Atheism is not scientific

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, in some cases you can prove a negative, such as saying "There is no gun in that drawer". Open the drawer and look. If it's not there, you proved the negative claim.

I'm glad you finally agree with me: many negatives can be proven.

But everyone knows what a gun is. So that's easy. When someone says God does not exist, and science proves it, which is what I was objecting to that was directly claimed by someone here, that's not comparable at all. You cannot say science disproves God, when you don't first scientifically define what God even is.

Who says that?

And defining God is a pretty simple matter... or rather, it's a simple matter if the theist is cooperative. If someone believes that God exists, then they have a concept - which they call God - that they can describe.

I'm saying science doesn't make absolutist statements. The best they can legitimately say is, "Based upon what we have a descriptions of manticores, we have not seen any evidence of their existence to date." That's open ended, and accurate. To say, "Science proves they never existed", is not scientific. It's absolutist, and a non-scientific opinion.

So if that statement were rephrased as something like "the odds of God existing are 0%, +/-X% at a 95% confidence interval," you wouldn't have a problem with it?

To be accurate, we should say, "I don't believe they are real", and leave it at that.

I think a fairer way to put it is "based on what we currently know, we can find no way that gods could even be possible, and every conceivable measurement is entirely consistent with the premise that no gods exist, within the precision of those measurements."

To drag science into that, is like the true believer abusing the bible saying, "It's not my words, but God's! The Bible proves I'm right!" It's really the same thing.

It's not, but if it makes you feel better to think that it is the same, you go right ahead.

If there was multiple sources, then that would not be "the source of all that is". That would be "sources". So no. Only one, which is all that is. But we do need to be careful with language here, as when we attempt to speak of God, we're not going to be able to use dualistic language, and have it be accurate. God is both the one and the many, for instance. It's paradoxical. Science doesn't deal with nonduality. It's a disciple that using duality, subject/object divisions of reality to do its thing. Hence why I balk at anyone claiming science proves anything at all regarding God.

It seems that we're talking past each other again.

It seems obvious that you don't accept any and every conceivable "source of all that is" as your God. Your reaction to the FSM - a source of all that is that looks like spaghetti and meatballs - demonstrated that.

Can you be specific about the Absolute? Can you define infinity? Where is the beginning of a Mobius strip, for instance? Can you be specific and point to one spot and say, here? Or would that just be arbitrary for the sake of being able to conceive mentality about something that cannot be defined concretely?

You can be specific about your own beliefs.

You say that you believe in God; well, if you actually hold a belief in something, you should be able to tell us about whatever it is you believe in. It's a concept residing entirely in your head and you seem perfectly capable of expressing your thoughts, so if you can't describe the God you say you believe in in detail, I may not accept that your concept is fleshed out enough to qualify as an actual belief.

That's kind of my whole point. Science cannot be specific about what God even is, let alone be qualified as the arbitrary of truth regarding its existence or not. To say "Science proves God doesn't exist", is absurd. Hence I asked which scientists say this, where is their study, and who peer reviewed it?

Do you think that there has to be a specific, published peer-reviewed study about something for someone with a scientific worldview to treat it as not real?

If FSM is the Source of All That IS, then why does it look like a plate of spaghetti?

I don't know, but inherent in the concept of the FSM is the idea that it is the source of all that is.

... so when you look at the FSM, do you say "yes, that's what I call 'God'"? If not, then you have more specifics about your God than you've given us so far.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would you want empirical evidence for a God?

I can tell you why, so that we can avoid false beliefs. There are many religions with many Gods and they all appear to have the same amount of hard evidence. That being none. How is one to find the right version of God if one exists?

The Biblical prophecies aren't all vague, some are quite precise.

Yes, and those tend to fail the worst. The Tyre prophecy, The prophecy of Jesus that he would be back when some of his disciples were still alive.

That sounds as close to proof as we could get without having proof.
But at least you don't want proof.

