course, if you define god as a ham sandwich, then you either have as many different gods as there are ham sandwiches in the entire volume of space, or that one of those ham sandwiches is the real god. But asking all the ham sandwiches which one of them is the real god, and for that sandwich to please stand up has been an ineffective technique so far. Thus, the problem of determining which ham sandwich is the real god, which if not found out may result in god being eaten, or worse yet, thrown in the trash as old outdated BS!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I would argue that supernatural beings and qualities are outside the scope of natural science, pretty much by definition.

They're not, precisely, out of the scope of natural science. What they are is out of the scope of the universe. The fundamental premise that sets up the scientific method and guides all of science is: the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. The scientific method is recursive and this premise has been tested exhaustively for 500 years, often with great hostility, yet has never come close to being falsified.

In all that time, not one shred of respectable evidence has been found for the existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, from which astounding creatures and immeasurable forces emerge at random intervals for the express purpose of fucking up the operation of the natural universe.

This makes the scientific method true beyond a reasonable doubt. Scientific theories are occasionally proven false, although they are more often simply amended. But this happens so rarely that we do quite well by accepting their veracity until and unless they are falsified.

it's almost a certainty that god, in some form, exists or existed.

"Almost certain" to whom? As I noted above, there is absolutely zero respectable evidence for the existence of supernatural phenomena.

keep in mind that this "god" might be something other than supernatural.

Like what? A new kind of boson? A new kind of microscopic organism? A new kind of radiation? Our species has this great tool called "language," and we expect people to use it.

Please remember that this is a place of science. Don't tease us with vague statements that tell us absolutely nothing. This won't even get you past the front gate of the academy.

Atheists, please: Can you all stop misrepresenting atheism as an insightful, thoughtful philosophy? I mean, holy Darwin.

Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's an assertion: there are no gods.

It's theism that is a philosophy, one that urges people to run their lives and their civilizations on the assumption that a fairytale is actually real.

leopold first asked me for "proof that god does not exist", or words to that effect. When I asked him which god, he said the God who created life and the universe. When I asked him "which creator-god" he was referring to, he didn't respond.

The Abrahamic religions teach that there is only one god, so the question, "which god?" doesn't make sense to an Abrahamist (a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Baha'i or Rastafarian).

The Hindus also believe that there is only one god. Their multiple images merely express the incredible scope of that one god, which cannot be grasped in a single name or face. They include the gods of other religions in that "virtual pantheon." They assure Jews, Muslims, etc., that their god is the same one that they worship, merely by a different name. The question "which god" does not apply to them either, but they at least can respond to it with a lecture, instead of calling you a "heathen" for believing there is any other god besides their own.

. . . . in science we should avoid the word "prove" as science cannot "prove" anything, it can only tell you the way it most likely is.

The way I (and others) usually express this is that science proves things to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, scientific theories are overturned so rarely that it never causes the canon of science to tumble down. It's much more common for them to be simply elaborated, such as Newton's Laws of Motion being fine-tuned by Einstein, using evidence gathered from instruments that could not have been constructed in Newton's era.

Even saying that science proves the sun will rise in the East in the morning is subject to being true...until it isn't anymore. Some small Black Hole could zip by, disturbing orbits and the ensuing chaos could roll the Earth's poles over(look at Neptune). Not very likely, true. Probably more likely to happen than for Zeus to drop by for lunch, likely true.

We all know about black holes. It's implicit in any scientific theory that a black hole could just happen to take a trajectory that will blast it right through your own solar system. We all know this, so we don't bother saying, "The sun will rise in the east tomorrow unless a black hole comes our way, or an asteroid hits the planet and reverses its spin, or [a whole litany of possible but very unlikely scenarios].

About a god on the other side of the singularity, though, one just has to say "I don't know." I doubt it, but there's just no information to go on other than the whole "Let there be light" Big Bang thing.

A god on the other side of the singularity? That's not what the religionists postulate, so that's not the assertion that we have to address. They insist that their god/gods have already performed miracles and the evidence is all around us. Yet every time we study one of these alleged miracles, it turns out to be nothing more than the Laws of Nature working exactly as science predicts they will work.

