Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science find explanations for the world around us based on repeatable evidence. The gradual replacement of explanations for things once explained by god, now explained by science, is incidental.
The fact that scientific explanation is replacing Biblical explanation for things happening in the world is proof positive this Christian god had nothing to do with writing the Bible because this god would have been just as ignorant about how the earth's natural laws operated as the ignorant goat herders who wrote the Bible.
What we say is that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove god exists. That's not the same.
Well we live in a universe rather fine tuned for life. If even minor differences in the constants we are aware of were different, we wouldn't be here. The multiverse could explain that chance would dictate of the many universes that failed to produce the conditions for life, you get one's that do, but Science can't prove the existence of the multiverse either. We don't have a unified theory of everything and Scientists are quietly giving up that we ever will.
My point is we don't have cosmological evidence for a lot of things regarding origins, so lack of scientific evidence for a god to explain our existence isn't the only lacking to explain our existence.
I think it depends on the starting points. If a person starts off saying God caused "A", somebody may argue back with scientific explanations. Then the believer will still be able to say "we don't know".
But if the conversation started off with "A" caused "B", which is a common conversation every day, chances are that God won't be brought up and nobody has to say "we don't know". So why is God brought up then? My guess is that it is an attempt to connect evidence to God in order to persuade oneself and others. That may be a sign that belief is not as easy to do without evidence.
I am not convinced it is an attempt to connect evidence to any gods, that to me would be a conscious rationalization. I think many religious people simply believe for various reasons, and make a subconscious connection, just as many atheists simply do not believe in gods based on their subconscious knowledge.
I don't think they do, honestly. There's a disturbing undercurrent of theists trying to attack science that doesn't match with their belief system, and science-backers (some of whom are atheists) will of course point out the flaws in that thinking. But atheism is just a position of faith, and science doesn't come into play at all.
Well we live in a universe rather fine tuned for life. If even minor differences in the constants we are aware of were different, we wouldn't be here.
As most of the universe can not support life, it is hardly fine tuned for life. For a long, sustainable existence, yes, which may be all that is required for life to develop. If the parameters were different, life may still be possible, it would just be different to life as we know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
The multiverse could explain that chance would dictate of the many universes that failed to produce the conditions for life, you get one's that do, but Science can't prove the existence of the multiverse either.
1) We do not need to prove a multiverse, there are several godless theories based on actual evidence that lead to a multiverse scenario.
2) Why rely on science, observation tells us things come in multiples?
3) Why should there only be one universe?
4) The fine tuning argument is an argument against a complex god, which must also be fine tuned. You can not argue a single fine tuned universe is improbable but then pretend this problem does not apply to a god. If the parameters are unlikely by chance, then a god just knowing these parameters is also unlikely.
5) All arguments to get around the problems in point 4 are assertions that we have no evidence for, such as god being intelligent but not complex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
My point is we don't have cosmological evidence for a lot of things regarding origins, so lack of scientific evidence for a god to explain our existence isn't the only lacking to explain our existence.
But science points to an alternative that explains things without invoking an intelligence. There could be an intelligence behind it, but one is not required. We do not need to invoke a god to explain why if one jumps from a cliff, they will end up a * at the bottom of it.
An intelligence behind it all is an extra requirement, and to argue a god did it, one must provide evidence for that claim, and it must explain things better than that of opposing theories.
I don't think they do, honestly. There's a disturbing undercurrent of theists trying to attack science that doesn't match with their belief system, and science-backers (some of whom are atheists) will of course point out the flaws in that thinking. But atheism is just a position of faith, and science doesn't come into play at all.
For many, atheism is simply not believing. But when one starts looking at the evidence for atheism, then science can play a role.
For many, atheism is simply not believing. But when one starts looking at the evidence for atheism, then science can play a role.
Why is it so many people somehow discount conclusions that can be properly drawn when there is a LACK of evidence? Lack of evidence is in many ways just as "telling" as when there is evidence. To prove and/or disprove claims of any sort.
