Atheism, via infirmed choice or sheer laziness?

Dades

galactus wrote:

In fact he was saying that there is no god.

Actually that's just my belief.
But I have to accept that nobody actually knows anything definitively, thus making us all technically agnostics it would seem.

Answer this - does the Pope know there is a god?

galactus

Knowing and believing are different - that's why I've issues with your sig!

Knowing - left side of the brain
Believing - right side of the brain

Dades

galactus wrote:

Knowing and believing are different - that's why I've issues with your sig!

Damned controversial sig!

I thought it was less offensive than my original choice:
"Only sheep need a shepherd".

ecksor

The Atheist wrote:

Answer this - does the Pope know there is a god?

I asked you before to clarify your use of the word "know" in the apparently contradictory places that you've used it. I did actually give the matter a bit of thought myself and will try to offer a way of reconciling the two uses if you can stand another potentially annoying exchange

Dades

ecksor wrote:

I did actually give the matter a bit of thought myself and will try to offer a way of reconciling the two uses if you can stand another potentially annoying exchange

Go for it ecksor, and we'll keep it conversational.

Can knowledge be subjective? Does the realm of philosophy/spirituality require a watered down definition that allows you to know something if you personally have no doubts?

birdiewhistler

well it only depends on your position with atheism and society, as in discrimintaion or political changes. I use to be very outspoken about my religious believes. Whenever possible I would yell out to the world that Im a Secular Humanist. After a while though it stopped seeming so important. So now I dont speek of it unless asked. Because as a secular humanist I realized it really doesn't matter that much to me who knows. So, I might be classified as a "Lazy Atheist" but its only because my religous believes arent as important as it seems.

upmeath

I am an atheist in that I've detached myself from the Catholic and Christian Churches in general. I believe many fallacies lie within Christian teachings, and that science offers far more logic. Incidents in Christian teaching such as the immaculate conception and the loaves and fishes defy scientific laws such as those of biological reproduction and the conservation of matter. if jesus knew einstein's equation before einstein was born he would surely have left it with us, there's no way crumbs and bones suddenly became nutritious bread and fish, falling from the sky.

elivsvonchiaing

upmeath wrote:

I am an atheist in that I've detached myself from the Catholic and Christian Churches in general. I believe many fallacies lie within Christian teachings, and that science offers far more logic. Incidents in Christian teaching such as the immaculate conception and the loaves and fishes defy scientific laws such as those of biological reproduction and the conservation of matter. if jesus knew einstein's equation before einstein was born he would surely have left it with us, there's no way crumbs and bones suddenly became nutritious bread and fish, falling from the sky.

Can agree totally with falacy of teachings... However, I believe loaves and fishes may have in fact been observed - but as some kind of mass-hysteria event maybe - or maybe really happened...

There have been loads of incidences of unexplainable stuff throughout centuries - The buddha dismemembered himself in front of crowd, de-capitating self - to emerge alive... St Francis got fish to all emerge from a lake... Rabbi Yehudah Ben Bezalel - (Rabbi Low of Prague) borrowed palaces, made stones turn into flowers etc...

It may be more comforting to view all this as legend but Lyall Watson (still alive I think) wrote of a Hindu Holyman: Sai Baba - he conjured up hot confectionary out of thin air - in the middle of nowhere...

While I don't believe in most people's idea of god. I believe there is one - the universe itself - and there is a lot of stuff for which we have no explanation!

Einstein said that anyone that didn't believe in magic was dead... What I think he meant was that anyone who believes they know it all - is a closed mind comforted by thin-obvious explanations - unwilling and too fearful to inquire further - therefore dead!

kika_j

First of all I am a (consiencious) atheist. That is I do not believe in any god or higher power for in my mind I know he/she/it does not exist and have reached this conclusion through research. I studied Physics for two years in college and found it too pedantic in its execution for my liking however it is the basis for my atheism.

It is my opinion that science (in no small part quantum mechanics) can explain everything people call the effects/proof of god. The basis of science is basically law. An idea cannot become a physical law unless it is prooven to be true. Before it is proven it is a theory. This provision means that modern scientific laws are infallible. They have been proven to be consistent.

It is these laws I base my understanding of existence on. Should they fail at any time under any circumstances I would gladly recant and say that I cannot definitively say there is/is not a god however they are steadfast.

Though this view may appear to some dogmatic before I am attacked I would like to say that I respect the views of others (e.g. those who believe in a god/power). That is, I acknowledge that they have a view, which they are entitled to, whether I agree with it or not, and I would expect the same level of respect for my "beliefs" or lack thereof.

so why am I posting here? as a poster boy for atheism. From the outset I think it has been unclear as to what it truly means to be atheist. I am atheist. I do not believe in a god for in my mind i know it does not exist. I am not lazy in supporting these ideals and reject the sugestions of those who say I am for I have invested much time and effort in coming to these conclusions.