 

[Syne]

They're not, precisely, out of the scope of natural science. What they are is out of the scope of the universe. The fundamental premise that sets up the scientific method and guides all of science is: the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. The scientific method is recursive and this premise has been tested exhaustively for 500 years, often with great hostility, yet has never come close to being falsified.

I agree that the universe is a closed system, with only things existing within the system capable of influencing it. There is no "outside" of nature, but there are plenty of phenomena we cannot predict. Now you can claim that things like human behavior suffer from the predictive hurdle of complexity, but that would then put complexity outside of your definition of a natural universe (i.e. something demonstrably amiable to prediction). Prediction of reductive elements does nothing to demonstrate predictability of complex composites.

All you seem to be claiming is that any god does not interfere with the laws of nature, which most educated proponents of free will would heartily agree with. Interfering with the laws of nature is not the sole criteria that determines the existence of a god, so this claim seems to be a false dilemma.

 

[Balerion]

Aqueous Id



While I agree your conclusion is likely true, in science we should avoid the word "prove" as science cannot "prove" anything, it can only tell you the way it most likely is. Even saying that science proves the sun will rise in the East in the morning is subject to being true...until it isn't anymore. Some small Black Hole could zip by, disturbing orbits and the ensuing chaos could roll the Earth's poles over(look at Neptune). Not very likely, true. Probably more likely to happen than for Zeus to drop by for lunch, likely true.
About a god on the other side of the singularity, though, one just has to say "I don't know." I doubt it, but there's just no information to go on other than the whole "Let there be light" Big Bang thing.

Grumpy

I think the point Aqueous is making is that once we've established the myth, there is no basis to assume a particular deity's existence is possible. This is how science has "proven" the truth of the claim "this god does not exist."

 

[Balerion]

All you seem to be claiming is that any god does not interfere with the laws of nature, which most educated proponents of free will would heartily agree with.

Not sure what the laws of nature and free will have to do with one another. Why would the exercise of free will depend on the laws of nature operating "naturally," so to speak?

Interfering with the laws of nature is not the sole criteria that determines the existence of a god, so this claim seems to be a false dilemma.

Not the sole criteria, but it sure seems to be a good one. Especially considering that so many iterations of god--including the most popular ones--ascribe many interruptions of natural law to it.

 

[Yazata]

[Hypothetical supernatural beings and qualities are] not, precisely, out of the scope of natural science.

I think that they are. Let's define terms. (The following exerpts are taken from the 'Oxford Guide to Philosophy'.)

Nature - "First, by nature, we mean everything that there is in the physical world of experience, very broadly construed. The universe and its contents, in short." (p. 643)

Natural - "Belonging to or concerned with the world of nature, and so accessible to investigation by the natural sciences." (p. 640)

Naturalism - "In general the view that everything is natural, i.e. that everything there is belongs to the world of nature, and so can be studied by the methods appropriate for studying that world." (p. 640)

It seems to me that naturalism, in the ontological as opposed to methodological sense, is a metaphysical belief. If our senses and epistemological faculties are restricted to knowing the physical world of nature, it isn't clear how anyone can know with certainty that nothing apart from this physical world exists.

While science has been extremely successful using the closed-system idea as a methodological assumption (science should look for this-worldly explanations for events), it does leave some important problems more or less hanging, such as where did the physical universe come from (if anywhere) and what (if anything) accounts for the existence, nature and universal applicability of things like logic, mathematics and the so-called 'laws' of nature.

 

[Balerion]

While science has been extremely successful using the closed-system idea as a methodological assumption (science should look for this-worldly explanations for events), it leaves some important problems more or less hanging, such as where did the physical universe come from (if anywhere) and what (if anything) accounts for the existence, nature and universal applicability of things like logic, mathematics and the so-called 'laws' of nature.

I don't know why you see this as a failing of science, instead of merely a shortcoming in our understanding. There's nothing inherent to the question of where our universe came from that makes it scientifically unanswerable. It seems to be that we're just not there yet.

 

[Syne]

Not sure what the laws of nature and free will have to do with one another. Why would the exercise of free will depend on the laws of nature operating "naturally," so to speak?