I don't think they do, honestly. There's a disturbing undercurrent of theists trying to attack science that doesn't match with their belief system, and science-backers (some of whom are atheists) will of course point out the flaws in that thinking. But atheism is just a position of faith, and science doesn't come into play at all.
Atheism is NOT a position of faith.
It is a position of ... no faith.
After all, the most cogent definition of faith is: Believing in something for no good reason.
That may not be the dictionary defintion - but it is no less true. While believers will often claim they have a good reason to have faith in a god - the fact that they need faith to begin with already shows the flaws in their rationale.
As such, atheists do not disbelieve for no good reason. As such, atheism is not a position of faith.
I have written literally ... what ... some 6,000 posts on this forum since I joined it and MOST of them offer up very tangible reasons why I do not believe and thus why I do not put "faith" in the existence of a god.
Faith is never a good way to arrive at an answer - because you can have faith in literally anything. One of the annoyances of faith is that you don't need any evidence to have it. Atheists, on the other hand, who usually place their trust in science, logic, and often common sense - DO need evidence. And I've supplied some 6,000 posts worth of it.
Thus, again, why atheism is not a faith-based position. Now, for any atheist who claims outright that there are no gods, then perhaps that could be construed as faith-based.
But very few atheists adopt that position. Rather, most of us say: There is no convincing or satisfactory or scientifically proven evidence for the existence of a god so why waste our lives believing in one?
The lack of scientifically proven evidence is, in fact, a reality - it is not based on faith.
4) The fine tuning argument is an argument against a complex god, which must also be fine tuned. You can not argue a single fine tuned universe is improbable but then pretend this problem does not apply to a god. If the parameters are unlikely by chance, then a god just knowing these parameters is also unlikely.
The "fine tuning" argument actually works against there being a god.
Because - think about it ---
Look at all the different variables that had to be met in order for our specific form of life to exist in the universe. There are dozens of them. Perhaps hundreds.
As a result, why would an all-powerful god who supposedly created the physical laws of the universe to begin with need to jump through so many hoops in order to place his wonderful creation on planet earth in this particular universe?
It sounds suspiciously like god is playing by someone else's rules. It's as if Yahweh - or whatever creator god one happens to believe in - is trying desperately to circumvent someone else's physical rules in order for humans to exist. Because why would he have to bend over backwards to overcome his own rules? That makes about as much sense as an adult in a Peanuts cartoon - if you know what I mean.
A comparison I've made in the past is - it seems as if Yahweh was taking his final exam at god school and in order to graduate, he had to figure out how to create a universe within a certain set of parameters that would allow the existence of a bipedal, humanoid, sentient, free-willed, language-capable creature.
Soooo let's see ... the planet must be this size with a certain type of atmosphere and with liquid water - oops, no, the atmospheric pressure was too much in that one - let's start over ... wait, no, too many predators in that scenario. Let's try one where humans figure out fire early on - yeah - so far it's working! Oh, crap. Damn comets. Forgot about them. Okay, how about if I put a gas giant 5 planets out from the sun to catch most of the comets - aha - it works ... now they should have a chance. No! No! They all died out due to wild and rapid climate changes! Crap ... ummm ... I know! I'll put a big moon in orbit to stabilize earth's rotation! Why didn't I think of that before? (and on and on it goes).
I should perhaps have said a position "on faith", I think. Or "as regards faith".
It's mostly to keep it apart from agnosticism, which - as far as I'm concerned - is a position on knowledge. Essentially, is the question as to whether a Supreme being exists answerable in the first place? Not by scientific means, clearly.
Quote:
Thus, again, why atheism is not a faith-based position. Now, for any atheist who claims outright that there are no gods, then perhaps that could be construed as faith-based.
But very few atheists adopt that position. Rather, most of us say: There is no convincing or satisfactory or scientifically proven evidence for the existence of a god so why waste our lives believing in one?
It seems to me that the first sentence describes atheism ("I don't have faith") and the second is more agnostic - "The lack of evidence means I have no knowledge of a god". If you'll pardon me for interpreting your words. I don't think we disagree at all. No evidence means no faith, for some of us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
