A Letter From An Atheist

[Doveaman]

You mean like the dark-matter and dark-energy gods of the 96% gap?

No, that is not what I mean.

You were describing pseudoscience, were you not?

The big bang explains the expanding universe. It is more than a mathematical equation. It is physically observed.

So where can I observe those dark gods of the 96% gap?

Can the Big Bang model be sustained without those dark gods of the gap?

The Big Bang model is sustained by mathematical equations.

Your answer is that dark-matter and dark-energy gods fill the 96% gap. You then make up mathematical equations to determine exactly where those dark gods are located and how much energy they produce, and...presto!...you are always right.

The Big Bang model is sustained by dark-mathemagic.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

You were describing pseudoscience, were you not?
So where can I observe those dark gods of the 96% gap?

Can the Big Bang model be sustained without those dark gods of the gap?

The Big Bang model is sustained by mathematical equations.

Your answer is that dark-matter and dark-energy gods fill the 96% gap. You then make up mathematical equations to determine exactly where those dark gods are located and how much energy they produce, and...presto!...you are always right.

The Big Bang model is sustained by dark-mathemagic.

Like most concepts in science, just because you, a layman, don't understand the popularized interpretation of something doesn't mean it is wrong.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I agree that God of the Gaps is popular and it does sound quite appealing on the surface. However, the deeper I look into that hypothesis I see the same pseudoscience surfacing that is found in the creationist literature. The ultimate fault in it is that it begins with an ending scenario and cherry picks information that supports the hypothesis, ignoring all the evidence that conflicts with it. Science doesn't work that way. Science goes where the evidence leads, not where one wants it to lead.

In my view the ultimate fault lies earlier. You allude to some hypothesis in your post, but there really is no such beast. What is the hypothesis for, say, the complexity of the eye? Something called "God", but there are no particulars given. Similar with other gaps - it does not even have to be (natural) science. So, God becomes ignorance.

 

[RickG]

You were describing pseudoscience, were you not?
So where can I observe those dark gods of the 96% gap?

No, I made the statement that the GAP hypothesis eventually uses pseudoscience to achieve an end point. The facts used are real and valid. The problem is they tend to be used out of context or are not supported by other evidence that fits their ideas.

 

[RickG]

In my view the ultimate fault lies earlier. You allude to some hypothesis in your post, but there really is no such beast. What is the hypothesis for, say, the complexity of the eye? Something called "God", but there are no particulars given. Similar with other gaps - it does not even have to be (natural) science. So, God becomes ignorance.

The complexity of the eye is an intelligent design argument, not a god of the gaps argument.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The complexity of the eye is an intelligent design argument, not a god of the gaps argument.

ID is God-of-the-Gaps.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I think the letter made some very good points, especially disconnecting evolution and the big bang from atheism, they are different topics and disproving them does not prove a diety.

As for you assertion that atheists have some nihilistic view of the world I have to disagree very much. As an athiest I see that this is the only life I will ever have, I'm not looking forward to some afterlife, rather I have to make my impact here and now. I was in many ways more nihilistic as an evangelical chrsitian because in the grand sceme of things this life was meaningless compaired to the vast expanse of eternity.

The natural processes that formed the Earth and the life on it were not an "accident", the story of evolution is amazing and beautiful. We are all very lucky to be here and I appreciate that fact every day.

Unlike some theist I do not need the validation of an imaginary diety to give my life meaning, I define my own meaning.

Sorry not have replied earlier, and further apologies if this has been covered.

Nowhere have I claimed that separating the Big Bang and Evolution proves anything. In fact I've stated out loud that I can accept both.

I can also speak as an ex-atheist and point out that if you don't have a nihilistic view of existence then you don't get being an atheist. The processes that formed Earth and the life on it are entirely accidental in the atheist worldview, unless you can tell me that they were planned and driven, which I somehow suspect you won't. As for defining your own meaning, I'd be interested in hearing what you think your meaning is, given that you claim you're lucky to even exist.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The processes that formed Earth and the life on it are entirely accidental in the atheist worldview, unless you can tell me that they were planned and driven, which I somehow suspect you won't.

"Accident" implies intention. No intention, no accident.

 

[RickG]

ID is God-of-the-Gaps.

I agree that ID is part of the God of the Gaps but it also includes so much more. I was just trying to be more specific. My understanding is that anything that can't be explained by science is the general or "broader" concept of God of the Gaps. Therefore God did it.

What I mean by pseudoscience eventually surfacing from it is when people try to give scientific explanations that don't really fit. In essence, old earth creation.

 

[RickG]

The processes that formed Earth and the life on it are entirely accidental in the atheist worldview,.

In think the word accidental is misused in that context. The essential elements and conditions just happen to be present. That is neither an accident or anything intentional.

As for that being the atheist world view. NO! It's the consensus of the scientific community doing science. It has nothing to do with one's religious view one way or the other.