Some of us realize that "proof" is a mathematical concept. Though like most words It does have more than one meaning. Some take any evidence as "proof" which is why if they believe to the contrary that they have to deny clear evidence. But as a formal proof that there is or isn't a God, I do not think that there will ever be one.

 

[Valjean]

Why would you want empirical evidence for a God?

It would be pretty silly to believe in something without evidence, no? I don't believe in dragons, unicorns or Cthulu, either.

The Biblical prophecies aren't all vague, some are quite precise.

E.g:

That sounds as close to proof as we could get without having proof.
But at least you don't want proof.

That would be asking for the impossible. Proof exists in mathematics, not in scientific facts. Spherical Earth? Germs cause disease? Earth orbits Sun ? All strongly evidenced enough to be scientific facts, none prooved.

 

[Windwalker]

And defining God is a pretty simple matter... or rather, it's a simple matter if the theist is cooperative.

Why do you assume it's a simple matter? Who have you talked to that says that?

You're asking to define the ineffable. And since that can't be done, then no atheist should be able to say that "science disproves God". Can science disprove that some things are beyond description or defining? Isn't the question really here, is God even a question for science?

If someone believes that God exists, then they have a concept - which they call God - that they can describe.

I have different concepts of God depending up which set of eyes I'm trying to see with the mind through. But I don't mistake concepts as actual definitions of God. They are matters of convenience, not matters of fact. A literalist might mistake them as facts, but then disproving those are facts, isn't really disproving God is it? Rather, it's showing that they shouldn't think about them literally so much, as they are bound to fall apart. There is a difference between God, and ideas of God.

So if that statement were rephrased as something like "the odds of God existing are 0%, +/-X% at a 95% confidence interval," you wouldn't have a problem with it?

Yes I would, if it were a scientist claiming that's a scientific statement. I start by asking him what he considers God, and then ask him if he honestly thinks a statement like that is a scientific statement, and not a religious one.

I think a fairer way to put it is "based on what we currently know, we can find no way that gods could even be possible, and every conceivable measurement is entirely consistent with the premise that no gods exist, within the precision of those measurements."

I would consider such a statement absurd. Such assurety about something that they have no clear definition to begin with. Sounds to me like they have a pretty solid idea of what God is in their own minds, which happens to look a like like what you find in a fundamentalist Sunday school lesson. A careful scientist would ask if ideas of God are limited to that or not.

It's not, but if it makes you feel better to think that it is the same, you go right ahead.

If it makes you feel better that it's different, then you go right ahead. But it isn't different. It's the same thing. God said it, is chronically replaced by "Science says it" by those who are shaking off the garbs of religion once they see that metaphors aren't actually facts. It's fairly commonplace, and understandable.

I may have shared this before, but quick story about my friend from Bible college days. After he and I had both left the faith and saw ourselves as atheists, he said to me over lunch. "I'm so glad I have the truth now." I chuckled and said, "I remember you and I saying that when were were true believers back in school". He paused, and replied, "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth". You see? You may take the boy out of the country, but it takes a long time to take the country out of the boy.

It seems obvious that you don't accept any and every conceivable "source of all that is" as your God. Your reaction to the FSM - a source of all that is that looks like spaghetti and meatballs - demonstrated that.

My saying that FSM is a plate of spaghetti, is to say it can't be the Source, as it's a thing. It's noodles and sauce with meatballs. Those are all very clearly definable. But "The Tao that can be named, is not the eternal Tao", says the Tao De Ching. So apply that to the absurdity of saying that science can disprove God. If you can name it, it isn't God. They have only proven that what they thought was God, is not God.

You can be specific about your own beliefs.

They're all relative. They are all conditional. But we were talking about how no one can talk about the Absolute and it be considered non-contradictory. That's why "defining God" is impossible. Me being specific with my beliefs about the absolute, is really not possible. They are impressions, images, glimpses, and can be expressed in metaphors but not detailed maps.

You say that you believe in God; well, if you actually hold a belief in something, you should be able to tell us about whatever it is you believe in. It's a concept residing entirely in your head and you seem perfectly capable of expressing your thoughts, so if you can't describe the God you say you believe in in detail, I may not accept that your concept is fleshed out enough to qualify as an actual belief.

