Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The value of science to atheism      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 26
The value of science to atheismPage 2 of 21    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

Get your nose out of that can of glue. The damage it's causing is starting to look like it may not be repairable.


Get your head out of the sand.Might be too late though.The damage it has caused appears unrepairable.


Obviously your belief in god is denser than what facts and logic can penetrate. I guess it must be really tough for believers to realize there is no god or heaven or immortality or any of that goodie-goodie stuff. Fortunately, that realization and the suffering it must bring to disappointed believers is very ephemeral.


Obviously your non-belief in a Creator is denser than what facts and logic can penetrate.Sadly all that this brings to non-believers is cynicism.


Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is transformed.


As has been demonstrated your assertion that this irrefutably rules out a Creator is false.What are you going to do now?


Science has demolished the hypothesis of there being a "creator". That's a verified fact:


Are you sure?


Not so. You can form new hypotheses based on the old facts.


What are you going to do?Reinvent the wheel?


The key word is testable. Think for a minute about what your saying and how that relates to your tales of an invisible skydaddy


What tales of an invisible skydaddy?


Yes, and those who believe in things that are untrue are delusional


Yes and those that disbelieve in things that may be true are cynical.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 27
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/14/2012 7:05:49 PM
Just looking


Energy is energy anywhere, anytime you put it. What energy is, and its behavior doesn't change with location or time


If you can demonstrate this clearly without question that energy is present "anywhere" even outside the Universe; then you should be a shoe in for the Nobel prize for science; You will have answered the sought after riddle that all cosmologists are looking to find the answer to for decades; that is what is behind the singularity! But don't hold your breath as there may be way more crack-pots in front of you that have to be vetted out, before you get your turn!


What you wrote is unfounded speculation which redefines what energy is.


it doesn't redefine it (as though you know what it really is!); it just put it in its proper context; go back and read well!


That is not affected by speculation such as multiple universes, multiple dimensions and whatever else people can speculate. Creation is _not_ possible,


Its quite clear by this statement that you are talking straight out of your rear-end. Sorry to say, but you have no idea what you are talking about! A rational discussion with someone who says things like this, is not possible!
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 28
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/14/2012 7:25:58 PM

Strangely, religion and science do reconcile. catholicism states there is no god with the statement:

god has no beginning and no end

Which is just very poor paraphrase of

Energy is neither created nor destroyed.

If the catholics are so inclined to believe their non sense, why don't they simply accept, the universe has no beginning and no end. ? The answer is because in that case, their precious god is out of the picture. As beautifully convenient as it is illogical


That is funny.No stupid even."God has no beginning and no end" to a Catholic simply means that they believe God is eternal.Where did you get that shit from? www.atheism.com. Your arguments are just nonsense.

Want some more bad news?


What you've demonstrated so far has nothing to do with science. You've demonstrated being unable to understand the fundamental law of physics.


"Energy is neither created nor destroyed" Doesn't apply to an expanding Universe.Don't you understand physics?
Do you just make shit up to amuse yourself?
 AnnB72
Joined: 7/2/2012
Msg: 29
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/14/2012 7:34:29 PM

"Energy is neither created nor destroyed" Doesn't apply to an expanding Universe.Don't you understand physics?
Do you just make shit up to amuse yourself?



Rofl - that made me snort laugh!
Oh, wow.
 m8t
Joined: 8/10/2012
Msg: 30
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/15/2012 12:44:17 AM
I think science can add to the disbelief in a deity by removing all emotions and becoming completely logical.
However there are many things in this life that will never make sense, that science is unable to dissect.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 31
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/15/2012 4:38:49 AM

How about the one about god in the heavens ... go read the bible, it provides a luxurious answer to your question.

What's the bible got to do with it?


Apparently the logical abilities of my rear end greatly exceed the abilities of your top end. Sadly, it is obvious that's not much of an achievement.


How can that be? Your rear end has no logical abilities to start with.


That sure proves god exists... way to go! ... go claim a Nobel prize :-)


Never said that was proof of God.


The LCE is nonsense to you, that explains your arguments so far.


