Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why atheism is against science

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    In the 1st post I meant a original atheism, which decline existence of God in 100%, not uncertain atheists (agnostics).
    Uncertain atheists (in your context) are not agnostics, just atheists who accept that scientifically you cannot disprove the existence of something invisible and intangible.

    Practical atheists would be a more accurate description, imo.


  • Options
    #33
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You are slightly missing the point with the gravity example.

    You can test gravity all you like, that isn't going to "prove" that your model of gravity will still hold in 5 minutes, when you are standing at the top of your building. It doesn't "prove" that it will still work when you throw yourself off 5 seconds later either. I'm still pretty confident that you won't throw yourself off a building.

    You are working on the conclusion that because your model of gravity appeared accurate 5 minutes ago it will still be accurate 5 minutes from now.

    You cannot be certain of that to a very high level of accuracy. But you still aren't going to throw yourself off a building.

    Just because we cannot be certain in a scientific sense, of some idea or concept doesn't mean we should be "agnostic" about it.
    Yeah, now I get the point. :p And agree.
    There are plenty of reasons to conclude God is simply an invention of human imagination, and does not reflect something real. None of these reasons can demonstrate to a very high degree of certainty that this state is true, but I'm still confident enough in them to say that God is simply an invention of human imagination and not a representation of anything real.
    Well, first we should define a God. If you mean the old guy with big beard who's living on some mountain or sky and talks to people time to time, it's probably just a human imagination..

    However,
    Everything in this world need some source to exist. Chicken comes from the egg, homo sapiens comes from monkeys, and the monkeys possibly were a small bacterias before they evolved. Everything must be based on something to exist. Every building has been build and every life has been born. So to me "God" (I don't like to use this word) is the first source. It's probably not a person, but maybe some kind of energy or something? Very smart energy I guess.. But what can I know, there's no evidences for anything. And that's why I think we shouldn't reject any theory of creation.


  • Options
    #34
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    So it's like a you can be an atheist and agnostic at the same time..
    In the loose sense, yes, that's possible. For example, somebody might be a strong-specific-atheist wrt Allah, while remaining agnostic about the christian deity. While their counterpart in Riyadh might be the other way around (though that's not hugely likely, as muslims believe that 'Allah' is largely the same entity as the christian god, while christians do not believe this).

    BTW, all the above takes place in a concrete reality in which a deity or deities are believed or asserted to exist or not. Many believers, if not most, seem to hold indirect beliefs concerning gods, in which they assert that they "believe in" one deity or another, meaning that they assert the existence of an abstract concept of a deity, and belief in that concept, with the concrete reality of the deity or deities implied by the belief, left almost as an afterthought.

    But that's an epistemological madhouse probably best left for another thread.


  • Options
    #35
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    However,
    Everything in this world need some source to exist. Chicken comes from the egg, homo sapiens comes from monkeys, and the monkeys possibly were a small bacterias before they evolved. Everything must be based on something to exist. Every building has been build and every life has been born. So to me "God" (I don't like to use this word) is the first source. It's probably not a person, but maybe some kind of energy or something? Very smart energy I guess.. But what can I know, there's no evidences for anything. And that's why I think we shouldn't reject any theory of creation.

    First source? Why should there be such a thing? One could easily just ask the question: where did the first source come from?

    This is a form of infinite regression.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

    Anything that has the intelligence to create the universe, would presumably be very complex. So now you have to explain this complex entity. You have made things worse, not better, by introducing a "god".


  • Options
    #36
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    iUseVi wrote: »
    First source? Why should there be such a thing? One could easily just ask the question: where did the first source come from?

    This is a form of infinite regression.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

    Anything that has the intelligence to create the universe, would presumably be very complex. So now you have to explain this complex entity. You have made things worse, not better, by introducing a "god".
    Well that's just one of the options. Another option which I do not reject is the fact that world has never been created and it lives forever.

    Both are pretty possible and impossible at the same time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    Well, first we should define a God.
    Certainly, but that is something believers are a pains not to do, because as soon as you start tying down what "God" is actually supposed to be in any useful sense you start into the realm testability.
    WooPeeA wrote: »
    Very smart energy I guess..
    Why?

    There is absolutely no way to assess if the "first source" of the universe or the start or whatever, was or was not "smart energy", but judging by how intelligence forms in the natural world around us that would suggest it wasn't.

