Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[Thorne]

Since its so often the case that the correct approach is to study both possibilities, I don't see why in this particular case its wrong to study both possibilities calling one study Theology and the other study Science. Particularly since that is what eventually happened in the academic community.

No one said it was wrong to study theology. Only that it's wrong to declare your assumptions to be absolute truth just because you want them to be. If you wish to hypothesize a universe with gods, without providing any evidence for those gods, there's no reason you cannot do that. But why should you? If the universe works equally well with gods as without them, why complicate the issues?

[FirstBorn]

Up to 4 your argument makes sense. However once you have asserted by assumption an axiom is true, you can either show it false by contradiction, or you have a model of the universe in which its true, so within that model 5 is certainly wrong. 6 is true, however the same argument can be made about assuming gods don't exist.

7. is a reach that doesn't follow from 1 to 6 at all. It isn't even provably true, as how would you identify divine influence if it were happening in 100% of experiments.

Wery well as for 4. We can tell for absolute sure no deity described in religius writing will actually intervene in the cases where is says they will. That does not exclude the existence of deities. But they clearly arent the ones described in texts. Given that what we chose to work from in 1. is beond the scope of our experiments (or we would have some indication as to the truth of 1.) , what we have spent our time doing is just an expensive day in the lab proving no more or less.

Now lets have som fun with this logic of yours.

1. Assume there are gods, dragons and no sundays.
2. Do our models and theories of the universe still apply?
(well they do save for the testing of religius texts claiming youll be struck by lightning and calendars with sundays, but thats just crap that others belive)

3. Yes, they do, save for those tiny bits we took out answering 2.
4. Then there probably are gods, dragons and no sundays.
5. Is there evidence for gods? (clearly none whatsoever but none against either save for the bits about texts)
6. Gods, dragons and no sundays exist by assumption 1 so in this theory absolutely.
7. Then to the best of our knowledge there are gods, dragons and no sundays.

Now where you messed up badly was 6. "6. Gods exist by assumption 1 so in this theory absolutely."
You put out a theory and a powerpoint demonstration with irelevant graphs then shouted bad science at everyone who called your bluff.

Clearly if you had any intention of proving or disputing assumption 1. youd have done some experiments that would be affected by that assumption.

Since tests came up blank all you got is an assumption or really a hypothesis you cant prove atall. Now your by all meens welcome to keep beliving that your right in that hypothesis. But untill you come up with evidence or atleast results indicating that you could be right. Thats all you get to call it a hypothesis wich is by definition inferior to law and theory.

I will agree that given the infinity of the universe and a bunch of unanswered questions. An agnostic point of wiew would be reasonable. Compared to either side atleast. That is millitant atheism and religius fundamentalism.

However given the fun of messing with peoples minds and all that. Loud blasphemy and atheism offers by far the most fun.

[SadisticNature]

My argument was just a parroting of an argument done in the opposite direction, which also did no tests. I'm not saying its a good argument. In fact I argued in order for the assumption to have value, one of the models has to be contradictory.

I have no problem with calling it the god hypothesis. My argument here is that there is no good proof that god does not exist, and that its not irrational to choose to believe in god.

People are repeatedly claiming I posited that the existence of god is an absolute truth and that's outright hogwash. I've just posited they can't show that belief in god is irrational behavior and they find that offensive. Argue against the claim, don't try and move the goalposts to make the arguments work.

Lastly, why is it that people jump all over me for an exact duplication of someone elses argument in the reverse direction. You aren't doing science you're doing politics in the sense that if it supports your ideas it doesn't matter how bad the work is. I used that argument not because I think its correct, but to demonstrate that the originally posited argument was equally bad. Neither model does any testing.

As a technical point, gods could carry out certain effects in patterns that would appear to be natural laws. The sciences have no way of proving that false, it's just an unlikely explanation that has no predictive power.

Again, I mean more of relativity than just e=mc^2. What about time distortion of two objects moving away from each other each moving at a fraction below the speed of light, hence their relative velocity being greater than light speed? Now, the same problem for an object the size of a spaceship persay so one avoids the potential for complications due to fundamental breakdown (Examples we have are quantum scale and without a grand unifying theory its hard to understand the differences at a larger scale, but its certainly reasonable to predict the fundamental breakdown plays a signficant role).