Fair enough. What I perceive of and experience of God, is beyond beliefs. Yes. God is beyond beliefs. To try to capture God into a belief and say that is God, is the naming of the Tao. And as we have heard, "The Tao that can be named, is not the eternal Tao".

But my thoughts I do have are plenty to be sure. I just don't mistake the nature of thoughts and ideas, with actualities. When someone only has beliefs, then their beliefs are for all intents and purposes the reality of God to them. Hence why when science contradicts ones of their ideas, they imagine it can destroy God for them, and does for many who become atheists once they realize Noah's Ark couldn't possibly have actually happened, therefore God is not real anymore to them. The mistook their beliefs about God, as God.

Do you think that there has to be a specific, published peer-reviewed study about something for someone with a scientific worldview to treat it as not real?

A scientific worldview? What does that mean? I know what science is, but I've never heard it as a "worldview" before. You mean a rational worldview? A lot of theists are rationalists and scientists too, if you are unaware.

What I was asking for a peer reviewed article, is to back up the statement that "science disproves God". That means, it followed science and it's methods to make that determination. Where is the work? Has anyone reviewed their data and findings? Of course I know no such study has ever been done, and if it were, it would be considered pseudoscience.

 

[Brian2]

I can tell you why, so that we can avoid false beliefs. There are many religions with many Gods and they all appear to have the same amount of hard evidence. That being none. How is one to find the right version of God if one exists?

Hard evidence is hard to find. The Bible has plenty of soft evidence, more than most imo.

Yes, and those tend to fail the worst. The Tyre prophecy, The prophecy of Jesus that he would be back when some of his disciples were still alive.

The Tyre prophecy did not fail and Jesus did not say He would come back while His disciples were still alive.

Some of us realize that "proof" is a mathematical concept. Though like most words It does have more than one meaning. Some take any evidence as "proof" which is why if they believe to the contrary that they have to deny clear evidence. But as a formal proof that there is or isn't a God, I do not think that there will ever be one.

Even mathematics cannot give proof of what has happened in the past.
If someone does not want to find God or believe in God then I don't think God is going to force Himself on you. I could be wrong however, plenty of people have suddenly seen the light with no effort on their part.
But even then I imagine there is a choice to make.

 

[Brian2]

It would be pretty silly to believe in something without evidence, no? I don't believe in dragons, unicorns or Cthulu, either.

It would be silly to not believe in something with evidence.

E.g:

Isa 45:1-13 is a good prophecy about Cyrus who came and conquered Babylon and set Israel free to return home.

That would be asking for the impossible. Proof exists in mathematics, not in scientific facts. Spherical Earth? Germs cause disease? Earth orbits Sun ? All strongly evidenced enough to be scientific facts, none prooved.

Even mathematics does not provide proof of what has happened in the past. That belief is up to the individual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hard evidence is hard to find. The Bible has plenty of soft evidence, more than most imo.

Your opinion is only because you are a Christian. That tends to affect one's point of view. Muslims feel the same about the Quran. Hindus about the Vedas.

The Tyre prophecy did not fail and Jesus did not say He would come back while His disciples were still alive.

I disagree on both counts. Tyre is still there. The specific person that was supposed to be defeated was not. And Jesus's failure to return is seen by many Christians as a very troubling error in the Bible. There is even a thread about that failure still active today, though it left the subject of the OP a long time ago. The best that Christians can do is to claim that the transfiguration was a fulfillment of that prophecy, but it does not meat context.

Even mathematics cannot give proof of what has happened in the past.
If someone does not want to find God or believe in God then I don't think God is going to force Himself on you. I could be wrong however, plenty of people have suddenly seen the light with no effort on their part.
But even then I imagine there is a choice to make.

Please do not conflate proof and evidence. There can be reliable evidence about all sorts of things. There are also different definitions of "proof". All that unbelievers ask for is at least some reliable evidence. Provide some reliable evidence and people will change their minds.