Not the sole criteria, but it sure seems to be a good one. Especially considering that so many iterations of god--including the most popular ones--ascribe many interruptions of natural law to it.

If the natural laws were arbitrarily interrupted then we could not learn to predict the possible unintended or extended consequences of free actions. Prediction requires consistency, in science and in moral responsibility.

Not being the sole criteria is sufficient to dismiss the bald assertion that this criteria alone proves anything about the existence of a god (regardless of argument ad populum).

I don't know why you see this as a failing of science, instead of merely a shortcoming in our understanding. There's nothing inherent to the question of where our universe came from that makes it scientifically unanswerable. It seems to be that we're just not there yet.

Science of the gaps, i.e. faith. There are some things that even science has determined will always be beyond its capabilities, like observing the cause of the big bang which is forever hidden from us due to the finite speed of light, which could not outpace inflationary expansion.

 

[Balerion]

If the natural laws were arbitrarily interrupted then we could not learn to predict the possible unintended or extended consequences of free actions. Prediction requires consistency, in science and in moral responsibility.

Who said anything about arbitrarily interrupting natural laws? If these interruptions are meant to be punishment for immoral actions, which is where the concept comes from, then there's nothing about divine intercession that negates free will.

And who said free will requires prediction? A lack of consistent outcomes is not necessary for one to choose freely. Do you think my lottery number selections are not my own since the drawing results are not consistently the same numbers?

Not being the sole criteria is sufficient to dismiss the bald assertion that this criteria alone proves anything about the existence of a god (regardless of argument ad populum).

He didn't say it proves anything. In fact, he's gone on record numerous times as saying that no such thing has been proven; to the contrary, he believes it is simply a matter of there being no evidence in favor of their existence. I would disagree with that, but at least I'm disagreeing with his actual position, rather than a strawman, which is what you're doing.

As to argumentum ad populum, you're the one who frequently cites the number of theists in the world as a way of somehow legitimizing their beliefs.

Science of the gaps, i.e. faith.

LOL! First of all, "science of the gaps" isn't even a thing. The "God of the gaps" fallacy is when God is asserted as cause where science is unable to provide an answer; it is not likewise a fallacy to assume that science will eventually find an answer. Remember, science has a track record, whereas God does not. And, as I stated before, there is nothing about the question of where our universe came from that suggests it is scientifically unanswerable.

There are some things that even science has determined will always be beyond its capabilities, like observing the cause of the big bang which is forever hidden from us due to the finite speed of light, which could not outpace inflationary expansion.

One does not need to observe the cause of the Big Bang to discern it. Just as we did not have to witness the Big Bang itself to know that it happened.

 

[leopold]

There is no "outside" of nature, . . .

i would say life and conscience are "outside" of nature.
science has shown me NOTHING that would lead me to believe "dirt" could EVER become aware of itself or give an opinion on an abstract piece of art.

apparently science assumes an edge to the universe.
there HAS to be something on the other side, this other side could be said to be "outside" nature.

 

[Balerion]

i would say life and conscience are "outside" of nature.
science has shown me NOTHING that would lead me to believe "dirt" could EVER become aware of itself or give an opinion on an abstract piece of art.

Who said dirt becomes aware of itself?

apparently science assumes an edge to the universe.
there HAS to be something on the other side, this other side could be said to be "outside" nature.

Again, an education in the sciences would help here.

 

[Syne]

Who said anything about arbitrarily interrupting natural laws? If these interruptions are meant to be punishment for immoral actions, which is where the concept comes from, then there's nothing about divine intercession that negates free will.

And who said free will requires prediction? A lack of consistent outcomes is not necessary for one to choose freely. Do you think my lottery number selections are not my own since the drawing results are not consistently the same numbers?



He didn't say it proves anything. In fact, he's gone on record numerous times as saying that no such thing has been proven; to the contrary, he believes it is simply a matter of there being no evidence in favor of their existence. I would disagree with that, but at least I'm disagreeing with his actual position, rather than a strawman, which is what you're doing.

As to argumentum ad populum, you're the one who frequently cites the number of theists in the world as a way of somehow legitimizing their beliefs.



