Atheism and nihilism

[Kylie]

.. but nonetheless is still unlikely to succeed, when the other suspects that idea is going to disagree with their beliefs ..

If the evidence for an idea is valid and can withstand testing, I'll accept it, even if it disagrees with the position I already hold.

But the attitude, "There's no point in making it easy to understand because they'll ignore it anyway," is ultimately self-defeating.

 

[Ken-1122]

... the problem here is that epistemology has less to do with what makes sense to you alone and more to do with what can make sense to a larger number of people. In other words, how you 'justify' your statements and conclusions is something that needs to be demonstrated, explained and analyzed in order to be of worth to other people.

That’s where the conversation comes in at. They need to have a conversation with me to understand my position on issues.

But if you want an example, let's talk about something controversial like: homosexuality, pedophilia, communism, atheism, e.s.p, or human rights? Why should anyone care what you think and how you make sense of these things IF (let's say) you approve of any of these things?

Homosexuality
I am not homosexual so I think the ideas of it is gross, but then some of the things I enjoy doing to women, homosexuals would probably think is gross. Everybody has their kink; I have mine, homosexuality is just another kink as far as I am concerned.

Pedophilia
Not only do I consider it gross, but wrong because it harms children.

Communism
I think it is a horrible economic policy. Everywhere it has been tried seems to have had bad results, and the idea of nobody owning private property, the idea that the guy who works harder gets reimbursed equally to the guy who does now work harder sounds bad to me. I believe capitalism is better because in order for me to make money under the capitalist system, I usually have to improve someone else's life (or at least convince them I am improving their life) before I can make money for myself. To me that is morally superior than communism.

Atheism
Personally I don’t think atheism should even be a term. I can’t think of anything else that is defined by what it is not. There is no name for people who don’t play sports, there is no name for people who don’t work, drive cars, or anything else; names are usually reserved for people who do things. But because the religious community is such a powerful community, they came up with the term as a pejorative to describe those who don’t worship like they do.

ESP
Not familiar with it.

Human rights
Good (for the most part)

 

[Ken-1122]

Read the link.

How something is measured is different than if something has a physical existence or not.

.. and the objective demonstrable point is that your notion of 'physical existence' is no more or less of a model than the coastline of England is.

How? Please explain

I'll give you a testable reason then. That reason is that everyone shares in the same type of sensory organs and a human brain and therefore we all perceive commonalities with some differences.

IOW we all share the human perception of it, and the human perception is the only perception that matters.

As I said: 'I have not yet seen an adequate definition of the concept of reality in a dictionary .. so, if that is the source of your working definition, there's a lot more (mental) work ahead.' .. and that reference hasn't changed anything about what I've been talking about.

Do you know of a better definition of what is real?

Thank you for sharing your belief .. It now sits alongside a huge pile of the rest of 'em .. in this case, under the heading of: 'Miracles' and you have also provided evidence that your learning style is by way of beliefs. (Ie: the same as any other religious folk .. which also supports the idea that your version of Atheism is also based on belief).

You are not thinking scientifically, yourself, when you choose to believe that scientists have knowledge that is mind independent, but I respect your choice to believe that. That belief makes precisely zero difference to the science they perform .. ie: where either you, or they, choose to hold such beliefs ... because science isn't based on such untestable beliefs, and there is abundant objective evidence that scientific knowledge is in fact, the accumulated thinking of many hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of human minds.
Unless you have some way of discounting that huge amount of objectively sourced evidence, your belief is a very feeble one indeed.

Do you share my belief that people have knowledge concerning the physical world that is not subject to the human mind? If not, do you really believe something like gravity is actually subject to the human mind?

 

[SelfSim]

How something is measured is different than if something has a physical existence or not.

Nope .. measurement is the process by which a given model's attributes acquire their empirical values. Those values give meaning to the overall model, be it a tree or the coastline of England.

How? Please explain

See Model Dependent Realism (for the background):

While not rejecting the idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself", model-dependent realism suggests that we cannot know "reality-as-it-is-in-itself", but only an approximation of it provided by the intermediary of models. The view of models in model-dependent realism also is related to the instrumentalist approach to modern science, that a concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality (a matter possibly impossible to establish).

