79 replies to this topic

[CodeCat]

Commander Abs, on 5 Jun 2007, 16:46, said:

Hmm,,, there's a catch you're tripping on here.

Firstly, with that nice little list of scientific things you forget to mention two *very* important *proven* areas of science.

1. Uncertainty Principle
2. Calculus, specifically third order differential equations

You'll find that Uncertainty Principle puts limitations on the accuracy to which mathematics can solve *some* problems,, ergo you can't find an *exact* answer to some things. If there exists such problems, it all but rules out ever finding a Grand Unifying Theory (yes, they are actually called that too)

Further, non-trivial third order differential equations are, for the most part, unsolveable.

My point is while science is capable of doing a helluva lot of things, there's some fundamental things it is still incapable of solving,, and things like the Uncertainty Principle are not just "We haven't found out how to yet, it'll come". The errors of the uncertainty principle are *small enough* to be ignored in the macroscopic world, but the fact remains there are *unsolvable* things,,, and to contradict this you'd be uprooting the entire maths and physics knowledge base,, and thus,, tearing your own argument to shreds, because all scientific knowledge we have would be incorrect.

Moreover, if Uncertainty Principle IS correct, science *cannot* rule out divine intervention, magic, or that the only explanation is no explanation,,, but on the same token doesnt prove these things to exist. End of the day we can only be uncertain.

The uncertainty principle is part of quantum mechanics. And yes, it governs the limit to which we can accurately measure the very small. The cause for these uncertainties is also very well known: the energy transfer caused by the particles by which we attempt to detect the momentum and position of other particles. However, the whole uncertainty part is that things become blurry and unfocused, as if there is some random influence. And the effect gets stronger, the more accurately you try to measure. So maybe that's something you could call god. I don't know, I'm not ruling out what I can't deny. I just avoid the religious connotations and refer to it as quantum fluctuation.

Now, differential equations are part of maths, not of science. Maths isn't really a part of science in the strict sense, because it's essentially the study of a system in itself. Maths doesn't study the world, it studies itself. And it tries to formulate new rules and laws within the system of maths. Science works like 'given the universe, how does it work?'. The approach used by maths is more like 'given this system of numbers, vector spaces or whatever, what can you do with it?'.

Solo Wing, on 5 Jun 2007, 21:41, said:

Atheism is a belief in something yet unproven. While science does apply where we, as humans, stand right now, why does it work? Maybe it doesn't work elsewhere outside of our own fathomable universe? Would we ever know?

It's impossible to positively prove the lack of something. And so logically, the very nature of a god makes it impossible to falsify any hypothesis confirming the existence of a god, because it's impossible to show otherwise. But falsifiability is a very big prerequisite for any sound theory in science. It's akin to saying 'if the moon were made of cheese, it would taste nice'. Since the moon is not made of cheese, and never will be, it's impossible for me to falsify that claim. It's like a 'self-righteous' claim. And those invariably go out the window in any serious science.

In that sense, yes, atheism is a belief. It's the positive belief that there is no such thing as gods. But it has little to do with science. All that's certain is that an atheist will not seek religion as an explanation for things. But there are more ways of explaining the universe than science and religion alone. To say that an atheist supports science is by any means an uneducated claim.

Now, how is science unproven? I'd say by far most of it is very proven. If it didn't have any evidence backing it up, and just counter evidence, it would be immediately thrown out. You fail to see how science works. Science works on a 'true until evidence denies it, false until evidence supports it' basis. Science doesn't deny the existence of a god, because there's neither hard evidence for him nor evidence against. It's simply an 'undefined' statement.

Solo Wing, on 5 Jun 2007, 21:41, said:

Both science and God (and all other religions, I guess) fail to answer "Why". Not the why as in why are we here, but the why as in why does this work? And as long as science cannot explain the very core of it all, there is as much chance a God exists as there is no God exists.

Why what? Does there have to be a reason? Science doesn't concern itself with 'why', so it's no less wrong to put that burden on it than it is to ask of a bakery to start manufacturing televisions. You're asking the question to the wrong discipline.

Solo Wing, on 5 Jun 2007, 21:41, said:

Oh and at Dauth's last comment: That's because Atheistic beliefs don't follow a God. You'll never hear one yell "FOR ATHEISM" because Atheism is the belief in nothing to follow but the reproduction cycle and the production of things that help the next generation reproduce at an easier level. (Think about it before you go and say I'm calling you all sex addicts) Therefore, when an atheist suicide bomber kills himself and others, he is doing it for himself, and though not for Atheism, it is under the principles of Atheism.