Your argument fails to address this:

1/The Universe had a beginning.Who/what created it? It is a well known fact that the Universe was somehow created.Are you denying this?Before the Universe existed there was nothing not even energy How do you explain that?

2/Have you searched the whole Universe and possibly the Universe it is embedded in and found no evidence of a Creator? That is the only way you can disprove a Creator.Explain how you did that?

3/Or did the Universe just "pop into" existence from nothing? So do you believe that everything came from nothing?
How do you explain that? Remembering that when there was nothing there was no energy


But it is not for science to debunk god(s), it is for religion to prove their assertions.




Most definitely. On the other hand, when it's so easy to do... it's fun :-)


What has religion got to do with it?

You still haven't even disproved there is a Creator.Why don't you just admit you are wrong?Instead of making up more shit.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 32
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/15/2012 5:32:46 AM
AIEEEE!

As might have been expected, this thread has derailed from the original narrow theme it was initiated to discuss, and fallen into the standard wrangling over whether God exists or not, with all the usual boring arguments based upon 50% or less of the available information being trotted out again.

The value of Science to atheism is actually indirect, and really only periperal, IMO.

Science does NOT prove that gods don't exist, and can't, and isn't supposed to. What science can and DOES do in a regular basis, is to prove conclusively that specific INDICATIONS that a god exists, by those pushing their beliefs, are instead due to mistaken conclusions, poor observational skills, ignorance, delusion, and so forth.

Essentially, Science serves BOTH the atheists AND the true believers, by separating out the hustlers, liars, scammers and other detritus, and exposing them as the cheats or fools they are.

In times past and present, large Churches have employed scientists and others specifically in order to do JUST this sort of debunking.

Therefore, I contend that science is NOT critical to, or the primary reason for the apparent growth of Atheism. Look elsewhere.
 The_Real_One1
Joined: 11/1/2012
Msg: 33
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/15/2012 10:46:32 AM
So, what you're saying is that due to the fact that comprehensive scientific explanations for various complexities exist you're an atheist now, and, without them, you'd be a theist?

That's fair, and, considering our ancestors, completely understandable. I mean, without knowing the intricacies of why rain falls, I'd be left to seeing some relationship between my dancing and rain falling, for example. Or, some totally coincidental relationship between someone being some place when something bad happens to me. These would be sufficient explanations after noting the seeming cause and effect relationship and it wouldn't matter why it happens...just that it happens when I dance or whenever someone is there.

Of course...I STILL don't think I'd have any reason to believe in a personal deity...that's just going too far...
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 34
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/15/2012 7:02:33 PM
Still peddling the same old illogical crap I see:


Lots. The bible is the answer to your question "What tales of an invisible skydaddy?". Read the bible, it is very rich in tales you believe in.


The Bible is not the answer to my question.You have only assumed that because you are a religious bigot.


You did by claiming that god is eternal. That's how you and the believers avoid the question "who/what created god". Eternal implies the existence of your fantasy and, relieves you and the believers, from having to explain its origin. As convenient as it is illogical and unfounded.


I never claimed God was eternal.Go back and read it properly.I only stated that because of your nonsensical analogy.You are living proof of a fantasy if you believe that science has disproven the existence of a Creator.Why don't you comprehend what has been explained to you.You won't because you dug a hole for yourself and in effect have been debunked and are just making more shit up.That is dishonest.


The universe was not created. The universe is the result of transformations. It is only a well known "fact" to people who believe in fantasies such as god and, attempt to pass their delusions as "facts".


Another Strawman argument.How can you know how the Universe was created?No one else does.You are just avoiding the word "create".How do you know that the Universe is the result of transformations?No one else does.


Unless you got your belief in god from a box of detergent, it's rather likely you got it from religion, which peddles god at every turn, therefore, it had something to do with it.


Where have i mentioned religion.You keep bringing it up because you just don't comprehend anything that has been explained to you.You are so ignorant that if anyone mentions a "Creator" or states that the "Universe was created" You think they are referring to a Biblical God.And then make shit up to disprove something that you can't.