So, a lot of what I'm saying in the physical existence and coastline example can be understood in a similar framework of the well-known truism 'the map is not the territory'. This truism is often used as a way of distinguishing maps of reality, from 'reality itself', so it could be viewed as a confirmation of some kind of mind independent reality. But that's not actually a scientifically correct interpretation because it does not restrict to operational (testable) meanings. The scientifically accessible interpretation is that what we call a map is a different kind of concept (or model) than what we call a territory, but they are both quite demonstrably concepts, so they are actually just different kinds of maps.
So the truism, for a scientific thinker, should actually be 'what we call a territory is a different type of map, with different uses and testable justifications, than what we call a map'. After all, that is the only claim that science could ever test: whether or not the purposes we lay out for our meaning of 'map' and 'territory' are suitably serving our needs.
It's as though some people think 'maps' (or coastlines) and 'territories' (or physical reality, or trees) are just handed to us, and our minds have no part in deciding what we want those words to mean!

IOW we all share the human perception of it, and the human perception is the only perception that matters.

We don't have direct access to anything other than our perceptions.

Do you know of a better definition of what is real?

I don't need dictionary definitions. The two respective methods we use for establishing the meaning of 'reality' distinguish what we mean by that word, over any other (the two methods are: the scientific method and the belief method).

Distinctions are more useful ... especially in science. See, 'reality' is just a word. It has a meaning like all other words have meanings. We give it our meaning. A scientific thinker gives it meanings from conclusions based on objective test results. Those meanings are contextual and provisional. A believer gives it meanings based on beliefs. Both methods require a human mind and they produce different kinds of meanings for 'reality'.
The meanings we give to 'reality' aren't floating around in some ethereal space somewhere like some kind of 'thing' (or object which 'truly exists, exteriorly') waiting for us to grab it.
The notion that 'exterior physical reality' is something independent from our minds, is a pure belief.

All of what I say here isn't just some opinion of mine, its the conclusion formed from an abundance of test results produced from an objectively testable hypothesis called the Mind, (or Model), Dependent Reality Hypothesis.

Do you share my belief that people have knowledge concerning the physical world that is not subject to the human mind? If not, do you really believe something like gravity is actually subject to the human mind?

What I might happen to believe, or not believe, is completely irrelevant to how science gives its gravity model its meaning in science's objective reality, (or your so-called 'physical world').
I could believe in say, Druidism, and this would make precisely no difference whatsoever.

 

[Leaf473]

You claim I previously said something that I now say goes against what I believe...

umm... no, my friend, that's not what I said.

yet you are unable to provide evidence that I actually said it? I suspect you misunderstood me.

There are lots of questions I don’t have answers to; nobody knows everything. All I can tell you is what I believe to be true or not true. Perhaps we are done.

imo the answers to those questions would be found using the same kind of interior sensations we've been talking about.

if I don't hear from you for a while, or ever again,
then as I wrote earlier,
thank you for an interesting discussion and have a great life!

 

[Ken-1122]

Nope .. measurement is the process by which a given model's attributes acquire their empirical values.

I’m not talking about acquiring empirical value, I’m talking about whether something exist or not
And I don’t understand why the measure of the coastline of England is such a paradox. The only reason they can’t agree on a measurement is because they allow for multiple ways of measurement. If they picked ONE system of measure and stuck with it, they would get the same measurement each time; problem solved!

So, a lot of what I'm saying in the physical existence and coastline example can be understood in a similar framework of the well-known truism 'the map is not the territory'. This truism is often used as a way of distinguishing maps of reality, from 'reality itself', so it could be viewed as a confirmation of some kind of mind independent reality. But that's not actually a scientifically correct interpretation because it does not restrict to operational (testable) meanings. The scientifically accessible interpretation is that what we call a map is a different kind of concept (or model) than what we call a territory, but they are both quite demonstrably concepts, so they are actually just different kinds of maps.
So the truism, for a scientific thinker, should actually be 'what we call a territory is a different type of map, with different uses and testable justifications, than what we call a map'. After all, that is the only claim that science could ever test: whether or not the purposes we lay out for our meaning of 'map' and 'territory' are suitably serving our needs.
It's as though some people think 'maps' (or coastlines) and 'territories' (or physical reality, or trees) are just handed to us, and our minds have no part in deciding what we want those words to mean!

The reason your argument fails is because you are trying to compare the accuracy of a map of an actual plot of land, to a tree in my front lawn. Maps are approximate; they were never meant to be 100% accurate. When you experience the tree in my front lawn, what you are experiencing is 100% accurate.

I don't need dictionary definitions. The two respective methods we use for establishing the meaning of 'reality' distinguish what we mean by that word, over any other (the two methods are: the scientific method and the belief method).