Wow, ignorance galore. You really think atheists believe life is pointless and worthless? You really think I believe my only purpose in life is to keep the human race alive and well? Do you think I'm so selfish that I'd kill myself because I'm useless anyway?

Life has any purpose you give to it. Just because I don't use an ancient book to give me purpose and to set a standard of morals for me to believe in, doesn't mean I don't have any. It just means I give life purpose on my own accord. Morals aren't absolute, what one thinks is good might be what the other thinks is bad. Doesn't make one right and the other wrong, and doesn't mean any that doesn't fit your definition is bad or just doesn't exist. I have a very strong moral standard and a very well-defined purpose for life, and frankly I find it insulting that you'd assume to know what I think based the word 'atheist' alone.

[Whitey]

Well, then what do you live for? In the end it all amounts to nothing and everyone else dies too. So what more can there be besides carrying on the human race in a more comfortable fashion? I just don't get it. That's why I follow Christianity, because it doesn't end with death and it fits my lifestyle (to whatever extent)

[Athena]

For me, personally, to have a happy life and make the lives of others happy. If you do not find life worth living for, but only the what you believe is the after life, then why are you living at all?

[CodeCat]

Indeed. The question can be reversed too. Why do you as a christian feel the need to live your life to the fullest if it will go on for all eternity after you die? Because logically, if the afterlife lasts infinitely, then you'll also have an infinite amount of time to set any mistake right. So you can screw up life, and then make up in the afterlife when you have all the time you need.

[Whitey]

Judgement. I can't end it now for that reason. But also because, well heck, life's life and then you die, might as well be remembered. Then my rememberence might just be recognized by me some time after my own passing. As ridiculous as it sounds, why should I bother believing nothing when there is possibly something?

That is, however, not the same idea behind Atheism.

[CodeCat]

It's pretty much for me. I'd rather end knowing I'll continue, known as someone who's made a difference to improve the lives of others. If you're remembered in that way, you can never really die. Because the people will always carry that memory with them. I die, but I live on within those that remember me.

[Whitey]

But those that remember you die too, and those that remember those that remember you also end. And in the end, the textbooks that might include you end, and then humanity itself may just end. And you will cease to exist.

To me, it's just a big unnerving.

[Commander Abs]

Quote

Golan: The Atheist´s Suicide Squad has made a rediculously small bodycount up to day.

Dauth:You say religion can bring out the best in people or stop them going over the edge, it sends people over the edge, ive never seen a suicide bomber do it becuase of atheistic beliefs.

Indeed they have made quite a large body count, except it's not the sort of thing the media makes a big deal (comparatively) about. They don't strap themselves up with a bomb and blow themselves up in the middle of crowded areas or fly planes into buildings.

Instead they grab a gun and visit the nearest University for a while, or drown their sorrows in alcohol, go driving and kill some innocent civvy in a car accident, or all manner of everyday occurances caused by people losing faith in themselves and the world around them.

I'm not saying atheism causes this, but religion *can* be a barrier to people choosing these acts, and it can promote it too, both in exactly the same ways non-religious societies morals and ethics can.
(apologies to anyone whom i hit a tender nerve with on the University reference)

Quote

I just avoid the religious connotations and refer to it as quantum fluctuation.

And so is there anything wrong with avoiding scientific connotations and refer to it as acts of God? Both are equally unfounded and equally incorrect.

@Golan, Dauth, CodeCat and any of the sciencey guys:
It's interesting, I'm surprising myself because I find I'm semi-defending Religion here because it's generally not my take. And I'm actually of the *scientific* belief usually that science can be used to predict anything.

I studied a Bachelor of Science with majors in computing and mathematics, and if it taught me anything it's that applied sciences are *not* accurate. They're accurate enough for day to day activities, but they are not *exact*, they're always estimates.

But there's two inevitable conclusions that science will provide.

1. Science *can't* predict everything, and therefore the existance of divine intervention cannot be disproven, nor can it be proven.

2. Science *can* predict everything, in which case it also means there's no such thing as 'free will', since all human actions are predictable. Even if predictability lies in a small subset of actions, the result of any given event will still be predictable.

For me, it's not a case of being remembered or going to the afterlife or whatever, my motivating force is simply "I Am". If I have free will, I'm going to keep making what I believe are the right decisions. If I have no free will, then damned if I'm not going to try the best at everything my life throws at me.

EDIT: Ironically, I recall a very heated discussion with a rather devout Christian about free will etc.. To cut a long story short, he was resolute that we had free will 'within Gods design' i.e. we are limited in how much free will we have by God, as he controls our ultimate action and destiny.

Edited by Commander Abs, 06 June 2007 - 04:41.

