What are the conflicts between atheism and science?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
I want a full description of your God. All you did was trade labels, instead of saying God, you said 'Supreme Being', what's a Supreme Being?
For instance, say someone from a previously undiscovered tribe asked you to describe a car, and you replied with 'it's an automobile', do you think you would have helped them understand the matter any more?
I want attributes, not labels. I have asked you for this information over and over, and you always dodge ad squirm, what's your problem with giving me an honest answer?
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".10
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1.htm#27
Why is 'Being' capitalised?
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
In my work, over 1O years, I have never found a true atheist. A true atheist is one who can say, truthfully, that there is no possibility of a god out there. There is none in my experience. I have looked and every time so far, that I have found a person supporting the common view of atheism, they do not believe there is no possibility of a god out there.
Typically, atheism is short, for not beliveing in some theology in my experience. The atheists I have met have all fallen under some form of abuse by a person or group, within a theology. One is abused by their own mother. Another was abused by thier relatives. The third was not telling, but he had thoroughly rejected religion, while not ever rejecting God.
All of these folks were professed atheists. One swore and said "you mean dog, or maddog" when the talk of religion came up. Reversing these words, gives some impression of his rancor. Another, my next supposedly true atheist, said: "There are degrees of atheism" when the question of "No possibility of a god" was sincerly asked of them. The last was a wonderful philosopher, who said although rejecting Roman Cathlocism's view of God, he thought the idea of no god anywhere was equally wrong. He had his own view of God and said it worked well for him.
Now for the good part. Atheists are the most moral, ethical people I have ever encountered. The following is true of your friend. He is more concerned about right and doing right, than any religous person you have ever met. Test this. You will know if it is true.
Each of the threee most extreme cases of atheism, I have tested, have all tested extremely positive in the arena of morality and ethics. They are what true christians aspire to be. ((The truth is everyone believes in God. Some just don't know it or are confused by the words such as atheism. Some are hurt. Others believe but don't have enough proof yet. Others are so afraid of hurting others, they don't want to be wrong, no matter what the personal cost to themselves.))
I hope this helps on atheism.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Capitalised because God is what there can be no though greater than he. If we can think of something greater then what we thought of as God then it was not god. In other words, God is in His greatness beyond Human comprehension, yet He is simple that our words cannot describe adequately.
Why was 'Being' capitalised?
Consciosness discovers truth everywhere
Science brings to light physical reality;
Philosophy helps the mind sort out truth from false,t
The mind, in turn instruct the senses , programming the brains processing capability.
Art brings everything together, allowing the viewer a glimpse into conscious reality.
Religion prepares the active consciousness, the essential part of our existence
(the soul), for the final journey, the liberation of the soul, back, to its eternal sourse.
Job done!
Ah you seem confused. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in god(s).
Nothing more.
I am a true atheist, and I can't say whether there is a 'god' out there, because so many theists have so many different definitions (when you can get one out of them) which are sometimes so vague, they could be interpreted many ways, and in fact we appear to have proponents of Solipsism here, who think that God is bound into their mere existence.
IceLight020
Registered Senior Member
That sounds more true to the "agnostic" side than "atheist" side.
Agnosticism- is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god is impossible.
Weak-agnosticism - The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."
http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
But then again, even Christians doubt the existence of God at times.
Edit: So the point is, did he really have proponents of Solipsism when you can break this down as well and say you are practicing it too?
My point is, you can prove it both ways. Both ways exist and co-exist at the same time. For all we know, you both could be practicing Solipsism. We could also say your both not practicing Solipsism. You can also say you both are and are not practicing it as well.
^This is how I keep my emotions in check.
Edit 2: I am very conceptual. That is what makes me liked but hated at the same time. --As I said, both exist at the same time.--
Last edited:
God is complete reality.
This reality is comprised of His energies which are:
consciouness (spiritual)
marginal (spiritual mixed with physical)
physical (mundane).
He is eternal, He is a person, He has innumerable forms, and names.
He is cause/source of the material worlds.
jan.
The particular configuration of energy that makes you you will not exist indefinitely but the energy itself will. It always must, in one form or another.
Brain activity itself is physical.
How does the unphysical interface with the physical? Think of it as a chain of cause and effect. At some point an unphysical link needs to connect to a physical link. But such a connection can't be made unless the unphysical link is actually physical. Nothing can't connect to something, because nothing isn't anything. So again, compare God to nothing and tell us what's different.
Because you're ignorant as to the meaning of the word and its usage?
QED.
All? Every single one? And, for balance, how many theists of your acquaintance have suffered "abuse by a person or group"?
More so than theists? Interesting...
Could you lay out the format of this "test" for us please. And show the methodology/ results. Thank you.
:roflmao:
You appear to be ignorant as to the meaning of the word "truth" as well.
