Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[SadisticNature]

If people want to use the existence of god to do science they'd have to prove the existence of god and then apply those properties. However, the onus of proof in other endeavors is rather different. I've never contended that using god to do science is sensible, or that assuming god exists for the purpose of verifying some scientific fact is useful.

For instance, in theology it would be a rather pointless to argue that you can't prove god exists, therefore you shouldn't study the divine at all. Similarly if you are studying Aquinas and metaphysics, arguing there is no soul will not lead to understanding of the philosophical implications.

Furthermore, there are countless examples where assuming something is true and studying the consequences is very useful, particularly but not exclusively if a contradiction arises leading to a refutation.

In any of these above, assuming the non-existence of god would be pointless and would curb discussion. Just because its correct for science doesn't mean it's correct in general. If something is not known to be true or false there are benefits to looking at the consequences of both truth and falsity often with a context dependence. For example P = NP? is an open conjecture. Looking at the implications of P = NP could potentially lead to a refutation of P = NP by contradiction. Furthermore if P = NP turns out to be true, having studying the consequences in advance, we would have a huge number of immediate results, and a surge in research. Likewise looking at P not equal to NP could lead to a refutation by contradiction, or new results that follow from P not equal to NP. In computer science the correct approach is to study both possibilities.

Since its so often the case that the correct approach is to study both possibilities, I don't see why in this particular case its wrong to study both possibilities calling one study Theology and the other study Science. Particularly since that is what eventually happened in the academic community.

[SadisticNature]

Scientists often believe in unproven conjectures. They have arguments and intuitions and posit theories. These theories are eventually tested. For instance Newton believed that without air resistance any two objects would fall at the same speed. This wasn't tested until well after his death, he had some evidence for it, and some evidence against it, but was able to pick a side without having conclusive evidence. All of theoretical physics is done by reasoned conjectures. The theory of relativity involves objects at speeds we are no where close to producing so can't be experimentally verified for large scales. Yet we still have conjectures, some of which are right and some of which are wrong. Dawkins has even pointed to an example in Biology where the two conjectures were polar opposites, and reasonable scientists held both positions until further evidence ended the debate.

If you present the world with a widespread correct proof that god does not exist you would reduce religions down to a few radical fanatics, determined to deny the truth. In the absence of further evidence however, I contend that both positions are reasonable.

[SadisticNature]

If you prefer replace gravity by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the point remains the same.

As for convincing people in either direction. If you want people to abandon a belief in A you have to show them good reasons for not A, in some cases an outright proof. If you want people to abandon a belief in not A you have to show them good reasons for A, in some cases an outright proof.

My point isn't that you should believe in god. My point is you can't argue its irrational to believe in a conjecture (God) unless you have strong evidence of its falsity, which by many peoples standards you do not.

[Thorne]

My point isn't that you should believe in god. My point is you can't argue its irrational to believe in a conjecture (God) unless you have strong evidence of its falsity, which by many peoples standards you do not.

And my point is that there is ample evidence for the falsity of gods, enough to satisy me and many others, while there is no evidence for the existence of those gods.

And some people, the very religious, would not be swayed by any evidence whatsoever. Even if I could prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist, those people would deny the proofs, call it Satan's work and, if they had their way, hang me from the nearest tree. The depth of their faith is not a testament to the truth of their beliefs, only to their own ignorance.

[DuncanONeil]

And my point is that there is ample evidence for the falsity of gods, enough to satisy me and many others, while there is no evidence for the existence of those gods.

Clearly that ample evidence is moderated by the fact that it is sufficient for you. But that places you in a very exhalted position of having been able to prove the negative! Your ample evidence of the "falsity of gods" is precisely as ample as the evidence proving the truth of gods. Although most people really only accept the premise that there is only one God.

And some people, the very religious, would not be swayed by any evidence whatsoever. Even if I could prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist, those people would deny the proofs, call it Satan's work and, if they had their way, hang me from the nearest tree. The depth of their faith is not a testament to the truth of their beliefs, only to their own ignorance.

Your comments here expose a serious bias in your beliefs. Again you propose proving that something is not. On what kind of basis can you ever hope to accomplish such a feat? It is an axiom that we are incapable of proving a clear negative.

[Thorne]

Clearly that ample evidence is moderated by the fact that it is sufficient for you. But that places you in a very exhalted position of having been able to prove the negative! Your ample evidence of the "falsity of gods" is precisely as ample as the evidence proving the truth of gods. Although most people really only accept the premise that there is only one God.