[Dr. Strangelove]

If it's restricted at all by someone else, then it is not truley free will in my opinion.

The most basic piece of evidence for Atheism is that nothing is inherently more probable than something in cases where no evidence exists either way. For example, is it more likely that you own the old game Total Annihillation, or not?

When you talk about Atheists drinking or shooting, your situation is based as if any random person were immediately converted to Atheism. Most if not all Atheists are that way because they don't need the belief that there's a spy sattelite watching their every move to behvave morally, nor the belief in eternal reward. If some people had these beleifs suddenly removed it would be a great emotional shock to them. Being an atheist is voluntary, after all.

BTW:@Dauth: you get Discover mag don't you?

[Dauth]

@Solo wing, do you look forward to death, not sying actually being dead and enjoying your afterlife? I have read a story in Richard Dawkings book 'The God Delusion' where a man said to a priest, "I am dying" and the priest replied, "Excellent, i wish i was coming with you".

@Outsider, nope i don't get any magazines.

[Whitey]

No. I dislike the idea of death due to an element of skepticism.

[Dr. Strangelove]

So you're saying you're not faithful?

[Dauth]

No he's been honest. According to logic any Christian would look forward to being dead becuase thats when paradise starts. However he's sane enough not to be blindky in favour to dying soon. Otherwise some psycho would go around killing innocent Christians knowing that they would all go to heaven and only the psycho would spend eternity in hell.

[Mathias]

Regarding suicide and genocide, the aggregate isn't mainly belief, but the person himself. As in, being an atheist or religious doesnt make you more or less eligible to go batshit insane.

Edited by Mathias, 06 June 2007 - 08:38.

[Golan]

Commander Abs, on 6 Jun 2007, 01:48, said:

Indeed they have made quite a large body count, except it's not the sort of thing the media makes a big deal (comparatively) about. They don't strap themselves up with a bomb and blow themselves up in the middle of crowded areas or fly planes into buildings.

Instead they grab a gun and visit the nearest University for a while, or drown their sorrows in alcohol, go driving and kill some innocent civvy in a car accident, or all manner of everyday occurances caused by people losing faith in themselves and the world around them.

Following this logic you can count almost every murder, suicide and tenderly slicing of arteries on atheism. Beause factual, Atheism is where you end when you loose faith in the world. However, none of this happens in a "FOR ATHEISM!!!!!!"-way...

Commander Abs, on 6 Jun 2007, 01:48, said:

I'm not saying atheism causes this[...]

You just did.
[Missing part of the quote: see above]

Commander Abs, on 6 Jun 2007, 01:48, said:

But there's two inevitable conclusions that science will provide.

1. Science *can't* predict everything, and therefore the existance of divine intervention cannot be disproven, nor can it be proven.

2. Science *can* predict everything, in which case it also means there's no such thing as 'free will', since all human actions are predictable. Even if predictability lies in a small subset of actions, the result of any given event will still be predictable.

You don´t need any of these "inevitable conclusions". Science isn´t qualified for proving or disproving God as Science simply discribes the world that is perceived.
What science can prove wrong are religions that project divinity on the here and now [aka all of them] as these do fall in the field of activity of science.

Quote

The most basic piece of evidence for Atheism is that nothing is inherently more probable than something in cases where no evidence exists either way.

That´s agnosticism... want a brochure?

Edited by Golan, 06 June 2007 - 09:40.

[Ellipsis]

In my opinion, religion is totally about faith and good deads. But religion can get too far like a terrist strapping himself with C4... I am a Christian born and raised in a Christian home. So religion comes to play a lot in my life. But as all the scientific poeple have said, science can explian a lot.

[Commander Abs]

Quote

Following this logic you can count almost every murder, suicide and tenderly slicing of arteries on atheism. Beause factual, Atheism is where you end when you loose faith in the world. However, none of this happens in a "FOR ATHEISM!!!!!!"-way...

Honestly, what is this 'For Atheism' stuff? The reason why there's no 'For Atheism' because it's *not* what atheism is about. Atheist beliefs lie in the so-called 'real' world. So if you want to picture what an atheist would be saying instead of 'For Atheism', it'd be more like 'For my family', 'For my fallen mates', 'For my political beliefs'.

And please, stop trying to say I'm making it sound like Atheists are the people who do this. I'll take a step back and say I did get my words confused with that one, but realise I'm saying Atheists would do wrong things for the same reasons that any man would do wrong things. A man who's agnostic is just as likely to commit wrong acts as an Atheist, a Muslim, a Christian, whoever. Atheists would base their commitment to more material entities or ideaoligies.

Regardless, at a level of definition, Atheism *is* a religion. If want to try and deny that, then at least accept that Atheism is a set of beliefs, or a faith, which places it under the same umbrella as all religions.