IceLight020
Registered Senior Member
I hate being conceptual sometimes...
In my conceptual view (Which deviates from the generally accepted social norms.) I would say no he/she isn't being ignorant since every definitional term can be defined in multiple ways and everything can and will eventually be co-existent with one another. For example, let us take the sentence "I am driving a car."
One could say this, "I am not driving a car, I am driving a piece of machinery consisting of steel, metal, plastic, rubber, oil, gas, and etc."
"car" = "a piece of machinery consisting of steel, metal, plastic, rubber, oil, gas, and etc."
_____________________________________________
But.......
In my socially accepted view that is generally accepted...
Yes, he/she is being ignorant, technically, considering the social norms of today.
__________________________________________________________
Note: By the way, I am agnostic, but even the term agnostic isn't conceptual nor complex enough to describe who I am and my "real" views. My views stretch beyond agnosticism to infinite. >.>
__________________________________________________________
I hold both these views at the same time. I see him/her.
(to ad infinitum left and right.)...as is, but isn't, but is but isn't, but is but isn't but is... (to ad infinitum left and right.)
^I'm just that weird.
Last edited:
Rav,
What is it that makes me, me?
In a materialist world, everything is physical.
The above logic is based on materialistic viewpoint, yours.
Sub-atomic particles are known to interact with consciousness,ie an observer.
How about we compare God to the observer, exciting sub-atomic particles?
jan.
What is it that makes me, me?
In a materialist world, everything is physical.
The above logic is based on materialistic viewpoint, yours.
Sub-atomic particles are known to interact with consciousness,ie an observer.
How about we compare God to the observer, exciting sub-atomic particles?
jan.
Your brain.
This is not something that is "known" at all. It's a highly controversial theory that enjoys very minimal acceptance in the physics community. Physicists typically adopt more consistent and less problematic interpretations of the reality of the quantum mechanical world.
But even if we assume that consciousness is inextricably linked to the QM world any interaction must still be a physical one.
Again, that would have to be a physical interaction.
IceLight020
Registered Senior Member
The most important one in my opinion is that the process of science is to accept a hypothesis until it is proved false. Atheism is just the opposite. It rejects God on the assumption that there is no evidence proving God exists.
Atheism = Absence of evidence
Science = Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
This quoted text seems to be an example of the common tendency to equate God with some chosen set of abstract philosophical functions.
What is a "first principle"? I sense that there's some philosophy implicit in there (Aquinas?) that needs to be unpacked and examined.
"Final end" is problematic as well. That one is pretty clearly refering to the idea that everything that exists has some ultimate purpose or goal, and undergoes temporal change in order to bring that final teleological state into being. But modern science (unlike medieval philosophy) no longer imagines that every change takes place in order to realize some purpose or end.
As others have noted, 'Being' is kind of gratuitously capitalized there. That needs discussion. And there seems to be an implication that this 'Being itself' isn't just the sum of the individual being of everything that makes up the universe. There seems to be an implicit idea here that this 'Being itself' is something separate and apart from (and much cooler than) the countless individual things that actually are.
How can anyone know that?
What this sort of philosophizing leaves us with are a whole set of "big questions" that we currently can't answer, and quite possibly never will. We can't even be sure that the issues are being conceptualized correctly, and hence that our questions are being posed properly. In many cases they probably aren't.
It's a giant non-sequitur to ask big philosophical questions, then imagine that there's some single transcendental object that somehow embodies the unknown answer to all of them, and then to further imagine that the hypothetical answer-Being is in fact one of the deities of traditional religious mythology.
What is a "first principle"? I sense that there's some philosophy implicit in there (Aquinas?) that needs to be unpacked and examined.
"Final end" is problematic as well. That one is pretty clearly refering to the idea that everything that exists has some ultimate purpose or goal, and undergoes temporal change in order to bring that final teleological state into being. But modern science (unlike medieval philosophy) no longer imagines that every change takes place in order to realize some purpose or end.
As others have noted, 'Being' is kind of gratuitously capitalized there. That needs discussion. And there seems to be an implication that this 'Being itself' isn't just the sum of the individual being of everything that makes up the universe. There seems to be an implicit idea here that this 'Being itself' is something separate and apart from (and much cooler than) the countless individual things that actually are.
How can anyone know that?
What this sort of philosophizing leaves us with are a whole set of "big questions" that we currently can't answer, and quite possibly never will. We can't even be sure that the issues are being conceptualized correctly, and hence that our questions are being posed properly. In many cases they probably aren't.
It's a giant non-sequitur to ask big philosophical questions, then imagine that there's some single transcendental object that somehow embodies the unknown answer to all of them, and then to further imagine that the hypothetical answer-Being is in fact one of the deities of traditional religious mythology.