Yes, I have, and I've lost count of the number of times by now. Your irrational desire to believe won't make a god exist. Whether you like it or not, there can be no god, this is a scientific fact. None of the questions you asked is answered by creating an imaginary god to provide you comfort of eternal life along with easy answers.


No you haven't.Science has not even disproven a Creator.How did you achieve this? Your imagination?.Once again you have implied religion.


The wikipedia article also shows that those countries with a high quality educational system generally have a higher percentage of Atheists than those countries where education has lower standards. For instance, Germany, France and England, countries with very high quality education and, which have contributed a great number of scientists and mathematicians throughout history, have a high percentage of Atheists.


Wrong again.It is not even related.The UK is 83% Christian.Is that a high percentage of atheists.?Making more shit up are you?
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 35
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/15/2012 7:21:28 PM

You are correct in describing the law of conservation of energy, but it is only applicable within the confines of our dimension/realm. Energy cannot be created or destroyed within this realm; but this cannot be ascribed to the period before "all we now know" came into being! This law cannot be applied to the pre-conditions that may have been in place(for lack of a better term) that led to the "big-bang". As we know, what happens at the level of the so-called singularity is not amenable to the laws of physics & nature!

I would say the Big Bang transformed the singularity into the universe that we see today. That is, it was a 'creation from something', not a 'creation from nothing'. That is basically consistent with the conservation of energy, which states that nothing is created or destroyed, only transformed.

Of course you are correct that we cannot say anything definite about what happened during the singularity, but to use this to argue for the possibility of a creator seems to be making a god-of-the-gaps fallacy.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 36
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/15/2012 7:31:40 PM

I'll give something that you (i.e, robertaus) have not given, nor do I expect from most extreme believers (like you), that is, honesty. Neither I, nor science knows exactly how existence came to be. Neither I, nor science can give the explanation we'd love to be able to give, because we don't have it.


That is funny.You say this^^^^^^

Then you say this:


The universe was not created. The universe is the result of transformations. It is only a well known "fact" to people who believe in fantasies such as god and, attempt to pass their delusions as "facts".


You don't know but you do know.Which is it?The Universe was not created.You don't know but you do know.Which is it?The Universe is the result of transformations.You don't know but you do know.Which is it?
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 37
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/15/2012 7:34:53 PM
Another Strawman argument.How can you know how the Universe was created?No one else does.You are just avoiding the word "create".How do you know that the Universe is the result of transformations?No one else does.

The word "create" automatically implies transformation. When we say a chair is "created" what we actually mean is that material is rearranged (that is, transformed) to form a chair. In fact, every single instance of "creation" that we know of is actually an act of transformation (we don't create things out of nothing, and neither can something be turned into nothing).


Wrong again.It is not even related.The UK is 83% Christian.Is that a high percentage of atheists.?Making more shit up are you?

According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom), only 71.58% of UK residents are Christians (did you mean theists?). There's also this bit:

The wording of the question affects the outcome of polls as is apparent when comparing the results of the Scottish census with that of the English and Welsh census. An ICM poll for The Guardian in 2006 asked the question "Which religion do you yourself belong to?" with a response of 64% stating 'Christian' and 26% stating 'None'. In the same survey, 63% claimed they are not religious with just 33% claiming they are. This suggests that almost a third of the non-religious UK population identify with Christianity out of habit.
 bamagrl68
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 38
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/15/2012 9:59:31 PM
Demigod1979- You asked a good question, but the problem is the answer lies in opinion.
Believers can't prove their belief in God, non believers can't prove their non-belief.
Science is factually based, the belief, or the lack there of, is not based in fact.
My education in science fascinated me. I knew what I was learning to be true.
Opposing sides are passionate in their defense, the facts are not to be debated.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 39
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/16/2012 4:55:19 AM

Do you, by any chance, have anything that remotely resembles a logical argument that would support in any way the existence of your "god", instead of consistently ridiculous and hollow statements such as the above ? By the way, ignorance is not a logical argument.

So, an argument for the existence of god that is not based on ignorance... can you do that ?