    In the biological world intelligence evolves from non-intelligent forefathers. Our brains are formed from atoms, but atoms aren't more intelligent than our brains, in fact atoms possess no processing ability at all, let alone an intelligent one.

    To me the argument that everything comes from something also implies that everything comes from something simpler than what these things combine to form.

    Now this is well into the realm of philosophy, not science, and it is quite an assumption in the first place to state that everything comes from something, but if it is true then it is not very likely that the something the universe came from was complex enough to possess intelligence. Far from it, it seems more plausible, again if we follow the assumptions, that what ever this something was it was similar than even the most basic fundamental particles in the universe.
    WooPeeA wrote: »
    But what can I know, there's no evidences for anything. And that's why I think we shouldn't reject any theory of creation.
    I don't reject the possibility of creator. I reject the idea that human believers know what this creator was. I reject the human ideas of such a creator as simply being human fantasy.

    If there was a creator, instead of simply a creation (and there is no reason to think there was, and plenty of reason to think there wasn't), I can still say with a high level of confidence, that we have absolutely no idea of that.

    All the people who think they know there was a creator and what that creator was like (ie gods) don't.


  • Options
    #38
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    Well that's just one of the options. Another option which I do not reject is the fact that world has never been created and it lives forever.

    Both are pretty possible and impossible at the same time.

    Agreed, there are other options. Another one could be that this is a cyclical universe that had a beginning and that was created by a deist-like god many cycles ago. Another one is that it was created by a giant purple bunny. :eek:

    If for all intents and purposes there looks to be no gods, I think it is safe to assume there isn't. If there is, it/she/he is so distant that it/she/he isn't going to be interested in some mere molecule formations.


  • Options
    #39
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    So to me "God" (I don't like to use this word) is the first source.
    Here's a suggestion: don't use it. :)

    If we have no concept of what it is, it's perfectly acceptable to not sully it with a human term that implies so much more.


  • Options
    #40
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    Wicknight wrote: »
    There is absolutely no way to assess if the "first source" of the universe or the start or whatever, was or was not "smart energy", but judging by how intelligence forms in the natural world around us that would suggest it wasn't.
    The Universe (nature) is able to create new periodic systems. Here on Earth, we know about 110-120 of them (you can find them on Mendeleev Table of Elements) as I remember, but we know that there must be more of them somewhere in Universe. That's why the Universe is getting more complicated all the time. It's getting also bigger (by explosions of galactics and stars) which makes even more chances for creation of new periodic elements. That's what many of scientists are saying.

    Most popular periodics in our part of Universe are helium (He), hydrogen (H) and iron (Fe) [I might be a little wrong here] . That might suggest that they are first periodics which are the foundation for others in the long term. That's only a theory of course.

    If we back the time billions of billions of years, when the Universe was not that complicated as today, when there was no planets, stars, galactics etc.. One of theories is saying that there was only one periodic element that has began everything.


    The other theory is saying that it all began by Big Bang because the Universe looks like the chemical and physical reaction after large explosion. But that's of course another theory.

    What I mean is that world is getting more complicated, and if it's getting more complicated, in the past that was less complicated. And that may suggest the "First source" theory.


  • Options
    #41
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    WTF is a galactic?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    WTF is a galactic?

    WTF is a periodic?!


  • Options
    #43
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    WTF is YORE MA?!


  • Options
    #44
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    Most popular periodics in our part of Universe are helium (He), hydrogen (H) and iron (Fe) [I might be a little wrong here] . That might suggest that they are first periodics which are the foundation for others in the long term. That's only a theory of course.
    It is actually hydrogen then helium, and iron is the 6th most common atom in the universe. Oxygen is 3rd.

    As you say, it is a well established and supported theory that hydrogen was the first atom, and that other atoms formed through heat causing nuclear fusion, either during the heat of the big bang or inside stars, which are basically big factories converting hydrogen into helium.
    WooPeeA wrote: »
    What I mean is that world is getting more complicated, and if it's getting more complicated, in the past that was less complicated. And that may suggest the "First source" theory.

    It does, and the first source theory is the Big Bang theory, which is strongly supported by observation.

    My point is that there is little reason to suspect that this event was either some how intelligent itself, or triggered by some intelligence.


  • Options
    #45
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    But what can I know, there's no evidences for anything. And that's why I think we shouldn't reject any theory of creation.

