Can science continue without a belief in God?

[Tinker Grey]

I am talking about the right use of words. Go on and speak Greek if you want, and tell people you have gnosis of computers etc., and see what looks you get.

The right way to use words is the way people use them. If a user successfully conveys information to his/her intended audience, she/he is using words correctly.

The usages of the word atheism is correctly defined by those who identify as atheists. IME, there is little variance on this score.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All you're saying is that it doesn't perform a check what platform its on.

It actually does, because it needs to know to what platform it has to be compiled to.
But what platform it will run on isn't known when the app is being programmed.

Take a html5 website. That runs in a browser. It must know which browser, during coding. Because different browsers requires different coding for certain things, because not all browsers implement the same standards in the same way.

Not so in Java.

But the actual point being made, is missed it seems.
That point being, that (a)gnosticism is not a word that is exclusively reserved for positions on god claims. I already agreed that it is the most common use for it. But it's not inherent to it.

To say that I am agnostic about the easter bunny, is a perfectly legit use of the word.

its on some platform, it doesn't function without a platform and it also requires an interpreter for the particular system, which is not platform agnostic. To put the same in context of religious agnosticism would be to say you don't bother to check which God is there.

The "agnostic" part of "platform-agnostic language", only means that it isn't known /can't be known on what platform the code being written will eventually run on.

Is anyone saying you believe in God, or the Easter Bunny? I certainly wasn't.

It seems you again missed the point.
The point there, is to show you the difference between belief and knowledge, and how one does not exclude the other.

I am agnostic about the easter bunny.
I don't believe in the easter bunny.

I am agnostic about god.
I don't believe in god.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

Are you claiming that its not possible for anyone to know there is a God?

Every definition of "God" that was ever presented to me, ended up in an unknowable God defintion.

No, I can't claim it's not possible. Because there is no way to assess or test that.
I can only say that all definitions ever presented to me, were consisted with an unknowable god.

Also, if God was knowable, then I'ld think that there would be no need for "faith".
By all means, if someone thinks they have knowledge of god, then present it. I'ld be most interested. Knowledge, is demonstrable after all....

For myself I know that giant bunnies that deliver eggs at Easter do not really exist, not agnostic about it in the least.

So you can prove that no such bunnies exist?
Go for it.

By the way there can't be a infinite regress of causation, there has to be a first cause, and that must be non-physical. This can be shown by logic.

Fallacious logic.
There would only be an infinite regress of causes, if there would be an infinite past.
But there is no infinite past.

Causality is necessarily a temporal phenomena. And time came into existance with the universe.

Causality is a senseless thing at T = 0.
Causes happen BEFORE effects. But there is no "before" T = 0.
Just like there is no north of the north pole.

And how you determined that the origin of the universe is necessarily non-physical, is also a mystery.

 

[Michael]

Fallacious logic.
There would only be an infinite regress of causes, if there would be an infinite past.
But there is no infinite past.

Causality is necessarily a temporal phenomena. And time came into existance with the universe.

Causality is a senseless thing at T = 0.
Causes happen BEFORE effects. But there is no "before" T = 0.
Just like there is no north of the north pole.

And how you determined that the origin of the universe is necessarily non-physical, is also a mystery.

FYI, I agree with most of what you posted, but this part of your post is entirely dependent upon the validity of a cosmology models that has failed four different 'tests' this month already. Up until relatively recently, a static, potentially infinite and eternal universe was the preferred cosmology model. The actual cause of photon redshift may not be expansion, in fact Edwin Hubble himself preferred a tired light explanation to redshift and a static, possibly eternal universe.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. According to the laws of physics, some form of energy has existed eternally and even energy causes geometric curvature of "spacetime" in GR theory. The concept of T=0 only relates to *our physical universe*, but it doesn't preclude something and some form of energy and even "time" from existing prior t=0.

 

[dms1972]

It actually does, because it needs to know to what platform it has to be compiled to.

And that is what I said the interpreter/compiler has to be for a specific platform. its nothing new. But you can type the same program into several different platforms.

But the actual point being made, is missed it seems.
That point being, that (a)gnosticism is not a word that is exclusively reserved for positions on god claims. I already agreed that it is the most common use for it. But it's not inherent to it.

Just wondering if you are reading my posts. I said as much in #1053​

It might be possible to use the term "agnostic" loosely, and say something like "I am agnostic on that (a non-religious) matter", but that often means "I don't wish to express an opinion on that"

 

[dms1972]

Fallacious logic.
There would only be an infinite regress of causes, if there would be an infinite past.
But there is no infinite past.