Can you by any remote chance come up with any logical argument that science has disproven a Creator?So far you have dismally failed that test.


You claim, in your profile, to be a catholic. Are you saying, you're a catholic that doesn't believe what's in the bible ?


Thought you would bring that up.Catholics don't take the Bible literally.Didn't you know that?Of course you didn't you are ignorant.


Apparently you consider knowledge and science to be religious bigotry. Too bad, you can't burn the "religious bigots" at the stake anymore. Those were the "good old times" weren't they ? ...


Nice try at a Strawman.However if I had to choose between knowledge of science and religious bigotry you fit the latter perfectly,.because the former you have no idea what you are talking about.



I am being precise. The religious meaning (yes, the meaning you use as a catholic) of "create" is the one associated with a god that made stuff appear out of nothing. The LCE is worded precisely to establish the impossibility of that meaning of "create". It's not a coincidence that the LCE specifically denies creation.


Got some more bad news for you.Do the Laws of Physics as Humans understand them apply to the whole Universe?Guess what they don't.Didn’t you know that?.Didn’t you listen to Captain Kirk?You should have then you can invent some more Science-Fiction.After all you are basing your Empirical proof that there is not a Creator on Science-Fiction. .You aren't being precise.You are being ridiculous.


Any time you mention catholicism, which you have


Did I first mention Catholicism? No you did in your post No. 30.Nice twist of words though which further displays your ignorance.Let me demonstrate.


What I find a most amusing gyration is that the Catholics in their catechism prove that god does not exist. i.e, god has no beginning, god has no end.... isn't that suspiciously similar to "no creation... no destruction" ;-) of course, they use that as the escape valve for not needing more than one god, ironically, they end up stating the very law that proves there is no god.


To which I replied:


This is the funniest thing i have ever heard.Period.If you really think that you are deluded


Then you replied:


I'm very pleased you find the catechism funny. I do agree with you that, those who think god has no beginning and no end (most, if not all catholics) are deluded. On the other hand, I suggest you be more tactful in your choice of words towards catholics, you may find yourself tied to a "thermal stake" and mercilessly roasted. Consolation prize, you'll meet your maker, that is, the LCE. ;-) Personally, instead of deluded, I would generally prefer "confused" or "hopeful"


Which was either an attempt at humour or you are just ignorant.I favour the latter.

Then I replied:


God has no beginning and no end" to a Catholic simply means that they believe God is eternal


Then you replied:

That sure proves god exists... way to go! ... go claim a Nobel prize :-)

Now where exactly did I say that was proof of God’s existence?


Let's see who is making shit up... the stats for England are:

1. Believe in god...................... : 38%
2. Believe in a spirit or life force. : 40%
3. Believe in neither of the above: 20%

Therefore 60% of the U.K explicitly claims NOT to believe in god. Your 83% is "stuff" you're making up.

Instead of consistently making stuff up... go read:


You can't even read statistics properly.Would not a spirit or life force be some type of Deity?.That would then be 78% Adding is pretty easy stuff really.Did you struggle?


Nice try... while I have no problem whatsoever acknowledging the limits of the understanding science has given us, I certainly can use what science has clearly established. The LCE makes it crystal clear that everything, including the universe, is a result of transformations. How exactly these transformations took place, is something science has not established yet.

As I said, while we may not know exactly how existence came to be, we do know, Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is transformed, which let's us know that the universe is the result of a transformation.


Funny how you make this shit up.Once again you are wrong.How can you conclude that the Universe is the result of transformations but no one else knows that?Or did Captain Kirk tell you.After all you are relying on Science-Fiction for your delusion.The Universe could be the result of a fart for all we know.


Now on a different note...

You have consistently demonstrated being unable to build a sound and logical argument to support your beliefs.

Additionally, you are also consistently off topic. This thread isn't about your beliefs unless you can somehow relate them to the value of science in Atheism.

If you cannot make a sound and logical argument to support your position, nor can you make an on-topic contribution, then you should abstain from consistently polluting this thread.