LOL! First of all, "science of the gaps" isn't even a thing. The "God of the gaps" fallacy is when God is asserted as cause where science is unable to provide an answer; it is not likewise a fallacy to assume that science will eventually find an answer. Remember, science has a track record, whereas God does not. And, as I stated before, there is nothing about the question of where our universe came from that suggests it is scientifically unanswerable.



One does not need to observe the cause of the Big Bang to discern it. Just as we did not have to witness the Big Bang itself to know that it happened.

The concept of divine intervention is not restricted to punishment, as there are also accounts of miracles. You would need to cite references to support your claim that the concept comes from punishment.

Divine intervention is a term for a miracle caused by a deity's active involvement in the human world.


The word "miracle" is often used to characterise any beneficial event that is statistically unlikely but not contrary to the laws of nature, such as surviving a natural disaster, or simply a "wonderful" occurrence, regardless of likelihood, such as a birth. - wiki​

Free will is about significant choice. Choices with unpredictable outcomes would not be morally significant, as a dice roll would serve the same function and we do not ascribe moral responsibility to dice.

So far all I have said is that science has proved that God does not exist.

I think that I disagree pretty strongly with that.

Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's an assertion: there are no gods.

Intervening seems to be the only support Fraggle gave for his assertion.


Science of the gaps operates on the same premise as god of the gaps. Faith, whether due to personal experience, a track record, etc. is no substituted for actual evidence.

The speed at which the very early universe expanded during inflation tells us that light signals from that time cannot physically reach us. We would need to observe some evidence of the cause of the big bang to empirically determine its cause (evidence, like the ton we have that it actually occurred and are lacking for its cause). Again, faith and educated guesses are no substitute for actual evidence.

There is no "outside" of nature, . . .

i would say life and conscience are "outside" of nature.
science has shown me NOTHING that would lead me to believe "dirt" could EVER become aware of itself or give an opinion on an abstract piece of art.

apparently science assumes an edge to the universe.
there HAS to be something on the other side, this other side could be said to be "outside" nature.

Who is to say that god is not intrinsic and natural to the closed system? The god of Spinoza for example. A god need not have some "realm" beyond this universe in order to exist, hence omnipresence being a typical attribute of god. Consciousness is beyond science, but science does not account for the whole of nature.

No, the universe does not have "an edge". It has a visible horizon where the expansion of space, relative to our viewpoint, is receding faster than the finite speed of light can send signals back to us.

 

[Yazata]

While science has been extremely successful using the closed-system idea as a methodological assumption (science should look for this-worldly explanations for events), it does leave some important problems more or less hanging, such as where did the physical universe come from (if anywhere) and what (if anything) accounts for the existence, nature and universal applicability of things like logic, mathematics and the so-called 'laws' of nature.

I don't know why you see this as a failing of science

I don't exactly think of it as a failing of science. It's more of a limitation on the applicability of natural science. Natural science is applicable to the world of nature.

instead of merely a shortcoming in our understanding. There's nothing inherent to the question of where our universe came from that makes it scientifically unanswerable. It seems to be that we're just not there yet.

What I was thinking about were the big metaphysical questions, global or universal questions that don't just concern particular events that take place in the universe, but seek to explain the universe as a whole and the general principles that seem to govern it.

By its nature, science must try to explain natural principles, logic and mathematics, by use of natural principles, logic and mathematics.

'Bootstrap' theories that attempt to explain their own principles by use of their own principles would appear to be circular.

 

[Balerion]

I don't exactly think that it is a failing of science. It's more of a limitation on the applicability of natural science. Natural science is applicable to the world of nature.

That's what I meant, Yaz.

What I was thinking about were the big metaphysical questions, global or universal questions that don't just concern particular events that take place in the universe, but seek to explain the universe as a whole and the general principles that seem to govern it.

By its nature, science must try to explain the origin, existence and nature of natural principles, logic and mathematics, by use of natural principles, logic and mathematics.

A 'bootstrap' theory that attempts to account for its own principles by use of its own principles would seem to me to be circular by definition.