Quote

Science isn´t qualified for proving or disproving God as Science simply discribes the world that is perceived.
What science can prove wrong are religions that project divinity on the here and now [aka all of them] as these do fall in the field of activity of science.

I don't get this bit, you claim I contradict myself earlier, then come out with this? On the one hand you say that Science can't prove or disprove God. Fair call.

Then you say that Science can prove that religions which claim that divine intervention on our earth *can* happen are wrong?

Sorry, but those two statements dont weigh up against each other.

Quote

Regarding suicide and genocide, the aggregate isn't mainly belief, but the person himself. As in, being an atheist or religious doesnt make you more or less eligible to go batshit insane.

100% qft. Jumping back to the original point of this topic, I dont think religion gives anybody more or less reason or excuse to conduct harm against one another,, all you have to do is watch a lawyer defend a murderer to prove this.

[Golan]

Commander Abs, on 6 Jun 2007, 13:44, said:

Quote

Science isn´t qualified for proving or disproving God as Science simply discribes the world that is perceived.
What science can prove wrong are religions that project divinity on the here and now [aka all of them] as these do fall in the field of activity of science.

I don't get this bit, you claim I contradict myself earlier, then come out with this? On the one hand you say that Science can't prove or disprove God. Fair call.

Then you say that Science can prove that religions which claim that divine intervention on our earth *can* happen are wrong?

Sorry, but those two statements dont weigh up against each other.

Ever read the bible? No big deal to prove major parts of it wrong...

[Commander Abs]

That's not my point. Your two statements contradict each other.

You start out saying that Science can't prove religion is wrong with this:

Quote

Science isn´t qualified for proving or disproving God as Science simply discribes the world that is perceived

then say this:

Quote

What science can prove wrong are religions that project divinity on the here and now

Which is exactly what science can't prove.

Without rewriting everything I've said so far, I'll give a brief summary, so if you want any justifications you'll have to read back through my posts.

Sure, science describes the percievable world.
There are *some* things which science percieves which aren't presently explicable and can't be explained. Without a 100% conclusive theory of everything (A Grand Unifying theory), divine influence on the real world cannot be disproven (but nor can it be proven either because it's effects can't be observed).

If there was a 100% conclusive theory of everything, then that would include advanced human behaviour, therefore our actions are 100% predictable and we have no free will. Why *isn't* this wrong?

Lets assume humans have complete free will. I can choose to do anything. Humans are an exception to science's rules. Well there it is already. Science *can't* explain some things, because there is something inexplicable by science in the real world.

EDIT: Bah, I had an edit but the stupid browser lost it when i hit delete and it went back. Cutting a long story short, I haven't read the bible, which makes my argument stronger. Assuming what you say is right, science can prove certain elements of a religion wrong, just the same way science can prove a sci-fi writers stories are wrong.

If something like the 'quantum fluctuations' can't be explained by science, then it can't be disproven that 'sub-atomic invisible goblins' cause these fluctuations, however this statement can't be proven either. But regardless, this discussion is getting completely off-topic from the original point of this topic.

Edited by Commander Abs, 06 June 2007 - 23:42.

[Golan]

There´s a difference in "God" and "Religion".

Just because some nutcrack came up with a crappy history of creation which can be and has been proven false, this only makes the religion that adheres to this void, not the concept of God.

[General]

Should we discuss on beliefs or religion ? Even you not follow a religion ; you have a belief and follow it , your own belief or whatever , this is what make us different than animals , animals doesn't have beliefs or religions , they simply fight - eat - spread , but we have the ability to effect everything with our different beliefs . If everyone should have same beliefs or religion , we will be pretty much same with animals but differences between our beliefs make us improve even more in this world .

[CodeCat]

You'd better believe that animals can have beliefs too. I noticed it just yesterday with our own cats.

You give them food, and while you're preparing it, they keep randomly meowing and begging. It might seem like normal behaviour, but think about it. They do it because they believe it brings them food. It's a ritual. They would still get food if they didn't do it, but they do it because they believe that it brings food. And every time, they get proven right.

[General]

Interesting though but I think it cannot be compared with ritual of mankind . As I said before animals only act for their strongest instincts , food - sex etc or maybe play .

[Rayburn]

There are enough people in the world who hardly act on anything else than these instincts too, though. Are they equal to animals then?

Edited by Rayburn, 07 June 2007 - 17:52.

[Waris]

And they are...?

I do not rule out the possibility of it, but they are not born to obey purely on animal instinct alone. Our brain is so advanced we have our own 'humanly' instinct that we do not share with any other species.