You are polluting this thread by saying that Science has irrefutably proven the non-existence of a Creator.Even a dogmatic atheist would not say that.That is about as dumb as a theist saying that science has proven the existence of a Creator.Both statements are impossible.

Can you explain how you have proven the impossible?Just display some courage and admit you are wrong.There is no point continuing your delusion that you have Empirically proven which is impossible to prove.It will be OK the Creator will forgive you.Heck you may even find the path to an Eternal life and Salvation.Why don’t you even go to Confession, the Priest will even forgive for confessing what a Bullshit Artist you are.
You are an embarrassment to atheism.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 40
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/16/2012 5:02:45 AM
I never believed, from as far back as I can remember. While my parents were both church goers (my paternal grandfather was a Lutheran pastor), both of them raised all of us; placing more importance in learning how to think critically than telling us what to think dogmatically.

I see. I was raised as a strict Christian, went to church each and every Sunday well into my twenties, and was pretty devout (I would scoff if a girl wore an outfit that showed a knee cap and would stop my sister from uttering the mildest of profanities). I had the fear of God in me, was always fearful of letting demons into my head, always fearful of whether I had offended God. I was also a Sunday school teacher later on, and went to a theological seminary (for only a year - was already beginning to doubt at this stage). My father was a pastor and my mother was also a strong believer (I think they're still trying to come to grips with my conversion to atheism).


Nope, my becoming a science geek is post-non believer.

Yes, it's the same with me (biblical criticism got there first), but my question is would you have remained a non-believer if science wasn't available to explain the cosmos, how things like lightning and the weather work, and the sheer complexity of living creatures?
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 41
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/16/2012 5:15:41 AM
Got some more bad news for you.Do the Laws of Physics as Humans understand them apply to the whole Universe?Guess what they don't.Didn’t you know that?.Didn’t you listen to Captain Kirk?

What does Captain Kirk have anything to do with this? And the laws of physics should apply to the whole universe (if not, then we've not properly understood them, which is possible).


You can't even read statistics properly.Would not a spirit or life force be some type of Deity?.That would then be 78% Adding is pretty easy stuff really.Did you struggle?

No, it wouldn't. Someone can be spiritual (believe there is more than just our physical bodies) without believing in a deity. Believing in a non-material/spiritual reality does not automatically make someone a theist.


You are an embarrassment to atheism.

So now you feel that you know what is proper and improper for atheism? Who's the one bullshitting here?
 PROTON67
Joined: 4/26/2012
Msg: 42
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/16/2012 8:02:57 AM
To behold a magnificent creation and say its creator does not exist is more of a testimony that your brain does not exist.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 43
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/16/2012 3:28:51 PM
So now you feel that you know what is proper and improper for atheism? Who's the one bullshitting here?


So do you think it is proper that an atheist can claim that science has disproven a Creator?That would be bullshit.Or do you agree with that assertion?


You know, this should pretty much become a POF forum guideline..

Guideline 1: 'No picture = Most likely a complete bullshit poster who can only talk in troll-posts.

There are so few exceptions to that rule..


How do you conclude that?Perhaps you should convey your misguided theory to POF.Whilst you are at it though can you ask them if it against the rules to bring up what is or isn’t on someone’s profile in the Forums?,When people do though it is just an admission that someone doesn’t know what they are talking about and has to resort to a personal attack.Pretty immature really.It is Trolling.


Robertaus:

Oh how jesus would be proud of your intolerance, your tantrums, your inability to turn the other cheek. Not being very "catholic" are you!

So what if i was to tell you i am the reincarnation of christ? what would you say to that out of curiosity?


See above.

If you were the reincarnation of Christ?.I would ask you your height and weight so that I could organise a comfortable cross for you to be crucified on.Wouldn’t be all bad though as some religions would recognize you as the Messiah and would be obligated to reward you with Gold.I would also tell you that your sacrifice will not be in vain.


There is no doubt your choices are very clear. You're a catholic that refers to the bible and claims not to believe what it says. Very "creative" choice :-)


See above.Your reference to Catholicism is boring and not even relevant.Feel free to attack something you don’t understand.I find it amusing and the more you do it just displays your ignorance.It is just crystal clear evidence you have been refuted.