Distinctions are more useful ... especially in science. See, 'reality' is just a word. It has a meaning like all other words have meanings. We give it our meaning. A scientific thinker gives it meanings from conclusions based on objective test results. Those meanings are contextual and provisional. A believer gives it meanings based on beliefs. Both methods require a human mind and they produce different kinds of meanings for 'reality'.
The meanings we give to 'reality' aren't floating around in some ethereal space somewhere like some kind of 'thing' (or object which 'truly exists, exteriorly') waiting for us to grab it.
The notion that 'exterior physical reality' is something independent from our minds, is a pure belief.

All of what I say here isn't just some opinion of mine, its the conclusion formed from an abundance of test results produced from an objectively testable hypothesis called the Mind, (or Model), Dependent Reality Hypothesis.

Do you agree with the dictionary definition I provided? If so, for the sake of this conversation let’s stick with that. If you don’t agree, for the sake of the conversation provide a definition YOU will be willing to accept so we can understand each other.

What I might happen to believe, or not believe, is completely irrelevant to how science gives its gravity model its meaning in science's objective reality, (or your so-called 'physical world').
I could believe in say, Druidism, and this would make precisely no difference whatsoever.

Care to answer my question? In case you forgot, do YOU really believe the force of gravity is subject to the human mind?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you want to communicate and idea to others, then you bear the responsibility of making sure that idea is clearly communicated. If you don't make it easy to understand, then people will conclude you are wasting their time.

What if I know that other people (scholars more precisely) have already clearly communicated an idea? Do I need to re-invent and re-represent all of that? .... No, I dare say: I think not! This is why when I say people need to do their homework, it's because I know that there's more to the overall conversation (like this one here about 'praxis' than what other folks might presently understand), and I think they need to learn better how to research and re-evaluate their preconceived notions about various issues pertaining to epistemology, protocols, and the 'doing' of science.

So, no, I'm not just going to "hand over the cash and shut-up" ...

If you make it hard for the other person to comprehend an argument they suspect is going to disagree with them, they'll decide it's not worth their time and just ignore it. Making your arguments clear and easy to understand will only benefit you.

Then that person shouldn't come onto a website that is essentially antithetical to their whole way of thought, now should they? And no, in the 10+ years I've been here on CF, there have been plenty of times that I have "made myself clear" only to be summarily dismissed with a mere handwave of skeptical aplomb........ so, I don't quite agree with you that it benefits either me or anyone else to work hard to "make things clear," especially if there is a psycho-social dynamic of motivation on the part of the listener/reader at work in all of this.

But what's the point of it if the ideas are NOT tested? Then they remain nothing but ideas, and they can tell us nothing real about the world.

... I never said anything---like nada---about NOT TESTING anything. This is you construing what you think I mean. Sure, we should test ideas! However, one also needs to realize that not all ideas are equal, and thus not all ideas are testable or testable in the same way.

I don't assume I have all the information. I fully expect that others have information that I don't have. But if you come in, tell me you have information that proves me wrong, but then make it difficult for me to get that information by being unclear, ambiguous, or otherwise hard to understand, then I'm going to say, "well then, forget about it."

So, does this mean you're actually interested (motivated?) to dig deeper into questioning your own assumptions about your own epistemological framework along with your praxis when learning and testing ideas?

But it still applies to the idea of a source being accurate, which you tried to disprove with the apple/barrell analogy.

Earlier, I wasn't referring to accuracy with my apple/barrel analogy, but now since you bring that up, I'll offer that when it comes to doing research and testing, then we need to do some extensive work, usually by repeating our protocols on one hand and triangulating our ongoing angles of understanding with some idea on the other hand.

I disagree with your disagreement.

In time, you'll come to agree. In time and with a bit more education.

One shouldn't try to force a change in another person's worldview, but there's nothing wrong with discussing different worldviews with people who willingly go into a forum where such discussions take place.

I said nothing about forcing anyone to change. That's you who's bringing this topic up (and it's you who seems to try to be using it as an escape hatch so you don't have to do more research about the things of which I've alluded to above).

 

[SelfSim]

What if I know that other people (scholars more precisely) have already clearly communicated an idea? Do I need to re-invent and re-represent all of that? .... No, I dare say: I think not! This is why when I say people need to do their homework, it's because I know that there's more to the overall conversation (like this one here about 'praxis' than what other folks might presently understand), and I think they need to learn better how to research and re-evaluate their preconceived notions about various issues pertaining to epistemology, protocols, and the 'doing' of science.