Phew! glad I got that off my chest

Fysh

kika_j wrote:

First of all I am a (consiencious) atheist. That is I do not believe in any god or higher power for in my mind I know he/she/it does not exist and have reached this conclusion through research. I studied Physics for two years in college and found it too pedantic in its execution for my liking however it is the basis for my atheism.

It is my opinion that science (in no small part quantum mechanics) can explain everything. The basis of science is basically law. An idea cannot become a physical law unless it is prooven to be true. Before it is proven it is a theory. This provision means that modern scientific laws are infallible. They have been proven to be 100% consistent.

Uh, speaking as a fellow physicist, no they haven't.

The big argument between mathematicians and physicist boils down to the fact that physicists accept experimental data as "proof" of a theory's validity, whereas mathematicians accept only a theoretical proof in mathematical form.
The reasons and merits of this can be argued both ways for ages, but your statement that physical laws have been proven to be 100% consistent, especially having just mentioned quantum physics and the Great uncertainty, isn't quite accurate. Physical laws are given that status on an essentially statistical basis, ie it's unlikely but not impossible for them to be broken.

(Then again, going by quantum, very few things if any are actually impossible, just extremely unlikely).

(I happen to agree with you to an extent - I'm a fairly committed scientific atheist, and I'm of the opinion that further exploration of quantum theory will give new understanding of various currently-not-understoof phenomena, although I don't think that a Unified Theory Of Everything Plus Dog is possible).

kika_j

edited the thread to remove the 100%

fair enough you're right... probability introduces inherent uncertainty into everything in nature. That fact alone can disprove the existence of god in sofar as it means that things can exist in indetermined states thus how can one predetermine the Undetermined.

"not only does god play dice, sometimes he may not know where they land"
paraphrasing from Stephen Hawking "Black holes & baby universes". (and yes i spotted the contradiction in using this quote too)

Physics has gray areas just like Religion but every day more grey turns to black or white. I'm a realist and Realise we can probably never understand or calculate everything for if we did we could predict the future (and paradoxically change it). its a natural limitation of humanity. Grand Unified Theories are a nice idea 'tho.

This is not a limitation which would leave room for a gods existence 'tho.

Thanks for shooting a hole im my post fysh

solo1

That is I do not believe in any god or higher power for in my mind I know he/she/it does not exist and have reached this conclusion through research.

Bloody hell. I'm a 100% athiest, and even I wouldn't go that far. How, exactly, did you "research" the god theory?

elivsvonchiaing

solo1 wrote:

Bloody hell. I'm a 100% athiest, and even I wouldn't go that far. How, exactly, did you "research" the god theory?

I'm zero % atheist - and don't believe in god by popular definition - think we needed to have started with this tbh! then again to many I am an atheist- so it alls hinges on definitions of the arguement imho! whattf is god exactly? whentf is god exactly - think most arguement here has been christo -centric - a bit sad tbh!

kika_j

solo1 wrote:

Bloody hell. I'm a 100% athiest, and even I wouldn't go that far. How, exactly, did you "research" the god theory?

Well my mother has a degree in theology. She started it when I was starting primary school so there was always books around. I've read a good few and find that they're unsatisfying and mostly talk to you as if you're already a believer, which is kinda patronising. I realize dissatisfaction is hardly a basis to reject something and don't think it's my only reason.

Mainly I have found answers in (yes you've guessed it) Physics. My major problem was how can the beginning of the universe be explained without the existence of one who is outside it. This was a major stumbling block for my scientific curiosity but along came quantum mechanics with what I was looking for... an answer. energy can be taken from somewhere with no energy so long as it is given back in a short period of time. Essentially "in the beginning" nothing took a small ammount of energy from nowhere and created something. This something was an ultra microscopic baby universe which rapidly expanded uncontrolably (the big bang).

It may seem arbitrary and it may be wrong (I probably havent even retold the theory exactly right) but its a possibility. If this is a possibility then there are probably even more possible ways which havent been thought of yet.

I find comfort in the way science can explain things and how it is accountable for those explanations. Creation to me (just like a believer) is an incredible and beautiful thing. Spectacular and complex atomic and nuclear interactions of the small, to enormous gravitational and electromagnetic shunts and swirls which form everything from single hydrogen atoms to stars, planets, black holes, galaxies and human beings. I feel however, if you follow this path then the only logical conclusion you can reach is that gods do not exist. Gods defy the rules of nature. They break laws which are proven consistent(theres that word again) to such an extent as to be rediculous.

I have researched god in the christian sense in a thorough way not only through reading but through debate and conversation. I have researched some eastern philosophies (taoism, shintoism, bhuddism), finding i liked they're ideas, but not really finding any definitive accountable answers to my questions, and similarly other religions.

just out of curiosity... am I a nihilist or an atheist?

could somebody clear this up for me...

My mum and I have this debate all the time and two of my good friends are studying religion in Mater Dei so I've debated this long and hard to reach this conclusion. That is what I meant by "research". I am satisfid in my mind that there is no such thing as a god and no higher power, in my mind i know (not believe) it to be true!