You are correct to say that in terms of the universe overall and in closed systems the law applies. But it does not mean that the law of cons of energy is therefore a metaphysical law. Science does not make that claim. Some scientists do. That is were you faulter.


Are you getting it yet?

To behold a magnificent creation and say its creator does not exist is more of a testimony that your brain does not exist.

Good point.


To behold nature in its magnificance and decide a skydaddy made it is a testament that yours goes unused.


Who’s a troll?

Now that it has been clearly established that science has never disproven a Creator.Just admit it rather than claiming science has proven the unproveable.The only logical conclusion is that the value of science to atheism is ZERO.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 44
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/16/2012 4:53:56 PM

So do you think it is proper that an atheist can claim that science has disproven a Creator?That would be bullshit.Or do you agree with that assertion?

I just find it amusing how you, a theist, can claim what is an "embarrassment" for atheists. Frankly, you have no right to speak for atheism/atheists so don't even try.

As for your question, specific gods (such as that found in Abrahamic religions) have been disproven. But like irregulator said, theists today move the goalposts into a place that is beyond all examination just so that they can claim that God hasn't been disproven.

It's ultimately a pointless exercise though. It is pointless to believe in a creator god that is outside of nature (never interacts with it in a measurable way and can never be contacted or influenced in any way). It is an infallible idea, and like all infallible ideas, does not deserve serious attention or respect. Negative arguments (that is, saying that there is no evidence that something doesn't exist) are in no way credible arguments, and yet that seems to be all you have.

South Park made fun of such arguments, in their Thanksgiving episode:
"In every journal entry we research from those early pilgrims, not one entry mentions anything about aliens NOT being there".

Is this evidence that aliens existed at the first Thanksgiving?


The only logical conclusion is that the value of science to atheism is ZERO.

Again, you claim to speak for atheism, and determine value science has for it. Quite pompous and presumptive, like you know atheism better than atheists!
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 45
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/16/2012 7:24:03 PM
@Demi


I would say the Big Bang transformed the singularity into the universe that we see today.


I don't think that this ^ is correct. The BB burst forth as a manifestation of what the singularity allowed for it!


That is, it was a 'creation from something',


perhaps unbeknownst you; this implies an "a priori" existence of a space-time platform (or fulcrum) to serve as a vehicle for such a "transformation". Therefore, you'd be very hard pressed (if not impossible) to make a case for this at the level of the singularity or beyond it. By definition, a singularity is the point where all math & physics break down and become useless to aid in our understanding of it (I heard physicist Michio Kaku give as good an explanation as possible of it for the lay persons) such that transformations, re-organizations, etc., could not be possible, as it is an in-exegetical timeless realm of the irrational! In believing otherwise you are falling prey to the mental mirage of orderliness that humans feel ought to apply to everything and anything! If it is of any consolation to you; there is a sizable cohort of physicists who actually believe that the Universe came into being all on its own; out of sheer nothingness( by way of quantistic effects) without invoking transformations or the hand of God (either of which could only lead to further ontological discord). Thus, according to them, the universe (or multiverses) are simply self created!


That is basically consistent with the conservation of energy, which states that nothing is created or destroyed, only transformed.


As I tried to explain above (and before); this is only valid within a true closed system, and can't be extrapolated to apply beyond the confines of the Universe, simply because there is no medium for it!


but to use this to argue for the possibility of a creator seems to be making a god-of-the-gaps fallacy.


Only if you are purposely trying to use it as a soap-box to further a hidden agenda. I'm using it to illustrate that which we can't know and thus "anything" beyond the singularity is a possibility. To state otherwise is tantamount to dogmatization of one's respective beliefs whether they be Theistic-ally or Atheistically inclined.
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/17/2012 2:06:26 AM
(op)

Science is the act of thinking about things, objectively and epistemologically (thinking also about how you're thinking), for the purpose of knowing what's real or true about things. (I often speak of "honesty" - if you really want to know what's true about something, then you won't just go through the pretentious motions of thinking about it and making it seem rational or justified, but instead you will instinctively pay close attention to HOW you're thinking about it, and refine your methods of thinking. People cultivate within themselves a skillset for convincing themselves that they're not lying when they in fact are, or using pseudo-logic-rhetoric to make a convincing presentation to others when claiming that something is true when it's not. That's a form of lying...when you're not trying to think about how you're thinking.)

