Atheism and God

[tucker58]

Atheism and God. Atheists claim that God is not real because "science" has not proved that God is real.

What young atheists do not understand is the difference between a "Theory" and a "Hypothesis", 80 to 90 percent or science is based on a "Hypothesis".

A "Theory" is an absolute proven reality every single time. A "Hypothesis" is always a reality that is under exploration until it is absolutely proven wrong.. that is science.

You guys that are in charge of this forum use "No Proof" as an excuse that God does not exist. There is absolutely "no" scientific evidence that God actually does not exist. And you as atheists claim that God does not exist because there is no proof that He does and you claim to be this "atheist theism" because you understand science. Science has not proved that God does not exist. The best that you can be as an atheist, as one who claims to be a scientist, is to be agnostic. At least at least those folks are honest about things.

So, am I going to be allowed to post this topic in an atheist forum on a Christian message board? Because I might be too Christian, who is also a scientist that loves Jesus?

love,

tuck

 

[nolongerhome]

Who is "in charge" of this forum?

I was under the impression that all the moderators were Christian.

The lack of scientific proof for the existence of God/s (posited to be an entity/ies which transcend/s our immanent reality) neither proves nor disproves his/her/its/their existence. Science has no interest in attempting to answer questions outside of its frames of reference.

What science has done, however, is answer many questions about how humans, our planet and our universe work, questions which were previously answered by appeals to divinity. There is very little reason to believe the dogmatic teachings of organised religions. The fact that religions are human creations and therefore make false claims about their access to diviinty does not, however, impact on the resolution of the question of the potential existence of a divinity.

 

[Glass*Soul]

My understanding is that a scientific theory is a logical framework that successfully organizes all known empirical data regarding a particular phenomenon, whereas a hypothesis is a testable explanation for an observation.

Those with a scientific bent please feel free to correct me.

Actually my argument isn't precisely that God is not real because science has failed to prove that God is real.

My argument, in short, is that all information requires a carrier. When we analyze a piece of information down to its most basic level what we discover is a quality descriptive of the carrier. For instance, is a particle spinning left or spinning right? Is the circuit open or closed? IOW, we are finding out something about the universe. In fact, this is so basic that one way of defining a universe is as "all that with which we are capable of exchanging information". That with which we cannot exchange information is (again, by definition) outside of our universe. There is nothing we can say about it.

I've watched theists talk around this problem but never address it. Whatever information we think we have about God always boils down to information about our universe. Circuit closed/circuit open. Spin left/spin right. Now, personally, I don't feel inclined to worship anything that is a part of our universe up to and including the entire universe. Beyond that, there is nothing we can say. The word "God" is indefinable. There is nothing to which I can respond.

I am agnostic (without knowledge) as to the meaning of the word "God" and atheistic (without any gods) as to belief.

As science deals with information, it cannot address the question as to whether there is a God. Unfortunately there is no other mechanism that can manage it either.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I hypothesize that tucker 58 will not address my post above.

 

[variant]

You guys that are in charge of this forum use "No Proof" as an excuse that God does not exist. There is absolutely "no" scientific evidence that God actually does not exist.

That is because there is no possible test that would disprove God, while there are plenty of ways to evidence God that are not in evidence.

Expecting other people to disprove the existence of something that is not in evidence is hardly a good way of going about supporting it's existence.

Evidencing negatives is notoriously hard, which is why the burden of proof generally rests on those making the positive claim, and in this case the positive claim is that "God Exists".

And you as atheists claim that God does not exist because there is no proof that He does and you claim to be this "atheist theism" because you understand science. Science has not proved that God does not exist. The best that you can be as an atheist, as one who claims to be a scientist, is to be agnostic. At least at least those folks are honest about things.

Perhaps you are the one who doesn’t understand science. For a hypothesis to be valid it must be objectively falsifiable, if not, it is not even a hypothesis.

Is "God Exists" a falsifiable statement?

 

[Eudaimonist]

A "Hypothesis" is always a reality that is under exploration until it is absolutely proven wrong.. that is science.