I don't see metaphysics as being beyond the scope of science. I mean, for that to be true, we'd have to assume that nothing we know is applicable beyond the "borders" of the universe, when I see no reason to make such an assumption. If the universe came from something, why can't that something be part of a larger "nature?"

 

[Yazata]

I don't see metaphysics as being beyond the scope of science. I mean, for that to be true, we'd have to assume that nothing we know is applicable beyond the "borders" of the universe, when I see no reason to make such an assumption.

It seems to me that if we hope to explain our physical and logical principles, we will need to do it in terms of something different than our physical and logical principles. Otherwise we slip into circularity.

If the universe came from something, why can't that something be part of a larger "nature?"

That's certainly possible. That's how I usually imagine it (for what little that's worth).

That idea does suggest an infinite regress problem though, since that larger "nature" and whatever principles are operative there would in turn require explanation.

That's one reason why theism isn't intellectually satisfying. It makes arguments similar to those I've just made, suggesting that our physical reality requires some explanation outside itself. Then it insists that whatever that explanation might be, it's identical with their god. (That's a huge and probably indefensible leap.) Then when the inevitable questions are raised about what accounts for their god (that's the regress), they suddenly start waving their hands, insisting that their god exists necessarily, that "he" requires no explanation outside himself, or something.

As for me, while I sense very strongly that there are big metaphysical questions that remain unanswered, I don't have a clue what the answers might be, or even how to go about answering them. That's why I think of myself as an agnostic with regards to this stuff.

 

[Balerion]

It seems to me that if we hope to explain our physical and logical principles, we will need to do it in terms of something different than our physical and logical principles. Otherwise we slip into circularity.

I don't know. I really don't see it that way, but I suppose it's possible that we come to understand other principles down the line. If purple is really orange outside of our universe, it might not make sense to us at first blush, but if there are principles that make this so, I'm sure we can learn them.

Then again, I'm colorblind, so the fact that purple is purple doesn't make any sense to me anyway.

That idea does suggest an infinite regress problem though, since that larger "nature" and whatever principles are operative there would in turn require explanation.

That's one reason why theism isn't intellectually satisfying. It makes arguments similar to those I've just made, suggesting that our physical reality requires some explanation outside itself. Then it insists that whatever that explanation might be, it's identical with their god. (That's a huge and probably indefensible leap.) Then when the inevitable questions are raised about what accounts for their god (that's the regress), they suddenly start waving their hands, insisting that their god exists necessarily, that "he" requires no explanation outside himself, or something.

The infinite regression problem of asserting God is one that is owed to the the premise that the universe requiring a creator. I don't think many scientists would complain with a model that requires no spark, so to speak. Whether it' an infinite loop, or the idea that we're part of a larger process that itself has always been, that's not necessarily a bad explanation. When I wonder if the universe is part of string theory, say, I'm not insisting that the universe must come from strings, only that it might. (I have no idea, if it isn't obvious by now)

As for me, while I sense very strongly that there are big metaphysical questions that remain unanswered, I don't have a clue what the answers might be, or even how to go about answering them. That's why I think of myself as an agnostic with regards to this stuff.

I don't think we even know the questions. I mean, it's entirely possible that the answers won't make any sense to us. I admit that. I'm just saying that it's incorrect to assume this is so.

 

[leopold]

Two questions come to mind:

1) How is it "almost a certainty" that God existed? What is the basis for this assertion?

if life was created at the same instant and by the same cause as the universe then this cause would be (or could be) "god".

2) If "god" is not supernatural, then why call it "god" at all?

lack of a better term.

 

[leopold]

Please remember that this is a place of science. Don't tease us with vague statements that tell us absolutely nothing. This won't even get you past the front gate of the academy.

i'm sorry, i'm no genius.
equations do not fall out of my nose like they do rpenners.

 

[Balerion]

if life was created at the same instant and by the same cause as the universe then this cause would be (or could be) "god".

That makes no sense. For one, life and the universe were not created at once. Not even in your Christian mythology was that the case, so I don't know what gives you the notion that this occurred. Secondly, what??

lack of a better term.

Any term is better than "god."

 

[leopold]

not even in your christian mythology . . .

nevermind.