I wish!
(PS: I'm not directing this in any way @Kylie either .. that's your challenge ).

And no, in the 10+ years I've been here on CF, there have been plenty of times that I have "made myself clear" only to be summarily dismissed with a mere handwave of skeptical aplomb........ so, I don't quite agree with you that it benefits either me or anyone else to work hard to "make things clear," especially if there is a psycho-social dynamic of motivation on the part of the listener/reader at work in all of this.

.. and there is always such a component. The name of the game then, (IMO), is to at least distinguish, and be aware of, how that component influences one's default perceptions.

... I never said anything---like nada---about NOT TESTING anything. This is you construing what you think I mean. Sure, we should test ideas! However, one also needs to realize that not all ideas are equal, and thus not all ideas are testable or testable in the same way.

I think science's objective testing is the best we have when it comes to distinguishing what we mean whenever we invoke the concept of reality though ..

So, does this mean you're actually interested (motivated?) to dig deeper into questioning your own assumptions about your own epistemological framework along with your praxis when learning and testing ideas?

Oh boy .. here comes another epic!
(Problem I find is actually withdrawing from that battlefield .. I mean, in order to get on with one's own life's pusuits!?)

Earlier, I wasn't referring to accuracy with my apple/barrel analogy, but now since you bring that up, I'll offer that when it comes to doing research and testing, then we need to do some extensive work, usually by repeating our protocols on one hand and triangulating our ongoing angles of understanding with some idea on the other hand.

Its evidently very difficult to encourage others to succeed in doing that(?)

 

[SelfSim]

I’m not talking about acquiring empirical value, I’m talking about whether something exist or not

And I don’t understand why the measure of the coastline of England is such a paradox. The only reason they can’t agree on a measurement is because they allow for multiple ways of measurement. If they picked ONE system of measure and stuck with it, they would get the same measurement each time; problem solved!

The point of the paradox is that there exists no true mind independent, (ie: your 'physically real'), length of a coastline. Agreement between (scientifically) like-thinking minds is required. The length of a coastline is a mind model (a concept) and not a 'thing'. Because the length of a coastline is also a key attribute of the model defining a coastline, 'physical' coastlines are also mind dependent models. A continent is a key part of the crust of our planet. Would you say the crust of our planet is a mind independent 'thing', (or object), or a mind dependent model? How about a planet, (of which a 'crust' is a key defining attribute for our particular planet)? Is that a mind independent object, or a mind dependent model?

Its all models .. all the way down .. and it takes a (human) mind to conceive them.

The reason your argument fails is because you are trying to compare the accuracy of a map of an actual plot of land, to a tree in my front lawn.

No .. I'm saying that all of: 'map', 'actual plot of land' and 'tree', are all concepts or models our minds create. There is no evidence that they are 'things which exist' independently from our minds. But the good news is that you don't have to believe me (indeed, I'm specifically asking you to not do that). Conduct your own objective investigation and you should be able to agree with me, provided you follow the well published and widely taught objective scientific method.

When you experience the tree in my front lawn, what you are experiencing is 100% accurate.

Why? Just because you claim that?

Where's your objective test and results which would allow me to verify that assertion? What is you standard for concluding '100% accurate'?

Do you agree with the dictionary definition I provided? If so, for the sake of this conversation let’s stick with that. If you don’t agree, for the sake of the conversation provide a definition YOU will be willing to accept so we can understand each other.

Already answered in my prior post. If you haven't comprehended what I've been spelling out and linking references to you, all this while, then there's not much point in continuing this discussion.

Care to answer my question? In case you forgot, do YOU really believe the force of gravity is subject to the human mind?

Everything about the concepts of 'force' and 'gravity' are mind dependent, including how you experience them and how your mind describes them. There is exactly zip objective evidence for that they exist independently of our minds unless you can devise a test which excludes the influence of any human minds from such a test. Believing that such things exist independently from our human minds is as close to being a miraculous belief as I can conceive.

Your notion of what distinguishes 'subjective' from 'objective', is entirely miraculous one. (Not much wonder theists see massive contradictions and hypocrisy from Athiests around these forums!?)