To clarify this, the evidence which is sufficient for me is thousands of years of lack of evidence for gods. Evidence of the falsity of gods is contradictions and outright fabrications in the testaments for those gods. But these are the gods which have been defined by religions, not the possibility of unknown gods.

Your comments here expose a serious bias in your beliefs. Again you propose proving that something is not. On what kind of basis can you ever hope to accomplish such a feat? It is an axiom that we are incapable of proving a clear negative.

No, I said IF I could prove the negative, not that I could. My point is that some people would not believe ANY amount of evidence which contradicts their preconceived notions. 9/11 "truthers" discard all engineering and scientific evidence and insist that 9/11 was a government plot; "Birthers" deny all evidence and insist that Obama was born in Africa. "Creationsists" deny all geological evidence and declare the world to be 6000 years old. No amount of evidence to the contrary will sway these whack-jobs. And god believers are no less intransigent.

[DuncanONeil]

You mean like the folks that dismiss all contrary evidence of an impending global man made disaster that is variously going to; drown us, starve us, or subject us to harmful weather?

The groups you cite are each an exceedingly small minority.

Oh yes then there are the liberals that and their refusal to deal with truth, against their ideas or people and for their opponents ideas or people.

No, I said IF I could prove the negative, not that I could. My point is that some people would not believe ANY amount of evidence which contradicts their preconceived notions. 9/11 "truthers" discard all engineering and scientific evidence and insist that 9/11 was a government plot; "Birthers" deny all evidence and insist that Obama was born in Africa. "Creationsists" deny all geological evidence and declare the world to be 6000 years old. No amount of evidence to the contrary will sway these whack-jobs. And god believers are no less intransigent.

[Thorne]

Scientists often believe in unproven conjectures. They have arguments and intuitions and posit theories. These theories are eventually tested.

"Tested" is the key word, here. Anyone can believe anything they like. But can you test your hypotheses?

For instance Newton believed that without air resistance any two objects would fall at the same speed. This wasn't tested until well after his death, he had some evidence for it, and some evidence against it, but was able to pick a side without having conclusive evidence.

Here, too, it was a subject which could be tested. Even if the technology for accurate testing wasn't yet available, a test of the problem could be conceived, and executed. To my knowledge, there are no valid tests for the presence, or absence, of gods. Any tests which have tried to demonstrate the existence of supernatural forces have all failed. You can pick whichever side you want, but when test after test shows that these forces do not exist, and no tests show that they do, then sooner or later you have to admit that you might be wrong.

All of theoretical physics is done by reasoned conjectures. The theory of relativity involves objects at speeds we are no where close to producing so can't be experimentally verified for large scales.

Read this to see one way that relativity was confirmed.

If you present the world with a widespread correct proof that god does not exist you would reduce religions down to a few radical fanatics, determined to deny the truth. In the absence of further evidence however, I contend that both positions are reasonable.

While we cannot prove that gods do not exist, it can be shown that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist. One of the reasons for the demise of the ancient gods, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, etc., is that science showed that the effects which people had ascribed to them (thunder, lightning, wind, storms) were natural effects, following natural laws. Any objective reading of the Bible will show that God, as defined in the Bible, cannot exist. There are just too many internal contradictions, as well as discrepancies with observed nature. So, while it can be reasonable to say that there are no gods because we can find no evidence for them, it is not as reasonable to say that, despite a lack of evidence, there must be gods.

[DuncanONeil]

The key word is actually "eventually"!

"Tested" is the key word, here. Anyone can believe anything they like. But can you test your hypotheses?

Here, too, it was a subject which could be tested. Even if the technology for accurate testing wasn't yet available, a test of the problem could be conceived, and executed. To my knowledge, there are no valid tests for the presence, or absence, of gods. Any tests which have tried to demonstrate the existence of supernatural forces have all failed. You can pick whichever side you want, but when test after test shows that these forces do not exist, and no tests show that they do, then sooner or later you have to admit that you might be wrong.

Read this to see one way that relativity was confirmed.

While we cannot prove that gods do not exist, it can be shown that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist. One of the reasons for the demise of the ancient gods, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, etc., is that science showed that the effects which people had ascribed to them (thunder, lightning, wind, storms) were natural effects, following natural laws. Any objective reading of the Bible will show that God, as defined in the Bible, cannot exist. There are just too many internal contradictions, as well as discrepancies with observed nature. So, while it can be reasonable to say that there are no gods because we can find no evidence for them, it is not as reasonable to say that, despite a lack of evidence, there must be gods.

[DuncanONeil]

While we cannot prove that gods do not exist, it can be shown that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist.

Interesting that you say that God can not be proven to not exist but it is impossible for Gods to exist? Strange would you not say?