 

[ecco]

Theism could potentially be proven, not atheism.

Religious folk sure do like to use the word "prove". No one has ever proved god, any god, ever.

About the only discipline where proofs are used is mathematics. And even there it's often ambiguous and unnecessary.

Two apples plus two monkeys do not equal four applemonkeys. No one will probably ever prove that Pi is an endless string of non-repetitive sequences. So what. However, there is ample evidence that when used in a proper context two plus two does equal four. There is ample evidence that Pi to five decimals is enough to give an accurate circumference for most of everything the layman ever does.

It can't be proven that we are nothing more than a simulation or that a god didn't create everything Last Thursday. Again, so what.

We go by evidence; usually a preponderance of evidence. There is a preponderance of evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings. Nothing more.

 

[Ostronomos]

Religious folk sure do like to use the word "prove". No one has ever proved god, any god, ever.

One may not be able to prove God but we sure as hell can establish the foundations of what can be called a metaphysical science!

]About the only discipline where proofs are used is mathematics. And even there it's often ambiguous and unnecessary.

The very existence of mathematics in reality as a complementary abstraction of the material physical world is proof that we are more than just monkeys with a body, we are higher consciousness which is far more real than the body and what you see around you. The reason you are so ignorant of the fact that consciousness and the heavens are the ultimate reality is because you have not explored that area of science, few have, and I'm one of them.

We go by evidence; usually a preponderance of evidence. There is a preponderance of evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings. Nothing more.

Thank you for displaying your primitive science and ignorance for all to see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One may not be able to prove God but we sure as hell can establish the foundations of what can be called a metaphysical science!



The very existence of mathematics in reality as a complementary abstraction of the material physical world is proof that we are more than just monkeys with a body, we are higher consciousness which is far more real than the body and what you see around you. The reason you are so ignorant of the fact that consciousness and the heavens are the ultimate reality is because you have not explored that area of science, few have, and I'm one of them.



Thank you for displaying your primitive science and ignorance for all to see.

Instead of insulting those that disagree with you don't you think that it might be a better idea if you support your beliefs? If all you have is personal attacks and hand waving arguments that supports those that oppose you.

 

[ecco]

One may not be able to prove God but we sure as hell can establish the foundations of what can be called a metaphysical science!

We can, can we? How about you give it a start. And, please, no links to abstract articles. Your own words from your own knowledge.

 

[ecco]

The very existence of mathematics in reality as a complementary abstraction of the material physical world is proof that we are more than just monkeys with a body, we are higher consciousness which is far more real than the body and what you see around you.

We are more "intelligent" than monkeys. I will give you that based on science and observation.

However, you need more than your opinion when you start going into the realms of higher consciousness. Do you have anything to support such seeming nonsense?

The reason you are so ignorant of the fact that consciousness and the heavens are the ultimate reality is because you have not explored that area of science, few have, and I'm one of them.

Well, golly gee Mr. O. I guess we need to take your word for your superior intellect and knowledge.

Nah. I'll just chalk it up to another wooster who believes wants us to believe he has special knowledge that the rest of us can't comprehend

Thank you for displaying your primitive science and ignorance for all to see.

Uh huh.

 

[Brian2]

Your opinion is only because you are a Christian. That tends to affect one's point of view. Muslims feel the same about the Quran. Hindus about the Vedas.

I tend to see it as an objective reality that the Bible and Christianity has more evidence than other religions.

I disagree on both counts. Tyre is still there. The specific person that was supposed to be defeated was not. And Jesus's failure to return is seen by many Christians as a very troubling error in the Bible. There is even a thread about that failure still active today, though it left the subject of the OP a long time ago. The best that Christians can do is to claim that the transfiguration was a fulfillment of that prophecy, but it does not meat context.

