If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Cypress]

Even Einstein was amazed at the physics of the universe, and thought it must mean something profound. That is what led him to be some kind of pantheist rather than an atheist.

Einstein famously said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.

 

[ZenMode]

Exactly the opposite.

Because science discovered a universal law of gravity, a beginning to the universe, a spacetime boundary to the universe's past, the exquisite fine tuning of the physical constants, one can logically infer those properties cannot come from chance, from the irrational or the inanimate.

Science is never going to prove what came before the universe. Science doesn't answer philosophical questions. But science can be used in philosophical deduction and inference.

"Science is never going to prove...."

So, you're filling the gap between what we can't explain and science can't explain with an all powerful entity....

 

[Cypress]

"Science is never going to prove...."

So, you're filling the gap between what we can't explain and science can't explain with an all powerful entity....

Science doesn't prove anything. And it certainly doesn't directly answer philosophical questions.

Science is an empirical method which makes accurate predictions about velocity, momentum, the movement and exchange of energy. We know for the most part how gravity behaves, but 500 years after Newton we still don't really know what gravity is or why it exists at the level of ontology.

People who didn't have a science background in college often overestimate what science can actually answer.

What science can do is give us a better picture of the physical behavior of the universe. And that information can inform philosophical and metaphysical deductions.

 

[ZenMode]

.

Science doesn't prove anything. And it certainly doesn't directly answer philosophical questions.

Science is an empirical method which makes accurate predictions about velocity, momentum, the movement and exchange of energy. We know for the most part how gravity behaves, but 500 years after Newton we still don't really know what gravity is or why it exists at the level of ontology.

People who didn't have a science background in college often overestimate what science can actually answer.

What science can do is give us a better picture of the physical behavior of the universe. And that information can inform philosophical and metaphysical deductions.

You pick the word to describe what science hasn't done. Describe.. define... Explain... Prove... Whatever you'd like.

You describe, however you like, what it is that they haven't done.

You are filling in what's missing with a God.

 

[Cypress]

You are filling in what's missing with a God.

You are making a massive assumption that science can answer each and every question out there.

Almost no reputable scientist and philosophers agree with you there.

The reason relatively few scientists identify as steadfast flag-waving atheists is because many of them are awestruck by the internal harmony, intelligibility, and rationality of the universe.

None of the giants of science who were the fathers of genetics, electromagnetism, general relativity, Big Bang cosmology, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background were flag-waving atheists. James Clerk Maxwell was a practicing Christian. Two Catholic priests discovered genetics and the expanding universe. Einstein was some sort of a pantheist. Arno Penzias was a religious man.

Other than Richard Dawkins, who is only a zoologist, most flag-waving belligerent atheists are not scientists and typically have no science background. The people involved in looking at the deepest questions in physics and cosmology are often really struck by the harmony and mathematical rationality of the universe, and are usually not so quick to blow it off as a random cosmic accident.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Saying he's more knowledgeable might have been better.

Okay

To me, saying your agnostic is like saying your absolutely 50/50.

No way. I have no idea of the odds of either being the correct blind guess. I have no idea of which it is...and I have no idea of which is the more likely. The "evidence" is the same for both sides.

You don't lean even a little theist or even a little atheist. You are the Switzerland of God opinions.

I think everyone has an inclination one way or the other. I can say I'm not 100% sure there are no gods, while still confidently say I lean heavily atheistic.

Any leaning being done...is being done on a guess. That is my point. It is almost impossible to persuade someone making a direct guess or a leaning guess...no matter the direction...to change to a "stop with the guessing, direct or leaning. I am especially concerned with the non-theistic side...because that is the side that must be strong. The agnostic position is the strong one...the unassailable one.

But, that's just my opinion.

That is what we are discussing...our opinions. I thank you for sharing yours with me.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You might as well structure your life around Santa Claus. The evidence for Santa is basically identical to the evidence for Jesus/Christian god.

NO...it is not. Not even close. Get over that thought, because it is as wrong as wrong can be.

 

[Truth Detector]

A short little Youtube from a former evangelical pastor. Did the fire and brimstone shit for decades until he finally came to his senses. For those of you who are in denial or wish to remain willfully ignorant, he basically says this:

“Christians go in with their god as an assumption rather than a conclusion. When in fact, after close examination, the virgin birth falls apart, the resurrection falls apart, the basis of morality falls apart, the promise of afterlife fizzles into fear based marketing.”

“The gods of Islam, of Judaism, of Christianity only exist in scripture. If they actually existed, we wouldn’t need the books to claim they did. Once the book fails, the god goes with it.”

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/gI_OCjTkQG4?si=cyukCFBlj2u2kI4k

Imagine, if you can, a Godless world where there are no ten commandments, there is no moral guidance and Christians are fed to the lions.

That's the heathen world atheists inhabit. I would rather believe than be a heathen and believe in nothing but Government and dishonest corrupt men.