Dades

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

I'm zero % atheist - and don't believe in god by popular definition - think we needed to have started with this tbh! then again to many I am an atheist- so it alls hinges on definitions of the arguement imho! whattf is god exactly? whentf is god exactly - think most arguement here has been christo -centric - a bit sad tbh!

Earlier in the post I gave my definition of a "god", which is the basis for my atheism. I don't believe it to be "christo-centric" not that I'm a theologian. Feel free to offer your opinions as well as your questions.

I guess I consider a "GOD" as a creator figure. An omnipotent being, who is "hands on" when it comes to his/her creation.I'm not an expert in world religions, but my perception is that every god figure is "involved" in the society that worships it. In short the god can be called upon to act through prayer, or can be angered, pleased, appeased etc.

That is my perception of a GOD. And it is that which I cannot believe to exist.

As for Kika_j

kika_j wrote:

just out of curiosity... am I a nihilist or an atheist?

I think you'd know if you were a nihilist!

Your complete rejection of a god concept would suggest you are indeed an atheist/infidel/hellburner.

kika_j

As for Kika_j

I think you'd know if you were a nihilist!

Your complete rejection of a god concept would suggest you are indeed an atheist/infidel/hellburner.

Yay!

solo1

Well my mother has a degree in theology.

Sorry, man, there's a guy on the other thread who's quoting the Dean of Philosophy from Maynooth. Apparently he's just proved that god exists, so I guess you just got served.

Mainly I have found answers in (yes you've guessed it) Physics.

No, you didn't. How can you find any "answers" about god in physics? What kind of questions are you asking? Physics doesn't know anything. There is a strong contention at the moment that there is no such thing as energy (something I have suspected for some time): it's just a way that scientists choose to express the world's workings to make the numbers work out - it doesn't really exist, no more than the colour blue actually exists, other than a subjective appreciation of the reflection of a certain wavelength of light. "Blue" is just something our brain invents to make the numbers work out.

Let me ask you this: what is gravity? How is it made? How does it work exactly? Ask any of your physics professors - oh they can describe it and its effects quite well - but they have no idea how it works. Now, they can't figure out something like gravity without reducing it to some sort of irrational axiom, but you think they have the answer to god? Wake up, man!

You don't need physics, just work it out yourself. You either believe in a god, or you don't, or you're not sure.

elivsvonchiaing

The Atheist wrote:

Earlier in the post I gave my definition of a "god", which is the basis for my atheism. I don't believe it to be "christo-centric" not that I'm a theologian. Feel free to offer your opinions as well as your questions.

Well I'm not an expert on religion myself either - but would now have to change that to "religion-centric" - but do feel there are branches of every religion that have it right.

Spinoza was ex-communicated from the Jewish faith - because he believed that god created the Universe - and does not interfere with the laws he established. That is the core of my belief. So I am to most an atheist and to some a religious nut!

I do also believe that our thoughts have power and can influence the Universe! How exactly I have no idea... but have to wonder about Aztec myths Quetzalcoatl etc. At a very basic level - we invent - and even if that's our ineraction with the universe think there will always be mysteries there... we only got radio working for us 100 years ago- we've been here 3million!

On that note anyone who doesn't believe in "Dear God" or the Universe should feel humility in the fact that there's a lot we still don't know - should feel also a sense of awe about what we don't know - not arrogance at what we do because of religious bullsh!t that was drummed into them as kids!

kika_j

solo1 wrote:

No, you didn't. How can you find any "answers" about god in physics? What kind of questions are you asking? Physics doesn't know anything.

first you tell me what I found, THEN you ask what i'm looking for and then you tell me where i wont find it. constructive!

There is a strong contention at the moment that there is no such thing as energy (something I have suspected for some time): it's just a way that scientists choose to express the world's workings to make the numbers work out - it doesn't really exist, no more than the colour blue actually exists, other than a subjective appreciation of the reflection of a certain wavelength of light. "Blue" is just something our brain invents to make the numbers work out.

honestly this whole statement contradicts itself and is an incorrect analogy.... firstly you say theres a theory which states there is no such thing as energy (which admittedly i am unfarmiliar with) then you say colour is the subjective interpretation of a wavelength of light. Light has a wavelength because its an electromagnetic wave. Its the energetic oscillation of fields in a medium. That description of light cannot exist without energy.

Saying blue does not exist is not like saying energy does not exist. Energy is not a subjective description of something we observe, heat(for example) is, energy is what we actually observe. in the same way blue is what we subjectively observe em waves are what we actually observe.

Let me ask you this: what is gravity? How is it made? How does it work exactly? Ask any of your physics professors - oh they can describe it and its effects quite well - but they have no idea how it works. Now, they can't figure out something like gravity without reducing it to some sort of irrational axiom, but you think they have the answer to god? Wake up, man!

True there's no definitive description or explanation of gravity but there are many possible theories. The existence of gravity yielding bosons, brane theory, string theory. These are quantitive, rational, possible (if incomplete) explanations for the existence of gravity.

You don't need physics, just work it out yourself. You either believe in a god, or you don't, or you're not sure.