The mainland city of Tyre was destroyed the way predicted and has not been rebuilt and Tyre has never been the same trading giant as it was.
If you think that Jesus was to come back while some people in Jesus day were still alive then I guess that means that you consider the gospels to have been written in the first century when the apostles were still alive.
Jesus said in other places that He did not know when He would be returning so it would be a contradiction to think that He also said that He knew when it would be.

Please do not conflate proof and evidence. There can be reliable evidence about all sorts of things. There are also different definitions of "proof". All that unbelievers ask for is at least some reliable evidence. Provide some reliable evidence and people will change their minds.

The Bible certainly has shown itself to be reliable imo

 

[ecco]

I tend to see it as an objective reality that the Bible and Christianity has more evidence than other religions.

What evidence?
Things like...

• A completely discredited story of a worldwide flood?
• A word-for-word transcription of the 3000 word Sermon on the Mount recorded by an anonymous individual who could not have been an eyewitness?

 

[Valjean]

I tend to see it as an objective reality that the Bible and Christianity has more evidence than other religions.

It's certainly been shown to have more contradictions, errors, unevidenced reports, editing, deletions, and addenda than most other scriptures. In light of these, what evidence are you referring to?

The mainland city of Tyre was destroyed the way predicted and has not been rebuilt and Tyre has never been the same trading giant as it was.
If you think that Jesus was to come back while some people in Jesus day were still alive then I guess that means that you consider the gospels to have been written in the first century when the apostles were still alive.
Jesus said in other places that He did not know when He would be returning so it would be a contradiction to think that He also said that He knew when it would be.

True, the gospels were written a generation or more after Jesus' time, but they reported that, while he lived, he'd predicted an early return -- or do you discount this story?

The Bible certainly has shown itself to be reliable imo

You haven't read it carefully, then. See my post above.

Are you not aware of these problems?

 

[Brian2]

What evidence?
Things like...

• A completely discredited story of a worldwide flood?
• A word-for-word transcription of the 3000 word Sermon on the Mount recorded by an anonymous individual who could not have been an eyewitness?

The flood story has not been discredited. Haven't you heard of the many cultures that have similar stories in their traditions.
There is also the Gilgamesh story, older than the Bible account and imo shows the truth of the flood (if of course you see religions as evolving from other religions that it might show that the Bible account was copied,,,,,,,,,,,,,but it does not account for the other stories all over the world)
Science has found that a very large flood did occur in the area at around the end of the last ice age.
That helps me to understand what the Bible was talking about,,,,,,,a very large flood in the area. And the same has been found to have happened all over the world at the end of the ice age.
This could have done what God wanted, destroy the earth of the day.
The sea levels were low, people would have been living at very low altitudes because of that and most people would have been concentrated into the warmer parts of the earth.
Interestingly the Bible can be legitimately translated to read that all the high "hills" were covered and that the flood covered the whole "land".
So I end up even being a literalist and still showing the flood has not been discredited.
Why do you think that Matthew could not have been an eye witness? Matthew's gospel was never doubted to have been authentic by the early church and to be apostolic.
The gospels are history but not necessarily as we know it today.
They do not necessarily give a step by step account of what happened. Actually Matthew groups his teaching material into sections and his action material into other sections. The writers have different styles like that.
The sermon could have happened as he says it did or could be a collection of teachings grouped together into one sermon.
Jesus did promise that the Holy Spirit would remind the disciples what Jesus had said to them and Matthew did not necessarily remember it all anyway, he could have collected it all from others.
If you think that Matthew must have been written after the destruction of the temple in 70AD then you have the same assumption that the sceptical modern historians have, the ones that deny the possibility of prophecy and so say the prophecy must have been written after the event. That is where the late dating of gospels has come from.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Atheism, is based on ignorance or a lack of knowledge of reality.

As I am 100% aware of the reality of a universal consciousness I seek ways of translating the explanation to the layman. However, as my intelligence is limited while in my normal state I cannot perceive a universal explanation that can reach each and every one of you.

Thank you.

Atheism is based only on the lack of a belief in a God. It is theists who make Atheism into something else

 

[Subduction Zone]

I tend to see it as an objective reality that the Bible and Christianity has more evidence than other religions.