Did you think I was arguing that there is an infinite regress of causes?

You are correct that there is not an infinite past.

There is another reason that there cannot be an infinite series of physical causes.

This takes a bit of concentration, its from a philosopher but try and follow it through:

Any event or condition in the physical world, from the falling of that leaf from this tree to a time slice of the entire physical universe - its total condition at a given point in time - comes about as the result of a series of causes leading up to it. That series must be completed at the point where the condition or event in question is present. If any of its causal conditions (its necessary conditions) had not transpired by that point, then that event would not occur. Since it occurs (eg. this leaf falls), they have occurred. Nothing occurs or exists while waiting for its causes to occur. The entire series of causes "behind" the present condition or event is over and done with. We are not still waiting for any members of that series to come about. Now a causal series cannot have occurred if there is no first member of the series. A causal series cannot be completed in one direction, toward the relevant effect, and not in the other. It is, after all, one and the same series. This means that there was a first event of this series. That first event had no cause or ground within the series of physical causation. That is not to say it had no cause at all, but it is to say that its cause must be something not itself a part of the series of physical causation. Thus, a cause or source that is not a physical condition or event lies at the origin of the causal order that is the physical world. The fall of a leaf or the current state of the physical universe as a whole has a source or cause that is not physical.


Alternatively imagine a line of dominos falling towards your right and a line of those having already fallen disappearing over the horizon to your left. Someone suggests the line to your left has no first member. They are saying that for every domino in the sequence to your left there is another fallen domino beyond it to your left, which made it fall. In other words an unlimited sequence. But if there were no first domino to fall, and the sequence of falling dominoes to the left was infinite, it would never "reach" the domino that having just fallen, knocks over the one falling here and now in front of you. Therefore witnessing that as a cause and effect in the present, there must be a finite number of dominoes.

 

[Michael]

Did you think I was arguing that there is an infinite regress of causes?

You are correct that there is not an infinite past.

That is not correct. The laws of physics insists that energy has existed eternally. Energy can change forms, but it cannot be created nor destroyed. Based on the laws of physics we have to assume that energy has existent eternally and there was an infinite past. Even if there was a "big bang", something caused it, and some form of energy existed prior to that event. The mere existence of that energy creates "spacetime" in GR theory. In short you have no evidence at all that there was not an infinite past and to declare there was not an infinite past implies that energy can be created and destroyed and violates the conservation laws of physics.

 

[dms1972]

.

 

[dms1972]

That is not correct. The laws of physics insists that energy has existed eternally. Energy can change forms, but it cannot be created nor destroyed. Based on the laws of physics we have to assume that energy has existent eternally and there was an infinite past. Even if there was a "big bang", something caused it, and some form of energy existed prior to that event. The mere existence of that energy creates "spacetime" in GR theory. In short you have no evidence at all that there was not an infinite past and to declare there was not an infinite past implies that energy can be created and destroyed and violates the conservation laws of physics.

Only God is eternal, and He is not impersonal energy, God is Spirit. The creation event is beyond our mental powers to think.

I am beginning to wonder if causation, is the right term? Take two snooker balls, a player hits the first one with his cue, and it hits the second causing it to roll away. The two balls are already in existence, for the cause and effect to take place. But what about something that is created, is that the result of a cause? Are creation and causation the same? Causation may be senseless at T=0, but not creation.

 

[dms1972]

Also, if God was knowable, then I'd think that there would be no need for "faith".

"Jesus Christ is the only proof of the living God. We only know God through Jesus Christ"

"God is hidden. But he lets those who seek him find him. Evident signs of him have always existed throughout the ages."

"Instead of always complaining that God has hidden himself, you should give him thanks for revealing as much as he has of himself."

"To know God without knowing our own wretchedness only makes for pride. Knowing our own wretchedness without knowing God only makes for despair. Knowing Jesus Christ provides the balance, because he shows us both God and our own wretchedness."

Quotes from Blaise Pascal

 

[Michael]

Only God is eternal, and He is not impersonal energy, God is Spirit. The creation event is beyond our mental powers to think.

I am beginning to wonder if causation, is the right term? Take two snooker balls, a player hits the first one with his cue, and it hits the second causing it to roll away. The two balls are already in existence, for the cause and effect to take place. But what about something coming into existence, is that causation? Are creation and causation the same?