[Thorne]

Interesting that you say that God can not be proven to not exist but it is impossible for Gods to exist? Strange would you not say?

I said that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist. And gods of any kind, which are defined as supernatural beings, cannot be proven to exist or to not exist. It's impossible to prove a negative. One can only infer a negative from a lack of evidence for the positive.

[DuncanONeil]

No matter how you spin that you stated clearly that god may exist and that god can not exist.

I said that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist. And gods of any kind, which are defined as supernatural beings, cannot be proven to exist or to not exist. It's impossible to prove a negative. One can only infer a negative from a lack of evidence for the positive.

[Thorne]

Since its so often the case that the correct approach is to study both possibilities, I don't see why in this particular case its wrong to study both possibilities calling one study Theology and the other study Science. Particularly since that is what eventually happened in the academic community.

No one said it was wrong to study theology. Only that it's wrong to declare your assumptions to be absolute truth just because you want them to be. If you wish to hypothesize a universe with gods, without providing any evidence for those gods, there's no reason you cannot do that. But why should you? If the universe works equally well with gods as without them, why complicate the issues?

[FirstBorn]

Up to 4 your argument makes sense. However once you have asserted by assumption an axiom is true, you can either show it false by contradiction, or you have a model of the universe in which its true, so within that model 5 is certainly wrong. 6 is true, however the same argument can be made about assuming gods don't exist.

7. is a reach that doesn't follow from 1 to 6 at all. It isn't even provably true, as how would you identify divine influence if it were happening in 100% of experiments.

Wery well as for 4. We can tell for absolute sure no deity described in religius writing will actually intervene in the cases where is says they will. That does not exclude the existence of deities. But they clearly arent the ones described in texts. Given that what we chose to work from in 1. is beond the scope of our experiments (or we would have some indication as to the truth of 1.) , what we have spent our time doing is just an expensive day in the lab proving no more or less.

Now lets have som fun with this logic of yours.

1. Assume there are gods, dragons and no sundays.
2. Do our models and theories of the universe still apply?
(well they do save for the testing of religius texts claiming youll be struck by lightning and calendars with sundays, but thats just crap that others belive)

3. Yes, they do, save for those tiny bits we took out answering 2.
4. Then there probably are gods, dragons and no sundays.
5. Is there evidence for gods? (clearly none whatsoever but none against either save for the bits about texts)
6. Gods, dragons and no sundays exist by assumption 1 so in this theory absolutely.
7. Then to the best of our knowledge there are gods, dragons and no sundays.

Now where you messed up badly was 6. "6. Gods exist by assumption 1 so in this theory absolutely."
You put out a theory and a powerpoint demonstration with irelevant graphs then shouted bad science at everyone who called your bluff.

Clearly if you had any intention of proving or disputing assumption 1. youd have done some experiments that would be affected by that assumption.

Since tests came up blank all you got is an assumption or really a hypothesis you cant prove atall. Now your by all meens welcome to keep beliving that your right in that hypothesis. But untill you come up with evidence or atleast results indicating that you could be right. Thats all you get to call it a hypothesis wich is by definition inferior to law and theory.

I will agree that given the infinity of the universe and a bunch of unanswered questions. An agnostic point of wiew would be reasonable. Compared to either side atleast. That is millitant atheism and religius fundamentalism.

However given the fun of messing with peoples minds and all that. Loud blasphemy and atheism offers by far the most fun.

[SadisticNature]

My argument was just a parroting of an argument done in the opposite direction, which also did no tests. I'm not saying its a good argument. In fact I argued in order for the assumption to have value, one of the models has to be contradictory.

I have no problem with calling it the god hypothesis. My argument here is that there is no good proof that god does not exist, and that its not irrational to choose to believe in god.

People are repeatedly claiming I posited that the existence of god is an absolute truth and that's outright hogwash. I've just posited they can't show that belief in god is irrational behavior and they find that offensive. Argue against the claim, don't try and move the goalposts to make the arguments work.

Lastly, why is it that people jump all over me for an exact duplication of someone elses argument in the reverse direction. You aren't doing science you're doing politics in the sense that if it supports your ideas it doesn't matter how bad the work is. I used that argument not because I think its correct, but to demonstrate that the originally posited argument was equally bad. Neither model does any testing.

As a technical point, gods could carry out certain effects in patterns that would appear to be natural laws. The sciences have no way of proving that false, it's just an unlikely explanation that has no predictive power.