The mainland city of Tyre was destroyed the way predicted and has not been rebuilt and Tyre has never been the same trading giant as it was.
If you think that Jesus was to come back while some people in Jesus day were still alive then I guess that means that you consider the gospels to have been written in the first century when the apostles were still alive.
Jesus said in other places that He did not know when He would be returning so it would be a contradiction to think that He also said that He knew when it would be.



The Bible certainly has shown itself to be reliable imo

Tyre is and was the island. It was never breached by Nebuchadnezzar. Its etymology, its history, and even the Bible refer to the island. Its "settlements" were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, but that was a standard defense tactic of Tyre. It is hard to get an accurate history on the internet due to endless apologetics. But its history can still be found. That was a doubly failed prophecy. After even Ezekiel admitted his failure he predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Egypt. That did not happen either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flood story has not been discredited. Haven't you heard of the many cultures that have similar stories in their traditions.
There is also the Gilgamesh story, older than the Bible account and imo shows the truth of the flood (if of course you see religions as evolving from other religions that it might show that the Bible account was copied,,,,,,,,,,,,,but it does not account for the other stories all over the world)
Science has found that a very large flood did occur in the area at around the end of the last ice age.
That helps me to understand what the Bible was talking about,,,,,,,a very large flood in the area. And the same has been found to have happened all over the world at the end of the ice age.
This could have done what God wanted, destroy the earth of the day.
The sea levels were low, people would have been living at very low altitudes because of that and most people would have been concentrated into the warmer parts of the earth.
Interestingly the Bible can be legitimately translated to read that all the high "hills" were covered and that the flood covered the whole "land".
So I end up even being a literalist and still showing the flood has not been discredited.
Why do you think that Matthew could not have been an eye witness? Matthew's gospel was never doubted to have been authentic by the early church and to be apostolic.
The gospels are history but not necessarily as we know it today.
They do not necessarily give a step by step account of what happened. Actually Matthew groups his teaching material into sections and his action material into other sections. The writers have different styles like that.
The sermon could have happened as he says it did or could be a collection of teachings grouped together into one sermon.
Jesus did promise that the Holy Spirit would remind the disciples what Jesus had said to them and Matthew did not necessarily remember it all anyway, he could have collected it all from others.
If you think that Matthew must have been written after the destruction of the temple in 70AD then you have the same assumption that the sceptical modern historians have, the ones that deny the possibility of prophecy and so say the prophecy must have been written after the event. That is where the late dating of gospels has come from.

The flood myth is a total failure. The local flood that you are thinking of was not at the end of the ice age. This is probably the flood that you are thinking of:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education Noah%27s Flood May Have Happened%2C But Not,kind of all land animals on the earth.

That was about 2,900 BCE. Yes there have been many local floods since the ice age, but that was about 11,700 years ago. Not just 5,000 years. Over any long period of time large local floods occurred. None of them were close to the Bible story.

When one is willing to grossly reinterpret one's own book, but won't reinterpret the works of others, of course one's own work will appear to be more reliable. But if one applies the same standards equally no one work stands out.

 

[Brian2]

Tyre is and was the island. It was never breached by Nebuchadnezzar. Its etymology, its history, and even the Bible refer to the island. Its "settlements" were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, but that was a standard defense tactic of Tyre. It is hard to get an accurate history on the internet due to endless apologetics. But its history can still be found. That was a doubly failed prophecy. After even Ezekiel admitted his failure he predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Egypt. That did not happen either.

It seems the mainland part of Tyre was entered by Nebuchadnezzar but all the plunder was by then on the island part.
Ezekiel 26:1-14: A Proof Text For Inerrancy of Old Testament - Associates for Biblical Research.
Ezekiel did not admit failure. The failure is in those who misread the prophecies and what Ezekiel was saying.
After the failure to gain loot at Tyre, Nebchadnezzar did get loot from Egypt but did not defeat it completely until years later.
Nebuchadnezzar II failure to conquer Egypt