In fairness I'm fairly sure I do not believe in a god but without the bible, koran or the dean of philosophy of maynooth telling me how we were created and who created us am I just to sit there and let it be, satisfied with the fact that I exist.

I don't need physics at all but its a means to an end. Its my main reason for not believing, that is, the fact that the world can be explained in a way so that i dont have to clutch at straws and just believe in something. with science there doesent have to be something more. If i was just to say "gods do not exist I dont believe in them" It would be pretty hollow without anything to back it up.

Dades

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

Well I'm not an expert on religion myself either - but would now have to change that to "religion-centric" - but do feel there are branches of every religion that have it right.

That to me makes NO sense! Have what right? A God that doesn't interfere? Perhaps that their religions share some characteristics, but I'd hardly say they have it right when they worship difference gods.

Spinoza was ex-communicated from the Jewish faith - because he believed that god created the Universe - and does not interfere with the laws he established. That is the core of my belief. So I am to most an atheist and to some a religious nut!

I can't understand how people consider you an atheist if you believe a god created the universe. Misconception I suppose. You don't sound like a nut but I'd like to hear whose religion (if any) your god is based on - but only if you want to. I have difficulty getting my head around a god that doesn't interfere. (Or the point of one).

I do also believe that our thoughts have power and can influence the Universe! How exactly I have no idea... but have to wonder about Aztec myths Quetzalcoatl etc. At a very basic level - we invent - and even if that's our ineraction with the universe think there will always be mysteries there... we only got radio working for us 100 years ago- we've been here 3million!

I take this to mean that our thoughts can influence the universe when they are put into action - be that creative or destructive. Of course we can change our little corner of the universe, and are maybe still only scratching the surface of science and invention.

On that note anyone who doesn't believe in "Dear God" or the Universe should feel humility in the fact that there's a lot we still don't know - should feel also a sense of awe about what we don't know - not arrogance at what we do because of religious bullsh!t that was drummed into them as kids!

I believe in the Universe because I can see it and feel it. I don't know what you mean by "Dear God" however.

Many people are content (not arrogant) in the knowledge that we know a bit about science but essentially nothing about the origins of matter and the universe. To answer the unexplainable with a god concept is a popular option, but not one open to everyone.

SkepticOne

The Atheist wrote:

That to me makes NO sense! Have what right? A God that doesn't interfere? Perhaps that their religions share some characteristics, but I'd hardly say they have it right when they worship difference gods.
[...]
I have difficulty getting my head around a god that doesn't interfere. (Or the point of one).

What is your difficulty with this? If people can believe in an all powerful god then they must be capable of believing in a god that doesn't interfere. Otherwise, interfering would be some sort of compulsion which would contradict the idea of an all powerful god.

galactus

Albert Einstein didn't have a problem with it!

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."


http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/Spinoza.html

Fysh

galactus wrote:

Albert Einstein didn't have a problem with it!

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."[/url]

I don't know, I've never really been all that interested in how Einstein reconciled his physics with his religion - the only exchange that ever stuck in my memory was the alleged one between him and Schrodinger concerning quantum theory:

Einstein :"God does not play dice".
Schrodinger :"Stop telling God what to do".


That said, I've also not got much truck with arguments that try and make science out to be mysticism in disguise - the key difference, for me, is that science is human beings trying to understand how things work by tinkering with them, and any theory that doesn't answer the facts is discarded when a better one is found. Religion lacks that, in that it's not answerable to apparent fallacies or contradictions, because at its very core is the acceptance of something whose mechanisms are by definition unknown and, in some cases, unknowable.

Dades

SkepticOne wrote:

What is your difficulty with this? If people can believe in an all powerful god then they must be capable of believing in a god that doesn't interfere. Otherwise, interfering would be some sort of compulsion which would contradict the idea of an all powerful god.

I can understand the idea of believing in an all powerful god. People will take on "faith" the existence of a benevolent god that will hear their prayers, that will help them when they need, or that will stop the volcano erupting if they sacrifice a virgin. These types of gods, that punish the bad and reward the good, serve the purpose of ordering their followers and giving hope to the hopeless.

What I don't see the point in, is a god that has no interaction with creation. Why would anyone suggest this type of god exists? What evidence is there? To what end?

Now I've made it abundantly clear my ignorance of Spinoza's god - but even after a bit of research his "Ethic" theory still reads to me like philosophical fluff.

I guess his "god" doesn't match my definition of a god, but since he's long dead - I'll let him off the hook.

SkepticOne

The Atheist wrote:

I can understand the idea of believing in an all powerful god. People will take on "faith" the existence of a benevolent god that will hear their prayers, that will help them when they need, or that will stop the volcano erupting if they sacrifice a virgin. These types of gods, that punish the bad and reward the good, serve the purpose of ordering their followers and giving hope to the hopeless.

It must be that you haven't considered all the possibilities.

SkepticOne

This thread started out with somone saying that they felt that most other atheists were so by default, lazyness etc. But is it possible to rationally come to the positive conclusion that their is no god? If not, then the thread starter has no cause for complaint about the lazy athiests. Why seek a reason if there is none?