    That type of thinking, however, is against science. Remember that science is about models, and that any "theory" is just a model, essentially its just people taking in any available evidence and making assumptions about how things work. If these assumptions work with all the available evidence, and can keep working with any new evidence that comes to light, then the model is accepted. But if some new piece of evidence comes up that does not fit with the model, then the model needs to be changed to fit with the evidence and if it can't adapt then it needs to be discarded and a new model that acounts for all evidence needs to be made. Some old models (eg "the sun revolves around the earth") have to be rejected when evidence arises that shows them to be wrong.


  • Options
    #46
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    Well not exactly. Atheism is rejecting existence of God at all. If somebody's not certain, he shouldn't call himself an atheist but agnostic.

    From wiki:

    Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]

    Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.

    Now you're just splitting hairs. ;)
    By taht logic I'm a super-agnostic. The slightest breeze could transform me into a full blown atheist! :eek:


  • Options
    #47
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,425 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I wouldn't advocate spending all that money considering the extreme unlikeliness of their being a Russell's teapot. I can say with confidence that I'm 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain said tea pot does not exist.

    If commercial space tourism ever becomes affordable, I'm going into space and bringing a teapot with me. (the fact that nobody's done it yet is proof that astronoughts/cosmonaughts don't have a sense of humour)


  • Options
    #48
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,425 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    Well not exactly. Atheism is rejecting existence of God at all. If somebody's not certain, he shouldn't call himself an atheist but agnostic.

    From wiki:

    Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]
    Your very own definition of atheism disproves your argument.

    One can reject theism without being absolutely certain that there is no such thing as a god just like you can reject astrology or homeopathy without 100% proof that they are false beliefs.

    I reject christianity because I see too many gaping holes in the logic and traditions. I reject Astrology because I don't see how arbitrary celestial movements can have any effect on whether or not I am compatable with my girlfriend or if I win the lottery. I reject homeopathy because there is nothing in those bottles but water.

    I do not know with absolute 100% certainty that I am right and they are wrong, but I can reject them anyway because they don't meet the standards that I have set for myself to believe.


  • Options
    #49
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Akrasia wrote: »
    If commercial space tourism ever becomes affordable, I'm going into space and bringing a teapot with me.
    Ye gods - don't do that!

    Given the arguments against the likelihood of there existing such a celestial vessel; by placing a teapot in orbit you would instantly prove the existence of God!


  • Options
    #50
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    TBH I find the likelihood of an astronaut having doe such a thing without letting the world know about it much more likely than God being real.
    I'm fairly certain it didn't happen too.


  • Options
    #51
    WooPeeA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭WooPeeA


    Akrasia wrote: »
    If commercial space tourism ever becomes affordable, I'm going into space and bringing a teapot with me. (the fact that nobody's done it yet is proof that astronoughts/cosmonaughts don't have a sense of humour)
    It may happen sooner than you think..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic

    :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You are slightly missing the point with the gravity example.

    You can test gravity all you like, that isn't going to "prove" that your model of gravity will still hold in 5 minutes, when you are standing at the top of your building. It doesn't "prove" that it will still work when you throw yourself off 5 seconds later either. I'm still pretty confident that you won't throw yourself off a building.

    You are working on the conclusion that because your model of gravity appeared accurate 5 minutes ago it will still be accurate 5 minutes from now.

    You cannot be certain of that to a very high level of accuracy. But you still aren't going to throw yourself off a building.

    Yep. Science is the business of falsifying (ie dis-proving), rather than proving, hypotheses (candidate models). If a hypothesis fails to be falsified despite rigorous tests, it becomes the standing theory. The key is that at that first step, a scientist should automatically discard any hypothesis which is non-falsifiable.


  • Options
    #53
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    It may happen sooner than you think..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic

    :cool:

    Even Virgin Galactic won't have orbital flights until at least their third generation spacecraft. When SpaceShipThree starts taking passengers, what are the chances they'll let us drop a teapot out of the airlock?


  • Options
    #54
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Dades wrote: »
    Ye gods - don't do that!

    Given the arguments against the likelihood of there existing such a celestial vessel; by placing a teapot in orbit you would instantly prove the existence of God!

    By demonstrating that Man placed the Teapot in space........ that It's Metallic Glory is in fact the work of mortals:eek:..... we would prove that God is an invention of Man!!!!:confused::pac::pac::D


Advertisement