My point was that a 'big bang', assuming such thing even took place, was not the 'beginning' of time, nor the beginning of energy. It may have been the begging of *our* concept of time, and our physical sandbox, but it also had a "cause". You and I would attribute such a cause to God, whereas an atheist might attribute it to something else, but even a big bang would have a cause.

 

[Tinker Grey]

"Jesus Christ is the only proof of the living God. We only know God through Jesus Christ"

"God is hidden. But he lets those who seek him find him. Evident signs of him have always existed throughout the ages."

"Instead of always complaining that God has hidden himself, you should give him thanks for revealing as much as he has of himself."

"To know God without knowing our own wretchedness only makes for pride. Knowing our own wretchedness without knowing God only makes for despair. Knowing Jesus Christ provides the balance, because he shows us both God and our own wretchedness."

Quotes from Blaise Pascal

Pascal should have stuck to math.

 

[Belk]

Did you think I was arguing that there is an infinite regress of causes?

You are correct that there is not an infinite past.

There is another reason that there cannot be an infinite series of physical causes.

This takes a bit of concentration, its from a philosopher but try and follow it through:

Any event or condition in the physical world, from the falling of that leaf from this tree to a time slice of the entire physical universe - its total condition at a given point in time - comes about as the result of a series of causes leading up to it. That series must be completed at the point where the condition or event in question is present. If any of its causal conditions (its necessary conditions) had not transpired by that point, then that event would not occur. Since it occurs (eg. this leaf falls), they have occurred. Nothing occurs or exists while waiting for its causes to occur. The entire series of causes "behind" the present condition or event is over and done with. We are not still waiting for any members of that series to come about. Now a causal series cannot have occurred if there is no first member of the series. A causal series cannot be completed in one direction, toward the relevant effect, and not in the other. It is, after all, one and the same series. This means that there was a first event of this series. That first event had no cause or ground within the series of physical causation. That is not to say it had no cause at all, but it is to say that its cause must be something not itself a part of the series of physical causation. Thus, a cause or source that is not a physical condition or event lies at the origin of the causal order that is the physical world. The fall of a leaf or the current state of the physical universe as a whole has a source or cause that is not physical.


Alternatively imagine a line of dominos falling towards your right and a line of those having already fallen disappearing over the horizon to your left. Someone suggests the line to your left has no first member. They are saying that for every domino in the sequence to your left there is another fallen domino beyond it to your left, which made it fall. In other words an unlimited sequence. But if there were no first domino to fall, and the sequence of falling dominoes to the left was infinite, it would never "reach" the domino that having just fallen, knocks over the one falling here and now in front of you. Therefore witnessing that as a cause and effect in the present, there must be a finite number of dominoes.

Apparently radioactive decay is a spiritual matter.

 

[dms1972]

Pascal should have stuck to math.

Strange thing to say if one is claiming to only lack belief in God.

 

[dms1972]

The question is about God and science, I'll let a few scientists speak:

 

[Tinker Grey]

Strange thing to say if one is claiming to only lack belief in God.

Strange what people claim to know about what they claim is unknowable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Did you think I was arguing that there is an infinite regress of causes?

You are correct that there is not an infinite past.

There is another reason that there cannot be an infinite series of physical causes.

This takes a bit of concentration, its from a philosopher but try and follow it through:

Any event or condition in the physical world, from the falling of that leaf from this tree to a time slice of the entire physical universe - its total condition at a given point in time - comes about as the result of a series of causes leading up to it. That series must be completed at the point where the condition or event in question is present. If any of its causal conditions (its necessary conditions) had not transpired by that point, then that event would not occur. Since it occurs (eg. this leaf falls), they have occurred. Nothing occurs or exists while waiting for its causes to occur. The entire series of causes "behind" the present condition or event is over and done with. We are not still waiting for any members of that series to come about. Now a causal series cannot have occurred if there is no first member of the series. A causal series cannot be completed in one direction, toward the relevant effect, and not in the other. It is, after all, one and the same series. This means that there was a first event of this series. That first event had no cause or ground within the series of physical causation. That is not to say it had no cause at all, but it is to say that its cause must be something not itself a part of the series of physical causation. Thus, a cause or source that is not a physical condition or event lies at the origin of the causal order that is the physical world. The fall of a leaf or the current state of the physical universe as a whole has a source or cause that is not physical.