Some would argue that no argument is necessary since the onus is on the god-believers to prove their case. If you are happy with that, then fine.

However many believers would say the same thing about atheists. The believers simply have a conviction that there must be a god and, unless the atheists come up with some positive argument, they are happy to carry on with their belief.

I'm not saying I agree with either position; just that there seems to be a lack of rationality on both sides. Just unreasoned conviction.

Dades

SkepticOne wrote:

It must be that you haven't considered all the possibilities.

Your remark coupled with my quote confuses me.

I'm not saying I agree with either position; just that there seems to be a lack of rationality on both sides. Just unreasoned conviction.

I don't think the purpose of the thread was to reason behind one's convictions. It's just evolved into a series of debates.

It's a philosophy thread on the Internet. It serves no purpose, it will solve no problems and chances are it will change no minds. But it's no harm chewing the cud.

SkepticOne

The Atheist wrote:

I don't think the purpose of the thread was to reason behind one's convictions. It's just evolved into a series of debates.

It's a philosophy thread on the Internet. It serves no purpose, it will solve no problems and chances are it will change no minds.

It might do. I have no belief on the question of god/no god. I prefer to hold beliefs that are based on reason in some way. My mind would be changed if someone came up with a good argument I think.

I'm just suggesting that it might be interesting to see what one can come up with in support of the atheistic position.

solo1

first you tell me what I found, THEN you ask what i'm looking for and then you tell me where i wont find it. constructive!

No, you said that you found the answers in physics. I was merely carrying that to its logical extension. If you find it ridiculous maybe you've learned something.

but there are many possible theories.

Yeah, that's just another way of saying that they have no idea. And that's OK.

Also that thing you said about wavelengths and energies doesn't contradict itself - it actually reinforces my argument. Look at it again.

with science there doesent have to be something more.

Yes of course there does! Science is great at describing and attempting to explain scientific phenomena. God is not a scientific phenomena. At all. Therefore, science will be useless.

Dades

solo1 wrote:

God is not a scientific phenomena. At all. Therefore, science will be useless.

Gods have always been created by man to explain phenomenon that were beyond their understanding. As more of nature's secrets are unlocked it's only natural that science be considered in any decision regarding the existence of god.

God is not a scientific phenomena, rather a substitute for one we cannot explain IMO.

Dades

SkepticOne wrote:

It might do. I have no belief on the question of god/no god. I prefer to hold beliefs that are based on reason in some way. My mind would be changed if someone came up with a good argument I think.

I'm just suggesting that it might be interesting to see what one can come up with in support of the atheistic position.

I'm not trying to dodge the question, but I still don't feel the need to explain my atheism. You need a reason to believe something exists, not to believe it doesn't as far as I'm concerned.

I see no evidence in this world to make me believe that there is a god watching over us. And frankly if there was an omnipotent god - I think he'd deserve a punch in the nose for what he allows to happen.

Fysh

solo1 wrote:

No, you said that you found the answers in physics. I was merely carrying that to its logical extension. If you find it ridiculous maybe you've learned something.

No, your original statement made no sense. You ask where he found his answers, then stated he couldn't possibly find answers there because "physics doesn't know anything". It's an academic subject in which research is and has been carried out for thousands of years - to say that the accumulated evidence and theories from this work are worthless is to dismiss the entire notion of the scientific endeavour. At which point some fairly hefty reasoning would be required to back it up. Unless you're going to say that reasoning is worthless as well, in which case there's no real point trying to have a conversation.

solo1 wrote:

Yeah, that's just another way of saying that they have no idea. And that's OK.

No, the fundamental difference is that they have ideas about how it works but haven't yet found which one is correct. But they're asking questions to find out, rather than just ascribing it all to some mystical entity conveniently defined as being beyond understanding.

solo1 wrote:

Also that thing you said about wavelengths and energies doesn't contradict itself - it actually reinforces my argument. Look at it again.

I've looked at it, and it sounds like a load of crap, to be frank. Links to more information on it would be appreciated, but there was no mention of any theory about the non-existence of energy when I did my physics degree and that was only a couple of years ago.

solo1 wrote:

Yes of course there does! Science is great at describing and attempting to explain scientific phenomena. God is not a scientific phenomena. At all. Therefore, science will be useless.

And you know this how? More importantly, how are you defining God if he's not a scientific phenomena? And how can he exist in the same universe as scientific phenomena, if he isn't one? Or are we just looping back to your "science doesn't know anything" statement here?

SkepticOne

The Atheist wrote:

I'm not trying to dodge the question, but I still don't feel the need to explain my atheism. You need a reason to believe something exists, not to believe it doesn't as far as I'm concerned.

Well, take the issue of whether intelligent life exists on other worlds. At present we don't know one way or the other yet, for some reason, it is of interest to a lot of people.