Again, I mean more of relativity than just e=mc^2. What about time distortion of two objects moving away from each other each moving at a fraction below the speed of light, hence their relative velocity being greater than light speed? Now, the same problem for an object the size of a spaceship persay so one avoids the potential for complications due to fundamental breakdown (Examples we have are quantum scale and without a grand unifying theory its hard to understand the differences at a larger scale, but its certainly reasonable to predict the fundamental breakdown plays a signficant role).

Also I've never made an argument for a biblical god or a specific bit of mythology, you may have noticed an absence of religious quotes that run rampant in these debates. I mean god here in something close to Einstein's sense of the word. If you want to replace god by "dragons" or "the flying spaghetti monster" I'll make the same arguments.

I never talked about my assumptions being absolute truth, I talked about them being true within a model. This is by definition local truth. As mentioned before, you should read about formal logic and models before wildly misinterpreting my statements and misrepresenting my positions.

[Thorne]

I'm sorry about some delay in my responses. With the site being up and down today the delays have been unavoidable.

My argument was just a parroting of an argument done in the opposite direction, which also did no tests. I'm not saying its a good argument. In fact I argued in order for the assumption to have value, one of the models has to be contradictory.

I thought that my argument implied tests, i.e., the search for evidence of gods. Your argument not only did not imply tests, but equated assumptions with evidence, a definite difference.

I have no problem with calling it the god hypothesis. My argument here is that there is no good proof that god does not exist, and that its not irrational to choose to believe in god.

And it's my stance that the person(s) making an extraordinary claim, such as the existence of supernatural beings, is the one who must provide evidence for his claim.

People are repeatedly claiming I posited that the existence of god is an absolute truth and that's outright hogwash.

If I have I apologize. I'm too used to dealing with people who claim just that.

I've just posited they can't show that belief in god is irrational behavior and they find that offensive. Argue against the claim, don't try and move the goalposts to make the arguments work.

Then explain to me what is rational about believing in beings which cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be touched and do not appear to have any influence on the workings of the universe? Is believing in large, white, talking rabbits rational? What about leprechauns? Or fairies? None of these can be proven to NOT exist, but after thousands of years of searching there has not yet been any evidence for them.

Lastly, why is it that people jump all over me for an exact duplication of someone elses argument in the reverse direction. You aren't doing science you're doing politics in the sense that if it supports your ideas it doesn't matter how bad the work is. I used that argument not because I think its correct, but to demonstrate that the originally posited argument was equally bad. Neither model does any testing.

As I stated above, your model was not a reverse of mine. I implied a search for evidence (testing) while you did not.

As a technical point, gods could carry out certain effects in patterns that would appear to be natural laws. The sciences have no way of proving that false, it's just an unlikely explanation that has no predictive power.

As a technical point you are correct. But that is like saying that Zeus casts down lightning bolts from the heavens by rubbing clouds together to form electrical charges. It could be true, but it seems kind of silly to speculate so.

Again, I mean more of relativity than just e=mc^2. What about time distortion of two objects moving away from each other each moving at a fraction below the speed of light, hence their relative velocity being greater than light speed? Now, the same problem for an object the size of a spaceship persay so one avoids the potential for complications due to fundamental breakdown (Examples we have are quantum scale and without a grand unifying theory its hard to understand the differences at a larger scale, but its certainly reasonable to predict the fundamental breakdown plays a signficant role).

I haven't got the education to argue the merits of relativity but it's my understanding that test with atomic clocks and space vehicles traveling at fairly high speeds have verified much of the time distortion claims. And direct observation, as shown in that Asimov article I linked to, have also shown the validity of relativity.

I never talked about my assumptions being absolute truth, I talked about them being true within a model. This is by definition local truth. As mentioned before, you should read about formal logic and models before wildly misinterpreting my statements and misrepresenting my positions.

And all I'm saying is that your model was flawed, as noted above.

[Thorne]

I will agree that given the infinity of the universe and a bunch of unanswered questions. An agnostic point of wiew would be reasonable. Compared to either side atleast. That is millitant atheism and religius fundamentalism.

I agree, an agnostic point of view is reasonable. I choose an atheist point of view as a personal preference. I have not seen any compelling evidence of gods in general. Should such evidence be found I would be more than happy to re-evaluate my position. I'm not holding my breath, though.

[VaAugusta]

I was thinking about the effects God has on people. If believing in God can make a person try harder, or make them bolder, then God must exist. I mean in this in a very Platonic Theory of Forms kinda way.

[DuncanONeil]

I agree, an agnostic point of view is reasonable. I choose an atheist point of view as a personal preference. I have not seen any compelling evidence of gods in general. Should such evidence be found I would be more than happy to re-evaluate my position. I'm not holding my breath, though.