Alternatively imagine a line of dominos falling towards your right and a line of those having already fallen disappearing over the horizon to your left. Someone suggests the line to your left has no first member. They are saying that for every domino in the sequence to your left there is another fallen domino beyond it to your left, which made it fall. In other words an unlimited sequence. But if there were no first domino to fall, and the sequence of falling dominoes to the left was infinite, it would never "reach" the domino that having just fallen, knocks over the one falling here and now in front of you. Therefore witnessing that as a cause and effect in the present, there must be a finite number of dominoes.

That doesn't necessarily follow with a 4D Parminidean block model (eternalism). In this model, you can have an infinite series of moments, each having some relation to the prior and next moments. The universe we observe at present would be a finite subsequence at one end of which is a very low entropy configuration (the big bang) and at the other the somewhat higher entropy configuration of the present.

The increasing entropy provides an arrow of time (emergent causality) which will last until thermodynamic equilibrium is reached, i.e. heat-death. There is no necessity for an arrow of time prior to the big bang or at thermodynamic equilibrium (though if the temporal extent is infinite, there may well be other entropic minima - there are various speculative ideas as to how these might occur).

Obviously, conscious observers can only evolve in sequences with an arrow of time. For multiverse fans, this model provides yet another multiverse schema, where each sequence of low entropy increasing towards heat-death can be considered a separate universe, causally isolated from other such sequences.

 

[Theo Barnsley]

Do you have evidence to show that people in the 1940's thought and felt differently from people today.

People in the 1940's still had the same evolved empathy, however empathy is strongest towards people who we have a close attachment with. Empathy for other family members is usually the strongest, followed by empathy for friends, & colleagues. Empathy for strangers is a lot weaker, which makes evolutionary sense. This does not mean that we have no empathy for strangers, however if there are situations where we have to choose between a family member or friend & a stranger, we will nearly always choose the person we have the most attachment to over the stranger.

Our empathy even for family members can however be weakend by strong charismatic persons who we develop an attachment to, or religious cults, or political doctrine. So it is not that difficult for a strong charismatic psycopath like hitler to turn an entire population against people like the jews, especially when the jews have already been demonised for centuries by many religious figures, & there is strong anti semitism running through the new testament.

The strongly religious, or those who are highly political will also often develop strong empathy for those of the same religion or side of politics as themselves, & disdain or even hatred for those who are not of the same religion or political persuasion, which can even include family members.

I would say it would be far easier to turn a country of mainly Christians (or Muslims if it had been an Islamic country), against a minority group of people like the Jews, than it would have been if the majority of the country were atheists, with no religious affiliation.

From an evolutionary point hitler was trying to improve humanity by removing what he consider unfit from the breeding stock. As an argument it is far more valid than saying the holocast was wrong because we have empathy.

What hitler was trying to do has nothing to do with evolution, & it also does not invalidate my argument for evolved empathy. Hitler was a psycopath. Psycopath's can find any excuse to hurt people, which often involves religious texts. Hitler was bought up as a roman catholic.

Slave owners in the American south used both the old & new testament to justify the keeping of slaves. Religious texts were also used to justify the forceful colonisation of countries & the slaughter & subjugation of the natives, by both christian & islamic colonisers.

Tell me how does empathy tell you that the abortion holocaust happening today is wrong.

Because of evolved empathy humans have developed hospitals & science.

Today thanks to science & our evolved empathy far more babies are saved from death than are ever aborted. We can now save premature babies that otherwise would have died, the incidence of still births & mothers dying during child birth has reduced dramatically. we can perform operations on babies to fix heart defects etc, that normally would have led to their death. Most children will now live to be adults, & live to old age, rather than dying from disease or infections before the age of 15, which was the norm in the past.

If we didnt have evolved empathy we would not have seen any reason to develop the methods to keep premature born babies alive, or for society to foot the bill for the enormous cost that this involves.

Regarding abortion, evolved empathy also means that we will usually have far more empathy for the mother than the unborn child, because we might know or can see the mother. We have never met the unborn child, so the empathy will be nowhere near as strong as empathy for the mother, who might have a good reason for aborting the child.

Most strongly religious persons who are against abortion have no empathy for either the mother or the unborn child. They are merely trying to push their religious agenda on the rest of society, & for political power. Their real motives usually have nothing at all to do with concern for the unborn child.

Its a shame that the bible gave no basic instructions about the importance of cleanliness to prevent the spread of germs & disease, which has been a major cause of death throughout history, which includes many babies, children & mothers. Infant mortality, & the death of the mother during or ater childbirth was extremely high till only about 150 years ago. One would think that a loving god who is concerned about infant mortality would have given some insight or commands to help prevent this from happening.