Also I've never made an argument for a biblical god or a specific bit of mythology, you may have noticed an absence of religious quotes that run rampant in these debates. I mean god here in something close to Einstein's sense of the word. If you want to replace god by "dragons" or "the flying spaghetti monster" I'll make the same arguments.

I never talked about my assumptions being absolute truth, I talked about them being true within a model. This is by definition local truth. As mentioned before, you should read about formal logic and models before wildly misinterpreting my statements and misrepresenting my positions.

[Thorne]

I'm sorry about some delay in my responses. With the site being up and down today the delays have been unavoidable.

My argument was just a parroting of an argument done in the opposite direction, which also did no tests. I'm not saying its a good argument. In fact I argued in order for the assumption to have value, one of the models has to be contradictory.

I thought that my argument implied tests, i.e., the search for evidence of gods. Your argument not only did not imply tests, but equated assumptions with evidence, a definite difference.

I have no problem with calling it the god hypothesis. My argument here is that there is no good proof that god does not exist, and that its not irrational to choose to believe in god.

And it's my stance that the person(s) making an extraordinary claim, such as the existence of supernatural beings, is the one who must provide evidence for his claim.

People are repeatedly claiming I posited that the existence of god is an absolute truth and that's outright hogwash.

If I have I apologize. I'm too used to dealing with people who claim just that.

I've just posited they can't show that belief in god is irrational behavior and they find that offensive. Argue against the claim, don't try and move the goalposts to make the arguments work.

Then explain to me what is rational about believing in beings which cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be touched and do not appear to have any influence on the workings of the universe? Is believing in large, white, talking rabbits rational? What about leprechauns? Or fairies? None of these can be proven to NOT exist, but after thousands of years of searching there has not yet been any evidence for them.

Lastly, why is it that people jump all over me for an exact duplication of someone elses argument in the reverse direction. You aren't doing science you're doing politics in the sense that if it supports your ideas it doesn't matter how bad the work is. I used that argument not because I think its correct, but to demonstrate that the originally posited argument was equally bad. Neither model does any testing.

As I stated above, your model was not a reverse of mine. I implied a search for evidence (testing) while you did not.

As a technical point, gods could carry out certain effects in patterns that would appear to be natural laws. The sciences have no way of proving that false, it's just an unlikely explanation that has no predictive power.

As a technical point you are correct. But that is like saying that Zeus casts down lightning bolts from the heavens by rubbing clouds together to form electrical charges. It could be true, but it seems kind of silly to speculate so.

Again, I mean more of relativity than just e=mc^2. What about time distortion of two objects moving away from each other each moving at a fraction below the speed of light, hence their relative velocity being greater than light speed? Now, the same problem for an object the size of a spaceship persay so one avoids the potential for complications due to fundamental breakdown (Examples we have are quantum scale and without a grand unifying theory its hard to understand the differences at a larger scale, but its certainly reasonable to predict the fundamental breakdown plays a signficant role).

I haven't got the education to argue the merits of relativity but it's my understanding that test with atomic clocks and space vehicles traveling at fairly high speeds have verified much of the time distortion claims. And direct observation, as shown in that Asimov article I linked to, have also shown the validity of relativity.

I never talked about my assumptions being absolute truth, I talked about them being true within a model. This is by definition local truth. As mentioned before, you should read about formal logic and models before wildly misinterpreting my statements and misrepresenting my positions.

And all I'm saying is that your model was flawed, as noted above.

[Thorne]

I will agree that given the infinity of the universe and a bunch of unanswered questions. An agnostic point of wiew would be reasonable. Compared to either side atleast. That is millitant atheism and religius fundamentalism.

I agree, an agnostic point of view is reasonable. I choose an atheist point of view as a personal preference. I have not seen any compelling evidence of gods in general. Should such evidence be found I would be more than happy to re-evaluate my position. I'm not holding my breath, though.

[VaAugusta]

I was thinking about the effects God has on people. If believing in God can make a person try harder, or make them bolder, then God must exist. I mean in this in a very Platonic Theory of Forms kinda way.

[DuncanONeil]

I agree, an agnostic point of view is reasonable. I choose an atheist point of view as a personal preference. I have not seen any compelling evidence of gods in general. Should such evidence be found I would be more than happy to re-evaluate my position. I'm not holding my breath, though.

You find absolutely nothing in the world miraculous?

[DuncanONeil]

WTH is all that list supposed to mean? It goes in two directions at the same time!

