Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[Jade Margery]

Care to explain this a little more? I don't see how anything we've learned cannot be attributed to God. Maybe some scientists don't attribute it to him, but science just seems to be the art of discovering God's constructive side, rather than his spiritual one.

If more christians thought like you, we wouldn't have this problem.

 

[chris4243]

Well, of course knowledge is a threat to the belief in god. Ever heard the phrase "God of the Gaps"?

That's only a problem for those who use a lack of knowledge, or false knowledge, as evidence for their beliefs.

As science fills in the holes in our knowledge base, things that were once attributed to god are then explained through natural phenomena. The bigger science grows, the smaller god gets - or so it seems.

Science can't touch God; science makes models that correspond to reality but can never claim they are reality. Hence Newton can give an equation for gravity yet claim to know nothing of what causes gravity or how the attraction works, other than that he can predict the magnitude and direction of the force.

 

[selfinflikted]

Care to explain this a little more?

Sure

I don't see how anything we've learned cannot be attributed to God.

It could. But, what I meant was things that were once attributed to the "gods" are now explainable through naturally occurring phenomena. Take lightning, to use an earlier example: It was once believed that lightning was the result of a vengeful god hurling bolts of electricity at the Earth. Because science eventually explained lightning, we know that Zeus doesn't even factor in. In much the same way, it seems like the more science uncovers about other phenomena, god is needed less to explain the way things work.

Of course, like I said prior, you could still throw god into the mix, but since science can neither validate nor invalidate any divine intervention, we just leave god out of the equation.

Maybe some scientists don't attribute it to him, but science just seems to be the art of discovering God's constructive side, rather than his spiritual one.

And it could very well be the case. unfortunately, god just hasn't left any empirical evidence that would indicate that it is so.

 

[selfinflikted]

If more christians thought like you, we wouldn't have this problem.

Totally agree

 

[selfinflikted]

Science can't touch God;

No, it can't. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural at all.

science makes models that correspond to reality but can never claim they are reality.

I'm not really sure what you mean here.

Hence Newton can give an equation for gravity yet claim to know nothing of what causes gravity or how the attraction works, other than that he can predict the magnitude and direction of the force.

And that's what science is - a tool used to describe what we see around us, and make predictions based on those observations.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Science can't touch God; science makes models that correspond to reality but can never claim they are reality. Hence Newton can give an equation for gravity yet claim to know nothing of what causes gravity or how the attraction works, other than that he can predict the magnitude and direction of the force.

Nonetheless, the claim that God exists is a scientific one as soon as you step away from deism - which, being a Christian, you presumably do. Prayer, for instance, is alleged to be, among other things, an appeal to God to induce an effect in the world. Well, that's a testable claim, meaning God is at least partially susceptible to scientific scrutiny.

Even if the conclusion is just, "There's no evidence for God", that is still a valid scientific evaluation of God's existence, meaning he very much is a scientific entity.

 

[selfinflikted]

Prayer, for instance, is alleged to be, among other things, an appeal to God to induce an effect in the world. Well, that's a testable claim, meaning God is at least partially susceptible to scientific scrutiny.

An interesting sidebar: For the life of me, I can't remember the details of the study or who published it, but there was research done and data gathered on the effects of prayer. A number of hospital patients were studied - some who recieved prayer for healing, and some who did not, and the results of the study were quite interesting. The patients who were prayed for did far worse than those who recieved no prayer.

 

[Mling]

An interesting sidebar: For the life of me, I can't remember the details of the study or who published it, but there was research done and data gathered on the effects of prayer. A number of hospital patients were studied - some who recieved prayer for healing, and some who did not, and the results of the study were quite interesting. The patients who were prayed for did far worse than those who recieved no prayer.

Only if they knew they were being prayed for, though. Among the ones who didn't know whether they were being prayed for, the prayer had no effect.

 

[selfinflikted]

Only if they knew they were being prayed for, though. Among the ones who didn't know whether they were being prayed for, the prayer had no effect.

Yes, that's the study! Do you remember who published it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

An interesting sidebar: For the life of me, I can't remember the details of the study or who published it, but there was research done and data gathered on the effects of prayer. A number of hospital patients were studied - some who recieved prayer for healing, and some who did not, and the results of the study were quite interesting. The patients who were prayed for did far worse than those who recieved no prayer.

I remember that as well. Apparently the stress of it all did more harm than good. Social pressure doesn't really do much good to the body...