 

[Jazer]

Like most concepts in science, just because you, a layman, don't understand the popularized interpretation of something doesn't mean it is wrong.

Perhaps what the "layman" does not understand is how Classic Physics contradicts Quantum Physics. Actually come to think of it I know people with Phd's in Physics that do not understand it either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like most concepts in science, just because you, a layman, don't understand the popularized interpretation of something doesn't mean it is wrong.

I'll have to keep that in mind when debating Embedded Age with those who saying I'm anything but.

 

[Jazer]

Even if there was no conflict between science and the bibe, which there most certainly is, that does not prove the existance of god.

Your tilting at windmills. You have no evidence that there is a conflict and you can not prove that there is no God. Unless of course you want to create a strawman and then prove that your strawman or your concept of God is not real.

 

[Jazer]

I'll have to keep that in mind when debating Embedded Age with those who saying I'm anything but.

Is this your own personal theory or did you get it from somewhere?

I ran a google search for "embedded age". All that comes up is a post that you wrote.

 

[Belk]

Sorry not have replied earlier, and further apologies if this has been covered.

Nowhere have I claimed that separating the Big Bang and Evolution proves anything. In fact I've stated out loud that I can accept both.

I can also speak as an ex-atheist and point out that if you don't have a nihilistic view of existence then you don't get being an atheist. The processes that formed Earth and the life on it are entirely accidental in the atheist worldview, unless you can tell me that they were planned and driven, which I somehow suspect you won't. As for defining your own meaning, I'd be interested in hearing what you think your meaning is, given that you claim you're lucky to even exist.

I'm not a real atheist then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this your own personal theory or did you get it from somewhere?

My pastor preaches it.

It must have been a popular teaching at one time in the past; then fell out of popularity when theists started allowing scientific philosophies into the church.

Here is a quote from Adam Clarke on Genesis 2:5

It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

I'm the one that calls it Embedded Age Creation, but that's because I can't think of a better name for it.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I agree that ID is part of the God of the Gaps but it also includes so much more. I was just trying to be more specific. My understanding is that anything that can't be explained by science is the general or "broader" concept of God of the Gaps. Therefore God did it.

What I mean by pseudoscience eventually surfacing from it is when people try to give scientific explanations that don't really fit. In essence, old earth creation.

Oh, I did not really disagree with that much.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm the one that calls it Embedded Age Creation, but that's because I can't think of a better name for it.

I can: Omphalos

 

[Davian]

Sorry not have replied earlier, and further apologies if this has been covered.

Nowhere have I claimed that separating the Big Bang and Evolution proves anything. In fact I've stated out loud that I can accept both.

I can also speak as an ex-atheist and point out that if you don't have a nihilistic view of existence then you don't get being an atheist. The processes that formed Earth and the life on it are entirely accidental in the atheist worldview, unless you can tell me that they were planned and driven, which I somehow suspect you won't.

*Entirely* accidental? And if this accident had not happened, what would we have?

What if the universe is deterministic?

It may be that this collection of molecules that refers to itself as "me" was... inevitable.

As for defining your own meaning, I'd be interested in hearing what you think your meaning is, given that you claim you're lucky to even exist.

What are the odds that I exist?

What is an "atheist worldview"? "Atheist" just refers to something you are not.

 

[Naraoia]

Interesting observation.

Which means that your relationship with anyone is not a scientific fact. And yet I imagine that you accept that such relationships are real.

Which proves that you don't demand scientific proof for everything you accept as true.

Well, for starters I never said I did. I don't run to get blood tests every time I think I have a subjective experience. That said, there are increasingly sophisticated scientific ways of testing whether I actually experience the emotion I say I'm experiencing - or at least whether my body is doing the same things other human bodies do when their owners claim a certain emotion.

Your subjective experience is an internal feeling, not an external entity. Bear that in mind for later...

A prof. has to teach, like it or not. But a student does not have to learn.

A prof should have read the job description before applying.

I don't need (not want) to convince you by giving you a proof. You "want" (not need) to convince yourself by finding a proof (positive or negative) to yourself.

Of course. And given what you just said, you have no reason to expect anyone to believe you

You think that that's all that realationhsips are about?

You'll note that we were talking about the existence of God(s), while you kept referring to relationships. These are two different issues.

Remember, the "relationship" you speak of is made up of your subjective experiences. You experience emotions, you do not necessarily experience God. We could theoretically hook you up to an ECG or some manner of brain imaging machine and make some inferences about your emotional state. That is only evidence of your feelings, though.

I have an anxiety disorder. I know that experiencing a feeling doesn't necessarily mean that there's an objectively real, external cause for it. You may feel safe or happy or awed or feel a mysterious presence, and you may attribute those experiences to God, but it's no more evidence of God's existence than my permanent fight-or-flight response is evidence that I'm in danger.