For me, if someone holds that there is no possibility extraterrestrial intelligence, I'm interested in why they think that. If someone holds, on the other hand, that there must be extraterrestrial intelligence, I'm also interested in that.

Of course, I respect their right to hold positions on things without rational justification and the question wasn't specificially aimed at yourself

Dades

That's an interesting analogy, Sceptic.

I believe there's a high probability of life on other planets, even though of course we have no physical evidence.

What we do have is circumstantial evidence, one element of which is neatly summed up in what is known as Drake's Equation, which I'm sure you've heard of.

Basically I've heard a lot convincing arguments about how it is likely that there is life on other planets, therefore I am leaning toward believing this is the case. That said, I also want to believe it, so I wonder how does that effect my judgement?

Of course, I respect their right to hold positions on things without rational justification and the question wasn't specificially aimed at yourself

You mean public rational justification.

SkepticOne

The Atheist wrote:

That's an interesting analogy, Sceptic.

I believe there's a high probability of life on other planets, even though of course we have no physical evidence.

What we do have is circumstantial evidence, one element of which is neatly summed up in what is known as Drake's Equation, which I'm sure you've heard of.

Yes, I've heard of it. It is interesting in that it can be used to argue both for and against the idea of intelligent life through the use of estimates of some of its terms.

Basically I've heard a lot convincing arguments about how it is likely that there is life on other planets, therefore I am leaning toward believing this is the case. That said, I also want to believe it, so I wonder how does that effect my judgement?

So you are basically agnostic on the issue with a leaning towards belief in extraterrestrial intelligence. Would that be a reasonable representation of your stance?

If someone were to say that they believed that there are no extra-terrestrial intelligences on the basis that some of the terms of the Drake equation can be set to zero, would that person be making a rational statement?

You mean public rational justification.

Yes, I respect peoples right form whatever beliefs they choose and, if they have a rational basis, to keep that to themselves.

Dades

SkepticOne wrote:

So you are basically agnostic on the issue with a leaning towards belief in extraterrestrial intelligence. Would that be a reasonable representation of your stance?

Yes it would. I've read some fairly persuasive arguments that suggest that there would be, or at the very least has been life on other planets. Hence my leaning. I don't however believe we'll ever know. In our corner of the galaxy the distances are just too vast for communication.

SkepticOne wrote:

If someone were to say that they believed that there are no extra-terrestrial intelligences on the basis that some of the terms of the Drake equation can be set to zero, would that person be making a rational statement?

Setting any one of those factors to zero is denying our own existence. We are proof that a fraction (however tiny) of planets do experience each of the events mentioned. But if someone who knows more about astrophysics than me (not hard) uses unusual factors I'm not really qualified to question it. I'm really just content to have an opinion.

Where do you stand on the matter? Are we alone? :eek:

SkepticOne

The Atheist wrote:

Where do you stand on the matter? Are we alone? :eek:

I too would be agnostic on the issue. For me to say I believed in extraterrestrial intelligence I would need evidence stronger than is currently available. For me to believe that there's no extra terrestrial intelligence would also require such evidence. I believe in the possibility of it.

The point I'm leading up to is this: is there any fundamental difference between this question and the god/no god one?

One possible difference is that at some point we may be in a position to fill in some of the numbers on the drake equation (I should have said infintessimal rather than zero in my example), but at this point we don't (at least to my satisfaction).

In the case of the god/no god question, there would not appear to be evidence to support either position.

Tar.Aldarion

if you believe in god and you are wrong so what? if you don't believe and he is real you go to hell

solo1

if you believe in god and you are wrong so what? if you don't believe and he is real you go to hell

That's called Pascal's wager, and it seems to be asking people to believe in god based on the spread. It's going to take more than a 7/4 bet to change my mind.

It's an academic subject in which research is and has been carried out for thousands of years - to say that the accumulated evidence and theories from this work are worthless is to dismiss the entire notion of the scientific endeavour.

But it's completely 100% useless when discussing the existence of a god. If you want to start a thread about the rate of expansion of gases or something, you're onto a winner.

there was no mention of any theory about the non-existence of energy when I did my physics degree and that was only a couple of years ago.

Does that surprise you? And it's only a theory. It just happens to be one I find interesting.

And you know this how? More importantly, how are you defining God if he's not a scientific phenomena?

The study of god is called "theology" not "physics". God is a theological construct with whom physics has nothing to do. You can read all the god books in the world, and not one of them will have physics in it, or at least not the kind of physics they expect you to take seriously. In the Old Testament, there are measurements given which clearly indicate that pi = 3!

The idea of a god does not take place in the physical world, so science is of no use in trying to bring us closer, or further away. God exists in the hearts and minds of men, like love. Science is useless in explaining love too. Now, of course you can explain physical reactions in terms of hormones and glands and whatever - but you won't be any closer to getting any real idea of what love is.

If anyone ever manages to prove a god, it won't be through physics, it will be through theology, or philosophy.

Fysh

solo1 wrote:

Does that surprise you? And it's only a theory. It just happens to be one I find interesting.