 

[Kylie]

What if I know that other people (scholars more precisely) have already clearly communicated an idea? Do I need to re-invent and re-represent all of that? .... No, I dare say: I think not! This is why when I say people need to do their homework, it's because I know that there's more to the overall conversation (like this one here about 'praxis' than what other folks might presently understand), and I think they need to learn better how to research and re-evaluate their preconceived notions about various issues pertaining to epistemology, protocols, and the 'doing' of science.

So, no, I'm not just going to "hand over the cash and shut-up" ...

By that logic, I can claim that other people have already proved you wrong, and since I don't have to re-represent all of that, I can just say that you need to do your homework.

See how bad that works?

Then that person shouldn't come onto a website that is essentially antithetical to their whole way of thought, now should they? And no, in the 10+ years I've been here on CF, there have been plenty of times that I have "made myself clear" only to be summarily dismissed with a mere handwave of skeptical aplomb........ so, I don't quite agree with you that it benefits either me or anyone else to work hard to "make things clear," especially if there is a psycho-social dynamic of motivation on the part of the listener/reader at work in all of this.

I'm on a DEBATE site to engage in DEBATES with people.

Part of participating in a DEBATE is to clearly and unambiguously communicate your arguments.

If you aren't willing to do that, I'd say it is you, not me, who is in the wrong place.

... I never said anything---like nada---about NOT TESTING anything. This is you construing what you think I mean. Sure, we should test ideas! However, one also needs to realize that not all ideas are equal, and thus not all ideas are testable or testable in the same way.

<<SNIP>>

Earlier, I wasn't referring to accuracy with my apple/barrel analogy, but now since you bring that up, I'll offer that when it comes to doing research and testing, then we need to do some extensive work, usually by repeating our protocols on one hand and triangulating our ongoing angles of understanding with some idea on the other hand.

So we should test ideas, and testing usually involves repeating the test. Sounds good, I'm all for that.

So what was that you said back in post 873 where you said, "simply coming up with "a way to test" some idea isn't necessarily to then indeed begin a process where you indeed are testing that idea."

In time, you'll come to agree. In time and with a bit more education.

Ah yes, the arrogant attitude of, "In time you'll see that I was right and you were foolish to disagree."

I said nothing about forcing anyone to change. That's you who's bringing this topic up (and it's you who seems to try to be using it as an escape hatch so you don't have to do more research about the things of which I've alluded to above).

Yes you did bring up the topic of forcing people to change. In post 873 you said:

"Moreover, I have to wonder about the consistency between the principle that:

1) One shouldn't attempt to change another person's worldview

and
2) Coming onto a public forum that is anti-thetical to one's one worldview a priori, before any discussion has yet ensued with a one of various individuals."​

 

[Ken-1122]

No .. I'm saying that all of: 'map', 'actual plot of land' and 'tree', are all concepts or models our minds create. There is no evidence that they are 'things which exist' independently from our minds.

Actually there is evidence that the tree in my front lawn exists independent of our minds. The tree is matter. Matter exists independent of the human mind.

Why? Just because you claim that?

Where's your objective test and results which would allow me to verify that assertion? What is you standard for concluding '100% accurate'?

If you come to my house, I can demonstrate the test to you.

Everything about the concepts of 'force' and 'gravity' are mind dependent, including how you experience them and how your mind describes them.

What do you base that on? Do you have an outside source to support your claim?

 

[SelfSim]

Actually there is evidence that the tree in my front lawn exists independent of our minds. The tree is matter. Matter exists independent of the human mind.

Matter is a model. Everyday 'matter' is composed of atoms. Take a look at the history of atoms. There is an absolutely epic history of how an 'atom' has changed .. dating back to ancient Greece. That change has human 'fingerprints' all over it, including individual human's names stamped all over it .. Democritis, Socrates, Boyle, Dalton, Newton, Bohr, Rutherford, Schrodinger, etc, etc.

How could atoms have changed so much if atoms, (or matter, which is composed of them), were totally independent of human influence, eh? Answer me that? I mean they should be if they are mind independent, no?

Atoms are just one property of what comprises matter. Matter's mass and volume properties are also demonstrably models under the influence of human minds.
There's no evidence whatsoever, of anything independent of minds in any of that.

If you come to my house, I can demonstrate the test to you.

If you think that's going to demonstrate mind independence, you're having yourself on for the simple reason that, somewhat unfortunately, neither one of us can conveniently just separate ourselves from our minds by coming to your house!

What do you base that on? Do you have an outside source to support your claim?