No, a hypothesis is not a reality. It is a conjecture of what might be real. There's a big difference.

Science does not regard every hypothesis as true until proven otherwise.

There is absolutely "no" scientific evidence that God actually does not exist.

There doesn't need to be, any more than there needs to be scientific evidence that leprechauns do not exist. What could such evidence even look like?

A hypothesis fails if it is not supported by evidence or cannot be falsified.

Science has not proved that God does not exist. The best that you can be as an atheist, as one who claims to be a scientist, is to be agnostic. At least at least those folks are honest about things.

Most atheists are agnostic-atheists. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in God -- whose worldview is "godless" -- not someone who thinks that science has disproven God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

A "Theory" is an absolute proven reality every single time.

There's no such thing as something being proven. There's no such thing as a proof. There never has been, there never can be.

 

[brinny]

Atheism and God. Atheists claim that God is not real because "science" has not proved that God is real.

What young atheists do not understand is the difference between a "Theory" and a "Hypothesis", 80 to 90 percent or science is based on a "Hypothesis".

A "Theory" is an absolute proven reality every single time. A "Hypothesis" is always a reality that is under exploration until it is absolutely proven wrong.. that is science.

You guys that are in charge of this forum use "No Proof" as an excuse that God does not exist. There is absolutely "no" scientific evidence that God actually does not exist. And you as atheists claim that God does not exist because there is no proof that He does and you claim to be this "atheist theism" because you understand science. Science has not proved that God does not exist. The best that you can be as an atheist, as one who claims to be a scientist, is to be agnostic. At least at least those folks are honest about things.

So, am I going to be allowed to post this topic in an atheist forum on a Christian message board? Because I might be too Christian, who is also a scientist that loves Jesus?

love,

tuck

i sooooo agree. even as a li'l kid i could see this. finite man vs God. finite man with his explanations, and dismissing of what he cannot measure in his limits and finiteness. even as a li'l kid i was like 'are you seeeeeerious?'

How does one measure a soul? Can it be put under a microscope? Can God be put under a microscope?

Does one simply dismiss what one cannot measure as if it does not exist? Can it be proven that it does not exist? :o

 

[Drathnor]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']No scientist would claim to disprove God, inversely no scientist would ever claim to prove God exists either. It’s not something that science seeks to investigate, that’s more of a field for philosophers.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']And your understanding of science leaves much to be desired, are you actually a scientist?[/FONT]

 

[freereason]

Atheism and God. Atheists claim that God is not real because "science" has not proved that God is real.

To reiterate the point, the burden of proof here is on the theist. If I were to say the ghost of Elvis is orbiting the andormeda system so quickly that nothing we have today can detect it, you would not be able to disprove the hypothesis. However, not being able to disprove it does not make it viable. I would have to have evidence to support my clam. Theists have on innumerable occasions tried to present 'evidence' of god's existence, but under scrutiny have always conclusively failed.

While there is also no empirically testable evidence that god does not exist, that does not mean we lack evidence that he most probably doesn't exist, to such a degree that makes it extremely unlikely. For example, if I were asked to play russian roulette with a gun that held 50 trillian chambers and 1 bullet for the chance to win $1M if I survive. I would pull the trigger. Similarly, the probability that god exists are so remote that I find no reason to live in fear of any sort of retribution.

Conversely, the theory of evolution is a hypothesis that has stood up to scientific scrutiny time after time. Again, while it is still a theory, I adhere to its claim because there is not a shred of evidence to its contrary.

The best that you can be as an atheist, as one who claims to be a scientist, is to be agnostic. At least at least those folks are honest about things.

People claiming agnosticism, typically adhere to the notion because there is no proof of 'god' (I use that in the terms of a nondescript supernatural being) one way or another. However, this is a weak position in light of the significant amount of evidence that god does not exist, especially of the Abrahamic god. I think you would find them (and all Christians) are atheist when it comes to gods like Zeus, Amun Ra, Wotan, and my orbiting Elvis. Again, not because they are unprovable, but because of the extreme unlikeliness of their existence.