Wery well as for 4. We can tell for absolute sure no deity described in religius writing will actually intervene in the cases where is says they will. That does not exclude the existence of deities. But they clearly arent the ones described in texts. Given that what we chose to work from in 1. is beond the scope of our experiments (or we would have some indication as to the truth of 1.) , what we have spent our time doing is just an expensive day in the lab proving no more or less.

Now lets have som fun with this logic of yours.

1. Assume there are gods, dragons and no sundays.
2. Do our models and theories of the universe still apply?
(well they do save for the testing of religius texts claiming youll be struck by lightning and calendars with sundays, but thats just crap that others belive)

3. Yes, they do, save for those tiny bits we took out answering 2.
4. Then there probably are gods, dragons and no sundays.
5. Is there evidence for gods? (clearly none whatsoever but none against either save for the bits about texts)
6. Gods, dragons and no sundays exist by assumption 1 so in this theory absolutely.
7. Then to the best of our knowledge there are gods, dragons and no sundays.

Now where you messed up badly was 6. "6. Gods exist by assumption 1 so in this theory absolutely."
You put out a theory and a powerpoint demonstration with irelevant graphs then shouted bad science at everyone who called your bluff.

Clearly if you had any intention of proving or disputing assumption 1. youd have done some experiments that would be affected by that assumption.

Since tests came up blank all you got is an assumption or really a hypothesis you cant prove atall. Now your by all meens welcome to keep beliving that your right in that hypothesis. But untill you come up with evidence or atleast results indicating that you could be right. Thats all you get to call it a hypothesis wich is by definition inferior to law and theory.

I will agree that given the infinity of the universe and a bunch of unanswered questions. An agnostic point of wiew would be reasonable. Compared to either side atleast. That is millitant atheism and religius fundamentalism.

However given the fun of messing with peoples minds and all that. Loud blasphemy and atheism offers by far the most fun.

[DuncanONeil]

Wery well as for 4. We can tell for absolute sure no deity described in religius writing will actually intervene in the cases where is says they will.

An upright God-fearing man is suffering the effects of a flood. Sitting on his porch an SUV comes along and offers to take him out, he refuses. Sitting on the roof of his porch a canoe comes along offering to take him out, he refuses. Waiting patiently on his roof a helicopter approaches to aid him, he refuses.
The man drowns! In his afterlife he complains that all his years of faith and works went for naught as his God did not provide succor for him. His God replies; "Did not provide!!" "I sent you an SUV, a canoe, and a helicopter, what more did you want!?"

[DuncanONeil]

No one said it was wrong to study theology. Only that it's wrong to declare your assumptions to be absolute truth just because you want them to be. If you wish to hypothesize a universe with gods, without providing any evidence for those gods, there's no reason you cannot do that. But why should you? If the universe works equally well with gods as without them, why complicate the issues?

Proof in the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause ... that which can be called a creator.

[Thorne]

Proof in the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause ... that which can be called a creator.

And what caused the creator?

[DuncanONeil]

Logic of cause and effect demands that there is a first effect. That effect by definition is best described as the infinite. Which also by definition we can not understand.

All that aside the "proof" stands by itself. Or should I present the other four?

And what caused the creator?

[Thorne]

Logic of cause and effect demands that there is a first effect. That effect by definition is best described as the infinite. Which also by definition we can not understand.

All that aside the "proof" stands by itself. Or should I present the other four?

I don't know what you mean. But if men can contemplate an infinite creator, why can they not contemplate an infinite universe? Just because we cannot understand it, does not make it impossible.

[SadisticNature]

Proof in the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause ... that which can be called a creator.

Why must time have a beginning and an end, its certainly possible that time is cyclical and thus a chain of causes could in fact be a cycle with no end or beginning.

[Wiscoman]

Why must time have a beginning and an end...

As far as I know, the idea of cyclical time is entirely religious. There's no evidence for it. Think about it; it would require that every change ever made to the universe, every layer of paint on your wall, be undone -- i.e., order out entropy.

[DuncanONeil]

Why must time have a beginning and an end, its certainly possible that time is cyclical and thus a chain of causes could in fact be a cycle with no end or beginning.

That would result in the final effect being the first cause. Hence an effect and cause at the same time. Or put another way the Alpha and Omega. Being the Alpha and Omega at the same time equates to being God. QED!

Or to put it another way it is logically inconsistent for an effect to create its own cause.