You find absolutely nothing in the world miraculous?

[DuncanONeil]

WTH is all that list supposed to mean? It goes in two directions at the same time!

Wery well as for 4. We can tell for absolute sure no deity described in religius writing will actually intervene in the cases where is says they will. That does not exclude the existence of deities. But they clearly arent the ones described in texts. Given that what we chose to work from in 1. is beond the scope of our experiments (or we would have some indication as to the truth of 1.) , what we have spent our time doing is just an expensive day in the lab proving no more or less.

Now lets have som fun with this logic of yours.

1. Assume there are gods, dragons and no sundays.
2. Do our models and theories of the universe still apply?
(well they do save for the testing of religius texts claiming youll be struck by lightning and calendars with sundays, but thats just crap that others belive)

3. Yes, they do, save for those tiny bits we took out answering 2.
4. Then there probably are gods, dragons and no sundays.
5. Is there evidence for gods? (clearly none whatsoever but none against either save for the bits about texts)
6. Gods, dragons and no sundays exist by assumption 1 so in this theory absolutely.
7. Then to the best of our knowledge there are gods, dragons and no sundays.

Now where you messed up badly was 6. "6. Gods exist by assumption 1 so in this theory absolutely."
You put out a theory and a powerpoint demonstration with irelevant graphs then shouted bad science at everyone who called your bluff.

Clearly if you had any intention of proving or disputing assumption 1. youd have done some experiments that would be affected by that assumption.

Since tests came up blank all you got is an assumption or really a hypothesis you cant prove atall. Now your by all meens welcome to keep beliving that your right in that hypothesis. But untill you come up with evidence or atleast results indicating that you could be right. Thats all you get to call it a hypothesis wich is by definition inferior to law and theory.

I will agree that given the infinity of the universe and a bunch of unanswered questions. An agnostic point of wiew would be reasonable. Compared to either side atleast. That is millitant atheism and religius fundamentalism.

However given the fun of messing with peoples minds and all that. Loud blasphemy and atheism offers by far the most fun.

[DuncanONeil]

Wery well as for 4. We can tell for absolute sure no deity described in religius writing will actually intervene in the cases where is says they will.

An upright God-fearing man is suffering the effects of a flood. Sitting on his porch an SUV comes along and offers to take him out, he refuses. Sitting on the roof of his porch a canoe comes along offering to take him out, he refuses. Waiting patiently on his roof a helicopter approaches to aid him, he refuses.
The man drowns! In his afterlife he complains that all his years of faith and works went for naught as his God did not provide succor for him. His God replies; "Did not provide!!" "I sent you an SUV, a canoe, and a helicopter, what more did you want!?"

[DuncanONeil]

No one said it was wrong to study theology. Only that it's wrong to declare your assumptions to be absolute truth just because you want them to be. If you wish to hypothesize a universe with gods, without providing any evidence for those gods, there's no reason you cannot do that. But why should you? If the universe works equally well with gods as without them, why complicate the issues?

Proof in the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause ... that which can be called a creator.

[Thorne]

Proof in the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause ... that which can be called a creator.

And what caused the creator?

[DuncanONeil]

Logic of cause and effect demands that there is a first effect. That effect by definition is best described as the infinite. Which also by definition we can not understand.

All that aside the "proof" stands by itself. Or should I present the other four?

And what caused the creator?

[Thorne]

Logic of cause and effect demands that there is a first effect. That effect by definition is best described as the infinite. Which also by definition we can not understand.

All that aside the "proof" stands by itself. Or should I present the other four?

I don't know what you mean. But if men can contemplate an infinite creator, why can they not contemplate an infinite universe? Just because we cannot understand it, does not make it impossible.

[SadisticNature]

Proof in the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause ... that which can be called a creator.

Why must time have a beginning and an end, its certainly possible that time is cyclical and thus a chain of causes could in fact be a cycle with no end or beginning.

[Wiscoman]

Why must time have a beginning and an end...

As far as I know, the idea of cyclical time is entirely religious. There's no evidence for it. Think about it; it would require that every change ever made to the universe, every layer of paint on your wall, be undone -- i.e., order out entropy.

[DuncanONeil]

Why must time have a beginning and an end, its certainly possible that time is cyclical and thus a chain of causes could in fact be a cycle with no end or beginning.

That would result in the final effect being the first cause. Hence an effect and cause at the same time. Or put another way the Alpha and Omega. Being the Alpha and Omega at the same time equates to being God. QED!

Or to put it another way it is logically inconsistent for an effect to create its own cause.