For 'force', look up development of the concept here .. (even the title demonstrates its a model (or concept)! The opening phrase says: 'Philosophers in antiquity used the concept of force in the study of ..'
When last I looked, philosophers are humans and the concepts they used here were well, concepts or models requiring their minds! There's no evidence of anything independent of minds in any of that.

Same for gravity: 'Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity ..'
When last I checked, it takes a human mind to describe anything (Albert Einstein's in this example). Again, there's no evidence whatsoever of anything independent of minds in any of that.

I'll make another post explaining the Mind Dependent Reality hypothesis under test in my above post. I apologise for not introducing it sooner .. hopefully this will help to clarify that its a scientifically (objectively testable) formed hypothesis and it also explains why I'm doing this. (All this does hook back into the way Athesim and Nihilism are produced by the way we approach such concepts .. but there's a lot to plough through in order to see that).

 

[SelfSim]

The Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) Hypothesis:

1) Scientific thinking does not rest on personal opinions. Science really couldn't work that way .. it has to always be based on what can be objectively demonstrated, or else it ceases to be science, and starts to be something very different from science, and;

2) Whenever we see someone invoking a notion of "reality" (or "exists") in the process of doing scientific thinking, they can be observed to be using the notion in a way that demonstrably depends on their mind, and would be done very differently by a very different mind.

The purpose of these observations, among other things, is to show that:

1) the widespread idea that science actually uses a notion of mind-independent reality is dead flat wrong, and;
2) at times, a notion that science accesses a mind-independent type of reality, can actually be a barrier to scientific progress, as has happened many times in the history of science.

Finally, it is worth noting what the MDR perspective is not saying:

1) no claim is made that reality is "only in the mind", or that mind-dependent reality "is what reality actually is". Instead, the point is that the word "reality" means different things in different contexts, and in science, it means how our minds make sense of objective perceptions.

2) it is clear that most scientific models do not explicitly include our minds in the model. This is a standard type of idealization, constantly used in science, and is totally different from claiming that a model that does not explicitly include a role of the mind, does not require a role of the mind to interpret and use that model.

Beliefs can be detected by scientific thinker by applying the following distinction of 'a belief':
'Any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

Thus far, it appears to me that the core belief in 'Atheism', involves ruling out (excluding) the core belief of 'Theism' .. and doing so, requires a belief in of itself, (where what I mean by 'belief' there, is given by the above distinction).

 

[imisswarmth]

Is it accurate for me to say that everything that exists is just here already?

Where did it come from? How is it just here?

We have a book that answers those questions. The Holy Bible.

Adam was created by God. Adam spoke with God. Heard God.

I hear the worldly reviews saying that it was possibly a Big Bang and suddenly an earth was made. Where is that Big Bang at? Space right. Where did space come from?

Is it by your faith that you don’t believe in God? Those trying to tell me there is no God are demanding that I should believe in their theory that a Big Bang happened in a place they don’t know anything about.

 

[Ken-1122]

Matter is a model. Everyday 'matter' is composed of atoms. Take a look at the history of atoms. There is an absolutely epic history of how an 'atom' has changed .. dating back to ancient Greece. That change has human 'fingerprints' all over it, including individual human's names stamped all over it .. Democritis, Socrates, Boyle, Dalton, Newton, Bohr, Rutherford, Schrodinger, etc, etc.

How could atoms have changed so much if atoms, (or matter, which is composed of them), were totally independent of human influence, eh? Answer me that?

I didn't say human influenced. Those atoms you speak of would exist regardless of human thought.

 

[SelfSim]

Those atoms you speak of would exist regardless of human thought.

.. and that is a model you hold in your mind.

No evidence of any mind independence there.

 

[SelfSim]

Is it by your faith that you don’t believe in God?

When I'm thinking scientifically, it doesn't really matter what I believe .. and I like thinking scientifically .. it produces consistency.

Those trying to tell me there is no God are demanding that I should believe in their theory that a Big Bang happened in a place they don’t know anything about.

The BB is envisaged as having happened everywhere .. (for logically consistent reasons).

 

[imisswarmth]

When I'm thinking scientifically, it doesn't really matter what I believe .. and I like thinking scientifically .. it produces consistency.

So you believe in consistency. Vague yet specific. I can understand that.

 

[imisswarmth]

The BB is envisaged as having happened everywhere .. (for logically consistent reasons).

Anything can happen. How about God? Can that happen?

 

[imisswarmth]

I’m not here to tell you that you are wrong I guess. I’m also not here to hear you accuse me of being wrong. Get it?