 

[rjc34]

Science can't touch God; science makes models that correspond to reality but can never claim they are reality. Hence Newton can give an equation for gravity yet claim to know nothing of what causes gravity or how the attraction works, other than that he can predict the magnitude and direction of the force.

I'll respond to this with quote from another thread that I think fits perfectly:

On the contrary. Saying something is "supernatural" is just the religionist's way of hiding the fact that he or she is relying upon magic. Science doesn't allow for a "supernatural" explanation because that would mean the explanation was beyond the natural. Outside of nature. Unable to be studied. Something that complies with this does not exist. Once we have seen it, become aware of it, then whatever it is it has become a part of this universe. And it is, by definition, natural. We can study it, we can study those who saw it. You desperately WISH that there was a "supernatural" realm where your gods could hide. If there was your deity would have to stay there because if it interacted with this universe then it would be a PART of this universe as as such no longer "supernatural".

 

[benglobal]

An interesting sidebar: For the life of me, I can't remember the details of the study or who published it, but there was research done and data gathered on the effects of prayer. A number of hospital patients were studied - some who recieved prayer for healing, and some who did not, and the results of the study were quite interesting. The patients who were prayed for did far worse than those who recieved no prayer.

Have a read of the 'Intention Experiment' by Lynne McTaggart. It seems prayer has little effect but positive intention does. And the difference is, prayer without positive intention i.e just the words without meaning can actually have an adverse effect. Worth a read.

 

[Upisoft]

Have a read of the 'Intention Experiment' by Lynne McTaggart. It seems prayer has little effect but positive intention does. And the difference is, prayer without positive intention i.e just the words without meaning can actually have an adverse effect. Worth a read.

Interesting. How does one measure "positive intention" objectively to make a research worth reading?

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, I'd say there's the same amount of data. What that data serves as evidence for is different.

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

We all create higher powers that we bow down to because we find them to be worthy of our respect. Science freely admits to being subject to the winds of change and open to overturning at any point. It's just amazing that it keeps any integrity at all. I'm not saying it has none. Only that so few admit it's failings.
​

I'll absolutely admit that science is subject to change and open to overturning. But that's a strength, not a failing.

So you don't see that your always wrong if you happen to interpret the data incorrectly? _________

 

[SkyWriting]

Here's a thought, ask your average Christian if they can prove (even to themselves) that God exists, or whether they accept His existence by faith.

For one, Science says there is no effect, without a greater cause. So given a void to start, and the result being infinite amount of space, matter, and complexity
then the cause must have been even bigger.

So that's the proof. Cause and effect.

And second, a person can get hit in the head with a baseball bat and refuse to believe it happened. So discovering God exists using "faith" is not a big surprise. Especially becasue He claims to be spirit anyway.

 

[Skaloop]

For one, Science says there is no effect, without a greater cause. So given a void to start, and the result being infinite amount of space, matter, and complexity
then the cause must have been even bigger.

A) Which scientific law is that?
B) Does it actually state that the cause must be greater than its effect?
C) What does is mean for a cause to be greater or bigger than its effect?
D) What is the cause of the effect that is God?

So that's the proof. Cause and effect.

Even if this cause and effect idea of yours is absolutely true, that's proof of a cause, at best. Not proof of God being that cause.

 

[quatona]

For one, Science says there is no effect, without a greater cause.

Somehow I doubt that science operates with concepts like "great/greater".

 

[Beechwell]

For one, Science says there is no effect, without a greater cause.

No, it doesn't (even without the epithet "greater")!
The advent of quatnum mechanics threw that right out of the window.

 

[Eudaimonist]

For one, Science says there is no effect, without a greater cause.

No, it doesn't. Not anywhere.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[rjc34]

We all create higher powers that we bow down to because we find them to be worthy of our respect. Science freely admits to being subject to the winds of change and open to overturning at any point. It's just amazing that it keeps any integrity at all. I'm not saying it has none. Only that so few admit it's failings.

Science is about discovering and modeling how the world around us works. When a discovery is made, our knowledge increases, and if it clashed with a model or theory we had previously been using we fix it to include the new observations. Theories are about predicting things, and they do that wonderfully (else they're not useful). It's really only the religious who require a set in stone belief and understanding of the world. I'm not interested in what was known 2000 years ago, I'm interested in what we can see now, and finding out how things really work.

So you don't see that your always wrong if you happen to interpret the data incorrectly? _________

If the data is interpreted incorrectly than the hypothesis or theory will make false predictions, and will be falsified. Then it will be re-worked. Having you own hypothesis falsified is almost as exciting as making some radical new discovery!