 

[tucker58]

I hypothesize that tucker 58 will not address my post above.

Oh my

Personally I was impressed. and I think that everybody is doing a good job of bringing me to a screeching halt. To me interacting with other people, especially in an international mixed group sense, is how one learns. I have been on the internet message board circuit almost every day for 12 years now, dozens of message boards one message board at a time, and over those years people have changed me way more that I have ever changed anybody.

To me a message board is "minds at play" and I love being able to be a part of it whether I actually have a mind or not and some days I do and some days I don't. But everyday is a learning experience and I consider the experience a gift. Yes I am probably an awkward child sorry about that

But do I love you guys and I love being a part of what you do!

love,

tuck

 

[tucker58]

No, a hypothesis is not a reality. It is a conjecture of what might be real. There's a big difference.

Science does not regard every hypothesis as true until proven otherwise.



There doesn't need to be, any more than there needs to be scientific evidence that leprechauns do not exist. What could such evidence even look like?

A hypothesis fails if it is not supported by evidence or cannot be falsified.



Most atheists are agnostic-atheists. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in God -- whose worldview is "godless" -- not someone who thinks that science has disproven God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Mark, you broke set pattern too cool!

Like everything else, there are two kinds of scientists, those that are "dogmatic and puristic" and those that are "theorist and curious about things". Those that are curious about things are the ones that are expanding what is science as a known reality. The Dogmatic Puristic are doing every thing that they can to slow things down.

Folks are upset about "dogmatic Christians" yet their reasoning about God "sometimes" seems to be based on "dogmatic science". What most people do not understand is that if you create an experiment that creates an interesting result, then other people have to be able to recreate that experiment and get the same result or it is not yet proven science (but it is still science exploring things). If an experiment can be recreated with the same results, then the next challenge is to figure out how those results "fit" in the grand scheme of things.

So ok, you guys are upset about "dogmatic Christians", I as a scientist am upset about "Dogmatic" scientists. Even though they "do" have their place in the stability of things just like "dogmatic" Christians.

And this is the beginning of most science exploration, "A working hypothesis." Gravity is considered a "theory", it works every time relative to large masses, but most of science is working as science exploring things with a "Working Hypothesis" and most working hypothesis that show results that can be reproduced create realities that then have to be explored relative to "fit" into the grand scheme of things it is all science. Unless you are a "dogmatic puristic" scientist who is screwed if their research which they actually make a living off of in an academic environment, is found to be obsolete. They have got to object to everything. Their rice bowl is being threatened . And sometimes one wonders about Christianity when it comes to that kind of stuff.

love!

tuck

 

[Eudaimonist]

Does one simply dismiss what one cannot measure as if it does not exist?

Yes, one ought to dismiss the claim as empty. The only exception I would make is in the existence of one's awareness, and only because this is the measuring tool itself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[uberd00b]

Atheism and God. Atheists claim that God is not real because "science" has not proved that God is real.

Though I do see an unfortunate number of atheists bandying about "science" as if it is some sort of religion panacea I do not think most atheists rely on it as such.

I think most atheists are not religious because they can see no good reason to be, and many good reasons not to be.

Science has not proved that God does not exist.

Also it has not proved an infinite number of other things not to exist.

The best that you can be as an atheist, as one who claims to be a scientist, is to be agnostic. At least at least those folks are honest about things.

Most atheists I have spoken to are very aware of the limits of their knowledge. Very few atheists claim that gods definitely do not exist. They simply do not believe they do. We're all agnostics, but I find the vast majority of people who claim (dishonestly, in my opinion) certainty in this discussion are theists.

 

[nolongerhome]

i sooooo agree. even as a li'l kid i could see this. finite man vs God. finite man with his explanations, and dismissing of what he cannot measure in his limits and finiteness. even as a li'l kid i was like 'are you seeeeeerious?'

How does one measure a soul? Can it be put under a microscope? Can God be put under a microscope?

Does one simply dismiss what one cannot measure as if it does not exist? Can it be proven that it does not exist? :o

You realise that you are unable to prove the existence of a soul or of God, just as much as anyone is unable to disprove their existence, right?