Well, yes, to be honest. On the basis that most theories with any significant weight behind them get some sort of mention, even if it's only in passing. (There's a portion of scientists complaining at the moment that astrophysical research into non-Big Bang theory ideas is underfunded precisely because it is assumed by those handing out funding that the Big Bang model, flawed as it is, must be correct and needs only minor adjustement. While there is some evidence to justify this sort of behaviour at a research level, I didn't find it quite so obvious while studying for my degree).

solo1 wrote:

The study of god is called "theology" not "physics". God is a theological construct with whom physics has nothing to do. You can read all the god books in the world, and not one of them will have physics in it, or at least not the kind of physics they expect you to take seriously. In the Old Testament, there are measurements given which clearly indicate that pi = 3!

Well, that's sort of my point. If a god book tells me pi=3, or that the world was made in 7 days, but all the available and testable evidence says pi is an irrational number not far off 22/7, and that the world came to be over millions of years, I'm inclined to think it's lying. I then question the validity of the rest of its contents, and start to see other convenient aspects of the God in question/gaping holes in the whole idea. This is what I was getting at originally.

solo1 wrote:

The idea of a god does not take place in the physical world, so science is of no use in trying to bring us closer, or further away. God exists in the hearts and minds of men, like love. Science is useless in explaining love too. Now, of course you can explain physical reactions in terms of hormones and glands and whatever - but you won't be any closer to getting any real idea of what love is.

I'd argue the toss on that, actually. Being a state of mind, it's obviously dependent on our understanding of neurology and physiology, but I'd say you could get a reasonable description of the physical side of what's going on inside someone who describes themself as "being in love". No, we can't describe it exactly - but the difference is that with something like "love" (which I agree is as wishy washy and vague a concept as god) we have something to look at, and try to understand. With "God" we have evidence only in the form of anthropic reasoning, the continuing existence of phenomena that haven't yet been fully explained, and the word of a bunch of preachers. Not all that convincing, really, because the same arguments can be made for invisible pink unicorns.

solo1 wrote:

If anyone ever manages to prove a god, it won't be through physics, it will be through theology, or philosophy.

Yes, like that Maynooth Dean claimed to have done. Presuming you allow for the proof of God's existence to rest entirely on a definition that arises out of linguistic fiddling and cannot be backed up with a mathematical, physical, or logically translated proof. (In which case no doubt there's several proofs around the place, and I believe there's also a proof that will convince you that taking an orange to pieces and reassembling it will make it the same size as the sun, for reasons baffling to myself and many other physicists - must look that one up, I think it was mentioned in Feynman's autobiography)

Speaking of the Maynooth Dean's proof, I'm reminded me of an incident I read about a while ago, roughly as follows:

Sometime in the middle ages, a certain philosopher (can't remember the name, sorry) starts claiming God does not exist and expounds the idea at some length, managing to outwit local priests and bishops. In desperation, the church seeks out a theologist who knows algebra, hoping this will provide a way to defeat the renegade. The "proof" which silenced the atheist was as follows:

"x + 4 = 7, therefore god exists. Respond!"

The atheist, not being versed in algebra and therefore unable to counter the argument, was forced to renounce his stance.

Dades

Fysh wrote:

Well, that's sort of my point. If a god book tells me pi=3, or that the world was made in 7 days, but all the available and testable evidence says pi is an irrational number not far off 22/7, and that the world came to be over millions of years, I'm inclined to think it's lying. I then question the validity of the rest of its contents, and start to see other convenient aspects of the God in question/gaping holes in the whole idea. This is what I was getting at originally.

Well put Fysh.

That is exactly what I thought when I read Solo1's post. My comments on this were ignored above, the jist of which were:

Gods have always been created by man to explain phenomenon that were beyond their understanding. As more of nature's secrets are unlocked it's only natural that science be considered in any decision regarding the existence of god.

And as for this idea...

Originally Posted by solo1
If anyone ever manages to prove a god, it won't be through physics, it will be through theology, or philosophy.

You have got to be kidding. That's like trying to prove something through dance. And I refuse to believe that you think someone might ever prove there is a god. Gods exist because of faith and nothing else. What is faith? A belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

ScepticOne wrote:

The point I'm leading up to is this: is there any fundamental difference between this question and the god/no god one?

One possible difference is that at some point we may be in a position to fill in some of the numbers on the drake equation (I should have said infintessimal rather than zero in my example), but at this point we don't (at least to my satisfaction).

In the case of the god/no god question, there would not appear to be evidence to support either position.

The questions are similar in that they ask your belief in something that cannot ever be seen or proven. People approach such questions in different ways, however. For me it's all about a persuasive argument to believe.

Regarding extraterrestrial life, there is some circumstantial scientific evidence to suggest that it is entirely possible that somewhere in the entire cosmos, life has arose in some shape or form, at some time in history. Science has no agenda other than the truth, and that gives me a reason to believe life is a possibility, even if it was just algae that lived and died a billion years ago, a trillion miles away.