God also sanctions abortion in the bible. If a husband suspects his wife of being unfaithful, he can take her to the priest, which will mix up a concoction that she is forced to drink, that will cause her to have an abortion if she is pregnant. The stoning to death of adulterers is also sanctioned by God, some of who will no doubt be pregnant.

In fact there is really nothing from the biblical texts that would lead me to belive that abortion is wrong. Many unborn children would also have been slaughtered or left to die in the genocides commanded by god.

God ordered genocide.
Are you aware that no one has recieved such a command since the times of King David.

What does that have to do with anything? The precedent had already been set before then. God of the old testament not only ordered genocide, god also committed genocide, & genocide also continues today, often with religious texts used as the justification.

And if god is the creator of everything, then god has also continued genocide to this day.

IF we are to believe the creationist view that God is the creator of everything, & evolution is NOT the cause of all the different forms of life that we have today, then genocide is ongoing. If this is REALLY the case, the only conclusion one can come to about the cause of all the disease in the world, is because god is continually committing biological warfare against us.

God apparently created the perfect weapon to commit biological warfare, the mosquito, which carries & transmits diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, ross river fever to name just a few (god must have also created the diseases as well). In fact the mosquito is said to be the biggest killer of all of humanity. This is just ONE of the many biological weapons god has apparently created to kill us. And it is often the poorest of society who are the most affected by these diseases. Which leads one to the conclusion that god must hate poor people.

Parasites such as the mosquito, & the many other parasites that cause death, disease & suffering, only make any sense if evolution is the cause. If a god is the cause, then the god must be a psycopath, & not worthy of worship.

Morality if it is not an absolute then empathy has nothing to do with right or wrong but everything to do with what one feels is right.

Morality has evolved as our cultures & society has evolved. If morality is an absolute as defined in the bible, then some of us should still be slave owners, & some of us slaves. We should still be stoning people to death for transgressing certain laws that are defined in the bible such as adultery. There should be no freedom of religion, there should only be one worldwide religion that everybody is forced to follow.

Different cultures & societies have different moral beliefs that everybody in that culture is expected to adhere to. However if some people in the culture or society believe that a moral value is wrong, then they may be able to convince others that it should change. If enough people are convinced, then a new moral belief may be introduced to change the old moral belief. This is what has happened throughout history, & it is still happening today.

Thankfully through secularism, science & reason, morality is evolving in a direction that is fairer for ALL in society, because our morality is NOT constrained by outdated biblical principals. I would argue that there is quite some way to go, & that any changes could have happened a lot sooner if it was not for religious conservatives & vested interests fighting against the changes.

The biggest advances in human morality & animal welfare has been in secular countries. The countries where morality is lagging behind is in the non-secular countries, where religion still holds most of the power. In some countries, where religion still holds sway, adulterers, blasphemers & homosexuals are still stoned to death, & many other barbaric acts are still performed in the name of 'religious morality'.

The biggest threats to morality evolving for the better of all in secular countries, is for some religious nut job gaining power & wanting to take us back to a biblical version of morality, as ISIS tried to do wherever they gained a foothold.

Even in the bible, morality is not absolute. For instance in the 10 commandments, one of the commandments is 'though shalt not kill' yet the bible is littered with killings, often at the 'command of god'. The commandment 'though shalt not committ adultery' is excused by even fundamentalists, especially if the person committing the adultery is percieved as doing something to advance their cause, such as a politician expousing 'family values' or if they are against abortion, such as trump for instance.

This makes the bible useless as a moral guide, because I can find any no. of reasons for killing somebody from the biblical texts (& throughout the centuries christians & muslims have).

Many Christians also say that most of the laws in the old testament no longer apply to them, so again, more evidence that even the biblical version of morality has changed & evolved through time, so where is the absolutism!

 

[Strathos]

Saying that the Theory of Evolution suggests you should commit genocide is like saying that the Theory of Gravity suggests that you should push people off of cliffs.

 

[Theo Barnsley]

Saying that the Theory of Evolution suggests you should commit genocide is like saying that the Theory of Gravity suggests that you should push people off of cliffs.

Who is saying that? It would be helpful if you mention who's post you are referring to.

 

[Strathos]

Who is saying that? It would be helpful if you mention who's post you are referring to.

Tolworth Jon, when he was suggesting that Hitler was acting in accordance with the ToE.