So, why should we believe you instead of them?

Maybe the limits of man explain why people chose to believe in God? We want something to explain that outside those limits rather than leaving them unanswered... but are we justified in doing so?

 

[uberd00b]

i sooooo agree. even as a li'l kid i could see this. finite man vs God. finite man with his explanations...

This juxtaposition of finite man vs. God seems meaningless unless you can explain what you mean by "God". Even if you say finite vs. infinite it still tells us nothing. I note you put the explanations on one side but not the other, would you say "God" (whatever that is) has no explanatory power?

...and dismissing of what he cannot measure in his limits and finiteness...

Anything that can affect this world can be measured. That which cannot be measured cannot affect this world and is impotent.

How does one measure a soul?

What is a soul? Perhaps if we knew we could test for it.

Can God be put under a microscope?

I can see no reason why not. What is a God?

 

[jayem]

Atheism and God. Atheists claim that God is not real because "science" has not proved that God is real.

I'll give you my take on it, which is a little different. Despite my atheist icon, my more fundamental philosophic position is naturalism. I believe that the universe is solely a function of matter, energy, and the natural properties thereof. So by logical extension, that makes me an atheist, at least regarding any supernatural dieties. (And virtually all religions incorporate some supernaturalism.) Of course, I can't prove naturalism with absolute metaphysical certainty. But I support my belief by simple inductive reasoning. Everything that was once thought mystical and inexplicable, but which we now understand, has proven to be a natural phenomenon. In the entire history of human knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never been shown valid for anything. So, a posteriori, why should I accept supernatural processes or entities as explanations for the many things we still don't understand? I recognize the problem of induction as Hume pointed out, but it's still a rational foundation for a working hypothesis.

BTW: I don't like the terms "weak" atheist, or "agnostic" atheist. They sound weasily to me. If we have to modify our appelations to account for the fact that absolute certainty doesn't exist, I prefer the term presumptive atheist. Meaning simply that my interpretation of the current evidence indicates that there is no supernatural god. And I'd suggest that the term presumptive theist would properly apply to believers.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Atheists are not all scientists. The ones who are might mention the apparent fact that prayer does not work, which would negate some theistic beliefs. Also, tho this is more philosophical, the problem of evil might be dissed. Can there even be a science of square circles?

 

[tucker58]

Atheists are not all scientists. The ones who are might mention the apparent fact that prayer does not work, which would negate some theistic beliefs. Also, tho this is more philosophical, the problem of evil might be dissed. Can there even be a science of square circles?

I see no reason why there can not be a science of squares. Actually I think that there already is aren't most houses built on the science of squares?



love,

tuck

 

[tucker58]

I'll give you my take on it, which is a little different. Despite my atheist icon, my more fundamental philosophic position is naturalism. I believe that the universe is solely a function of matter, energy, and the natural properties thereof. So by logical extension, that makes me an atheist, at least regarding any supernatural dieties. (And virtually all religions incorporate some supernaturalism.) Of course, I can't prove naturalism with absolute metaphysical certainty. But I support my belief by simple inductive reasoning. Everything that was once thought mystical and inexplicable, but which we now understand, has proven to be a natural phenomenon. In the entire history of human knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never been shown valid for anything. So, a posteriori, why should I accept supernatural processes or entities as explanations for the many things we still don't understand? I recognize the problem of induction as Hume pointed out, but it's still a rational foundation for a working hypothesis.

BTW: I don't like the terms "weak" atheist, or "agnostic" atheist. They sound weasily to me. If we have to modify our appelations to account for the fact that absolute certainty doesn't exist, I prefer the term presumptive atheist. Meaning simply that my interpretation of the current evidence indicates that there is no supernatural god. And I'd suggest that the term presumptive theist would properly apply to believers.

jayem, I think that your approach is very rational. And sort of like the physicist Stephen Hawking said, "If we understand how it is done, then we do not need God." I personally have no idea how to get around that argument. I believe and love God because I want to not because I have too.

love,

tuck