Being skeptical simply means not automatically or immediately believing anything that is said or thought "just because". All the tools or methods employed in skepticism are only to this end. To lessen the chance of miscomprehension or deception due to the wrong approaches or perspectives. It's that simple.

Atheism is just the act of not believing. This includes believing that there is no god as well as that there is. (especially because it's a completely open-ended and all-possibility-encompassing usage of the term "god", though not always, when used the way it's commonly used in these kind of conversations concerning any definition of the word we may discover or derive, which is already a bit sabotaging of course.) If there is in fact a god of some sort, the point is for us to know that it's true...and in order to do so we must use the same old methods for knowing that we know, to figure out if it's really true or not.

In debates about the great god question and religious-related subjects, it's often not about god, but what's really important to non-religious people is how people think, about everything else in life...being developed intellectually, and emotionally, being honest and objective, not deceiving ourselves, and genuinely having the motivations and intentions of knowing what's true or real about anything.

So, to me, that four-letter vulgar word, "science", is central to atheism, as it is central to absolutely everything.
 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 47
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/17/2012 3:08:02 AM
Great theories and postulations that amount to nothing.Here is a question. "Has Science irrefutably proven the non-existence of a Creator?The answer is "no".Just admit it.Instead of being dishonest about it and claiming that Science has disproven the existence of a Creator.It is Ok i'm sure the Creator will forgive.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 48
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/17/2012 6:06:10 AM

perhaps unbeknownst you; this implies an "a priori" existence of a space-time platform (or fulcrum) to serve as a vehicle for such a "transformation". Therefore, you'd be very hard pressed (if not impossible) to make a case for this at the level of the singularity or beyond it. By definition, a singularity is the point where all math & physics break down and become useless to aid in our understanding of it (I heard physicist Michio Kaku give as good an explanation as possible of it for the lay persons) such that transformations, re-organizations, etc., could not be possible, as it is an in-exegetical timeless realm of the irrational! In believing otherwise you are falling prey to the mental mirage of orderliness that humans feel ought to apply to everything and anything! If it is of any consolation to you; there is a sizable cohort of physicists who actually believe that the Universe came into being all on its own; out of sheer nothingness( by way of quantistic effects) without invoking transformations or the hand of God (either of which could only lead to further ontological discord). Thus, according to them, the universe (or multiverses) are simply self created!

How does any of this follow from what I wrote? I merely stated the universe came from something (a singularity) as opposed to absolutely nothing. As far as the singularity goes, I have no idea how it came about or how it works - I can only state what happened during and after the moment of the Big Bang.


Only if you are purposely trying to use it as a soap-box to further a hidden agenda. I'm using it to illustrate that which we can't know and thus "anything" beyond the singularity is a possibility. To state otherwise is tantamount to dogmatization of one's respective beliefs whether they be Theistic-ally or Atheistically inclined.

Again, this is a god-of-the-gaps argument - an argument from ignorance. As I said before many times, if we don't know something (such as what happened before the Big Bang) then the only honest answer is "I don't know". It is no license to imagine anything and everything and say they are all possibilities!
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/17/2012 1:14:14 PM
...oh here we go again. It's got to be some kind of mental disorder or retardation.

justlookingvt: Can you clarify/simplify what exactly is the LCE for everyone, in a short post?
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 11/17/2012 1:41:11 PM
Well, to be fair, to be the devil's advocate (literally, in this case), I think that the pro-god people feel that LCE is a property of this universe...in that there may be some realm "outside" of our universe, and they've decided that it is god, where things are a bit different. Things happen according to LCE in our universe, but is it at least conceivable that that's not the end of the story?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The value of science to atheism