Regarding the existence of a god, not one shred of evidence exists for me. (The definition of god that I work off is mentioned earlier). The fact that we exist is not evidence of a god. Every civilisation on the planet at once stage conjured up a god-figure to whom they attribute different characteristics. Man-made creations to explain the unexplainable. No evidence, no contest, no god.

*Shrug* but each to their own.

SkepticOne

The Atheist wrote:

Regarding extraterrestrial life, there is some circumstantial scientific evidence to suggest that it is entirely possible that somewhere in the entire cosmos, life has arose in some shape or form, at some time in history. Science has no agenda other than the truth, and that gives me a reason to believe life is a possibility, even if it was just algae that lived and died a billion years ago, a trillion miles away.

Regarding the existence of a god, not one shred of evidence exists for me. (The definition of god that I work off is mentioned earlier). The fact that we exist is not evidence of a god. Every civilisation on the planet at once stage conjured up a god-figure to whom they attribute different characteristics. Man-made creations to explain the unexplainable. No evidence, no contest, no god.

So basically what your saying is that on the on the question of ET/no ET, science at least has something to say (though not conclusive). On the question of god/no god, science has nothing to say (therefore definately not conclusive).

Fysh

SkepticOne wrote:

So basically what your saying is that on the on the question of ET/no ET, science at least has something to say (though not conclusive). On the question of god/no god, science has nothing to say (therefore definately not conclusive).

I wouldn't interpret it that way, tbh. I'd say that there hasn't yet been a good case made for science to do anything other than point and laugh, when it comes to the argument for the existence of God. Ie what science has to say lies firmly in the "no god" camp, purely on the basis that there's never been any convincing and validated evidence in favour of the "god" camp.

SkepticOne

Fysh wrote:

I wouldn't interpret it that way, tbh. I'd say that there hasn't yet been a good case made for science to do anything other than point and laugh, when it comes to the argument for the existence of God. Ie what science has to say lies firmly in the "no god" camp, purely on the basis that there's never been any convincing and validated evidence in favour of the "god" camp.

Nevertheless, science hasn't actually said anything that decides the issue one way or the other to my knowledge. It has provided alternative explanations for known phenomena and this has undermined to a certain extent some of the reasons that people have believed in a god, but it hasn't established in a positive sense that there is no god.

Dades

SkepticOne wrote:

So basically what your saying is that on the on the question of ET/no ET, science at least has something to say (though not conclusive). On the question of god/no god, science has nothing to say (therefore definately not conclusive).

I've no problem with that.

However for me the god/no god question is not just dismissed in the absence of science. There are other thought processes which can lead an individual to the same conclusion. For example if you try to understand how and why "religions" may have been developed in the beginning, you might well reason that gods were an inevitable human creation. And if you believe this you might find it difficult to worship a deity created in the minds of men. No science, just history and (subjective) logic maybe.

Fysh

I disagree there. Because the only evidence that could ever be considered to have been presented for the existence of God would be phenomena that were then understood - most, if not all, of which can now be explained without any need for God to figure in the explanation. So why isn't God discarded in the same way as the flat earth theory?

(Yes, I know, the Flat Earth society still exists. There's not a lot we can do about total morons, sadly.)

Dades

Fysh wrote:

I disagree there. Because the only evidence that could ever be considered to have been presented for the existence of God would be phenomena that were then understood - most, if not all, of which can now be explained without any need for God to figure in the explanation. So why isn't God discarded in the same way as the flat earth theory?

To say that because science has explained a number of phenomenen that originally led people to believe in a god, that it has disproved god, is too much of a stretch for me.

It's a good argument, but it's not proof. I still maintain that being asked to, or attempting to prove something doesn't exist is inherently ridiculous - especially in the realm of the invisible.

SkepticOne

Fysh wrote:

I disagree there. Because the only evidence that could ever be considered to have been presented for the existence of God would be phenomena that were then understood - most, if not all, of which can now be explained without any need for God to figure in the explanation. So why isn't God discarded in the same way as the flat earth theory?

Well this is a critique of the idea that god is the only explanation for natural phenomena. However, it doesn't say anything about the existance or otherwise of a god.

Eoghan-psych

SkepticOne wrote:

If someone were to say that they believed that there are no extra-terrestrial intelligences on the basis that some of the terms of the Drake equation can be set to zero, would that person be making a rational statement?Yes, I respect peoples right form whatever beliefs they choose and, if they have a rational basis, to keep that to themselves.

Thing is, once you start zeroing variables in the Drake equation and similar offerings, you very rapidly come to a paradoxical situation of denying the possibilty of intelligent life here on earth.

SkepticOne

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Thing is, once you start zeroing variables in the Drake equation and similar offerings, you very rapidly come to a paradoxical situation of denying the possibilty of intelligent life here on earth.

Yes, this was pointed out by The Athiest. It is not the best example to illustrate my point; the point being that a reasonable question can be posed involving the existance/non-existence of some entity and where science is inconclusive on the matter. In the case of ETs, science has neither neither confirmed the existence of ETs, nor ruled out the possibility of ETs.