As I tell the atheists I know, that certainly there must be truth in the bible and its teachings, how else could a religion of peace and forgiveness have toppled the most powerful nation on earth at the time and supplant it with the capital of Christian Catholic religion? That's a very powerful lesson. A lesson heathen atheists cannot begin to comprehend with the small brains and low IQs.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

As I tell the atheists I know, that certainly there must be truth in the bible and its teachings, how else could a religion of peace and forgiveness have toppled the most powerful nation on earth at the time and supplant it with the capital of Christian Catholic religion?

There is no doubt the ideas in the bible were more powerful than Roman philosophy, especially after they were supercharged by classical hellenic re-framing.


An idea can be powerful without being correct just as an army can be powerful without being just.

 

[ZenMode]

NO...it is not. Not even close. Get over that thought, because it is as wrong as wrong can be.

What's the difference?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I've never personally experienced anything that would bring the concept of a deity to my mind.
If it weren't suggested to me, I'd have never thought of it.

By the same token, I acquired a sense of morality independent of the deity concept.
It's a matter of feeling social responsibility.

 

[Into the Night]

Seriously, don't debate a topic if you haven't read anything about it. Implicit atheism is a brand of atheism and the most logically robust.

And you are impressed by my intelligence because I know what the meaning of a word is? Wow. You are easily impressed.

There is no such thing as 'implicit atheism'. Buzzword fallacy.
Logic is not measured in strength.
Go learn what 'atheism' means.

 

[Into the Night]

You are so out of your depth on this one.

No, he is absolutely correct here.

Science relies on the concept of the "null hypothesis" when testing any given claim. It is a perfectly rational method for assessing the truth value of any claim.

Truth has no scale. It is not an objective value. Tests against any theory of science do not try to prove a theory is True.

You then gather evidence to test AGAINST the null. If you have sufficient evidence you are sure you are less likely to be making a Type I error (false positive) then you REJECT THE NULL hypothesis.

You cannot reject the null hypothesis. It will always exist for any theory of science.
It is not possible to prove a theory of science True.

So far insufficient evidence has been presented to reject the null hypothesis without having a high likelihood of a "false positive" result.

Math error. Failure to define boundary. Failure to define randX. Probabilities and random numbers are not a proof. It is not possible to prove a theory True. Go learn what 'null hypothesis' is.

It's the basis of how drugs are tested for efficacy, it's the basis of how any hypothesis is tested.

Drug testing is not testing a null hypothesis. A drug is not a theory of science. You cannot prove any theory True.

It's even the basis of the justice system in the US (you start with the Null of "not guilty" and then test against that. )

False equivalence fallacy. Attempted positive proof by negation fallacy (denial of the antecedent). A theory of science is not a 'state of innocence'.

Now, move along. Or learn more about the topic.

Go learn English. You are missing too many words.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't make the case Piers Morgan made.

I didn't make the God of the gaps argument Nike Tyson brought up.

Your YouTube video has nothing to do with me and the case I presented.

Niel also said he doesn't know what caused the universe, aka he is agnostic about it.

You are still locked in this paradox, Clanker.

 

[Into the Night]

Lol...of course it was. Questions you don't want to answer are always already answered.

BLNT

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Attempted justification of a repetition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Really? So hearsay is equal in quality to first person witnessing?

Oh, let me guess...RQAA.

Evidence does not have a 'quality'. Evidence is simply evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

You made, and have made, EXACTLY that argument. That which can't be explained by science is explained by a god.

That's quite literally your argument.

You are not using science. You reject theories of science routinely. Your belief in the Church of Global Warming is an example.

 

[Into the Night]

Glad you enjoyed it.


You tell me what the definition of atheism is..
.and then tell me to look up what implicit atheism is. C'mon.

My point is that when someone uses "atheist"...you have to ask other questions, because the word itself is a mess.

Redefinition fallacy (void<->atheism).

Under any circumstances...why not just say what you mean rather than use the word atheist.

Fact is, any atheist uses that word as a self-descriptor because he/she has made a guess that there are no gods. Most hide that fact, because they want to bloviate about being scientific and using evidence....and mocking the theists. But atheists are just like the theists...making guesses about the unknown.

Omniscience fallacy. Redefinition fallacy.

I have been discussing this topic for fifty years...and I understand it a lot better than you.

Courtiers's fallacy. The last time I saw an electrician say that, he caused a fire.

I read it very carefully. And I can show you definitions of atheism that are much different from the one you gave.

If you think you know the topic better or more thoroughly than I...you are mistaken.

But...be smug rather than actually discuss the subject. That is your best bet.

The definition of atheism has not changed. There is only one definition.

 

[Into the Night]

Neil deGrasse Tyson identifies as an agnostic...as did Einstein and Carl Sagan and (until a supposed conversion at the tme of death) did Stephen Hawking.

But there are atheists here who would suppose that they (the atheists) are smarter than those individuals.

Atheism is not a measure of intelligence or wisdom. It is simply atheism.

Illiteracy: Use of subjective as objective.

 

[ZenMode]

Evidence does not have a 'quality'. Evidence is simply evidence.

Really? So hearsay is equal in quality to first person witnessing?