Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[MMI]

Sorry to drag this thread back, but it has moved on quite a bit since my last visit. I want to respond to the points Thorne addressed to me a while back, and I beg your indulgences, everyone.

Actually, I have two young granddaughters, both bright-eyed and vivacious. They are wonderful, beautiful, and made of matter which was once buried deep inside of stars. Ultimately, however, like all of us, they will one day be nothing but meat and bones, no life remaining in them. I hope that day will be a very, very long time coming, but I see nothing "testable" about their existence as relates to gods.

You will realise I wasn't talking about your granddaughters specifically. It is common ground that the difference between them and lumps of meat and bone is, they are alive. I said previously that (most) Believers maintain God gave them life, and they point to the evidence before your eyes: living children. How does science refute that apart from saying, Oh, I don't believe that? What better explanation can it offer?

I don't believe it has one, nor do I think it can even undermine the Believers' explanation except on the basis of unproven and untestable assertions. We are Stardust? At what point in the dying phases of a star's existence does self-awareness get blasted out into space, for example?

balanced? Perhaps. There is some evidence which shows that certain universal constants are at just the values necessary to build this universe. So what? How many times did the universe come into existence without those values so tuned, leaving barren and empty space to await the birth of another universe, with slightly different values? Again, nothing testable to show evidence of gods.

So not only do we have supremely massive singularity appearing out of nowhere for no discernable (scientific) reason - a huge leap of faith in itself before we even consider that it immediately annihilated possibly 99% of itself, leaving behind only the incomprehensibly huge cosmos we can see at night, but now we also have to believe that this has happened an infinite number of times - and is presumably still happening. Well, if we can imagine one fantastic thing before breakfast, why not a multitude of fantastic things afterwards?

I call upon you to provide testable evidence, Thorne. And I don't think that, say, comparing a winning lottery ticket with all the tickets that lose even begins to account for all the coincidences you require your theory to resolve all at once.

noticed how, as science has learned more and more about the universe the numbers of "miracles" have declined? Don't you wonder why that is? But at least this would be testable. Except that, to my admittedly uncertain knowledge, every 'miracle' which has been tested has been shown to be coincidence, placebo effects, mass hysteria or fraud. Not one has been shown to defy the laws of nature.

Yes I have noticed, and I believe the observation is entirely accurate. To me it is perfectly explicable. The weaker scientific knowledge is, the greater is the tendency to call natural events that have not been properly understood miracles. Science has not reached the point where it can explain all so-called miracles yet, and until it does, it cannot say that those still-believed-in miracles are not real.

There is much anecdotal evidence, certainly. But testable? Not so much.

Refute the anecdotes. Disprove the historical documents.

I agree, it is my opinion. Based upon evidence, not wishful thinking.

What evidence? Show me this evidence: testable evidence.

I'm not going to argue psychological hocus-pocus. I don't know enough about it, in the first place. But in effect I agree: we do have to be able to distinguish between reality and imagination. Which is why I am an atheist.

I'm disappointed at your high-handed dismissal of a perfectly respectable argument frequently put forward in discussions of this type. It is not hocus pocus, and you stand accused again of sneering and jeering at arguments you are not inclined to address properly.

(Aside: Now I've done it! He'll read up on it and tear me apart. At least I get to look like I hold the high ground for a while http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/im...ilies/cool.gif )

It is widely held that an individual can convince himself of his own existence because he knows his own thoughts. But as he does not know another's thoughts, he cannot convince himself that that other person exists or is a figment of his own imagination. I look forward to receiving your corrections, but meanwhile, I contend science cannot pronounce upon matters such as [individual(?)] existence so it cannot pronounce upon the existence (or otherwise) of anything else.

I’m not demanding proof, just testable evidence. As for proving a negative, we are talking about proving that something does not exist. One can provide evidence that makes it unlikely that something exists, and even evidence which makes it probably that something does not exist. But absolute proof? Can't be done.

You can't prove god doesn't exist and didn't create the cosmos; I can't prove the cosmos didn't create itself by purely natural means. The evidence that does exist can be and is used by both sides of the argument to support their own case and to refute the other side. In other words, what evidence there is, is useless.

Not sure what you mean by "instinct" here. My position is based on my understanding of the evidence.

I used "instinct" to serve as a synonym for "belief".

I consider your position is based on your understanding of the evidence, coloured by your beliefs.

I don't know that Einstein had anything to say about the cause of the Big Bang. I have heard many hypotheses about possible causes. It is just as fair to claim that God caused it as anything else. There is no evidence for any of the speculations, each more fantastic than the last, but to my knowledge there is no evidence for any of them.I don't know that we will ever be able to delve that far back into time so as to answer that question.

I should have read this far first. I have highlighted the sentence which, I believe, shows we are, in fact, in complete agreement

, again, that my position is based on testable evidence. Their positions are, generally, contradictory and based upon... What?

And now we're opposed again. Are you telling me there's no controversy in science? Are you suggesting that the evidence used by science is better than the evidence used by the faithful, even though it is the same evidence?

I understand that. But I still claim that a negative belief is not the same as a LACK of belief.

Then one who lacks belief has no opinion worthy of consideration here. He has not even considered the question.

I'm not an economist, but isn't it true that we can measure the effects of capitalism? And that a capitalist economy can co-exist with other economies around the world? We can measure the effects of all of these economies, and even the effects of interactions between these economies.

...

I must have misunderstood. You're rejecting it without reason? I don't think that's sensible at all! You cannot claim it does not exist, as there is ample evidence for it. You can, perhaps, make the case that it is a failed system, providing evidence for that position, but you cannot provide evidence that it does not exist! Even if it didn't exist you could not provide any such evidence.

You have missed my point. I meant that if I reject an idea without any reason is not a sensible position to take, and neither is your statement "I don't believe: therefore no evidence required." Your reply above now seems to contradict this assertion.

Of course matters of faith can only be considered in terms of belief! If we could find evidence to justify and test them, then they would no longer be matters of faith but of reality. It's why we no longer consider the Earth to be the center of the universe. We've tested it and found reality.

You must remember that a geo-centric universe was a scientifically-formulated belief that had little relevance to religions until new ideas appeared to challenge contemporary beliefs about the creation. After the Church reconciled itself to the truth, and realised that the new ideas did not affect its fundamental beliefs at all, it was able to accept that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system. There is no reason to expect science and religion to change positions in tandem, especially when one of them appears to undermine the other. Sooner or later, they will catch up with each other: God will be in his Heaven and all will be well with the world.