Athiesm and disproving God

[Underhill]

Lemaitre's was the only cosmonogical theory that was both testable and validated, the one that the overwhelming majority of atheist academia rejected explicitly for it's biblical implications

that's almost word for word how many atheists described Lemaitre's theory

'pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator'-- 'for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms'

This was far more about shoe-horning academically fashionable atheist beliefs into science, the theistic ones got there in the end the hard way; through scientific method.

"The bible says it. Let's look for evidence to back it up." That is not science. It's fill in the blank.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"The bible says it. Let's look for evidence to back it up." That is not science. It's fill in the blank.

clearly not, because again it was Lemaitre who went to great lengths to dissociate the theory from any religious implication-
and in contrast it was atheists like Hoyle who by their own admission preferred theories that supported their atheist preconceptions

a clear case of science v atheism

 

[Underhill]

clearly not, because again it was Lemaitre who went to great lengths to dissociate the theory from any religious implication-
and in contrast it was atheists like Hoyle who by their own admission preferred theories that supported their atheist preconceptions

a clear case of science v atheism

No, it is a clear case of a scientist or group of scientist versus a theory they didn't like. That is not the same thing at all.

If you want to argue that scientist are imperfect I would agree wholeheartedly. But using their humanity as a case against science is silly.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it is a clear case of a scientist or group of scientist versus a theory they didn't like. That is not the same thing at all.

If you want to argue that scientist are imperfect I would agree wholeheartedly. But using their humanity as a case against science is silly.

yes, they didn't like it because it didn't fit their atheist beliefs, if you don't think so- you would have had to argue the point with them, they were very explicit about it. The very idea of a creation event was considered an argument against atheism.

It shouldn't matter what belief a theory fits should it?

 

[Underhill]

yes, they didn't like it because it didn't fit their atheist beliefs, if you don't think so- you would have had to argue the point with them, they were very explicit about it. The very idea of a creation event was considered an argument against atheism.

It shouldn't matter what belief a theory fits should it?

So far as science is concerned it doesn't matter one wit. So far as humans are concerned of course it does. In the same way proving the earth was round pissed off the flat earthers. Science is not about perfection. It's about finding the truth through a series of trial and error. Mistakes are part of the process. The scientific method is how we root out those mistakes.

But the idea that the big bang is evidence of god is where you go off the rails. First off, there isn't a single religion out there which could credibly claim it fits their beliefs. Second, there is no tie to god. I could claim it as evidence that our alien ancestors caused the big bang and have every bit as much right to that claim as a creationist does.

The root of the problem when it comes to god in science is simple. Belief in god sets aside science to do so. It has to as there is no evidence of the deity itself. If there was there would be no need for faith (which even the bible says is necessary). Once you set aside science there is no problem you cannot solve by simply saying god did it. That isn't science, it's filling in the blanks with god.

 

[Bunyip]

yes, they didn't like it because it didn't fit their atheist beliefs, if you don't think so- you would have had to argue the point with them, they were very explicit about it. The very idea of a creation event was considered an argument against atheism.

It shouldn't matter what belief a theory fits should it?

The idea that scientists acted to exclude god from science is just a paranoid delusion. Science is a tool, a way to learn things - if there were evidence of God, science would find it.

 

[Valjean]

To all atheist who wish to answers this:

How come so many atheist claim God isn't real because science contradicts with holy scriptures (ie The Bible, Koran, etc)?

First, I don't think most atheists claim God doesn't exist.
Second, science vs the scriptures have little to do with it. There is simply a lack of credible evidence for this God person.

If you claim these scriptures are man-made, doesn't that make the argument of God existing invalid because what is in the scriptures is written by people and cannot be consider evidence of god?

No relation. The existence of God has nothing to do with the literature about Him.

Do you get what I am saying? What other reasons do you atheist don't believe in god and why?

Lack of evidence, pure and simple.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm talking about atheist theories- presented by atheists to support an atheist view of the universe.

How can one discern when that is the motive?

I agree, Lemaitre's theory was not theistic or atheistic- it was scientific. He himself went out of his way to make this point, telling the Pope directly to knock it off with the victory lap. As mentioned elsewhere, Hoyle was not able to make this distinction between his beliefs and his theory, because like many atheists, he refused to acknowledge his belief as a belief at all.

How is it known that Hoyle's motive was to debunk religion?
Most (perhaps all) of the atheists I know support the big bang theory, which is a result of Lemaitre's work. How is it evidence for a god? And if so why do atheists buy into it, instead of objecting?

many further atheist theories - again presented by atheists to support an atheist model- big crunch, multiverses. m theory etc etc were/are based on the exact same rationale as previous atheist theories- 'no creation = no creator'
obviously there are exceptions, but there is a clear pattern

How do you know that atheists uniformly push these theories in order to disprove gods? Would this mean that believers oppose them as unscientific?

I don't see the same pattern. Moreover, I don't see that any of these "atheistic" theories support atheism or debunk the existence of gods at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The idea that scientists acted to exclude god from science is just a paranoid delusion. Science is a tool, a way to learn things - if there were evidence of God, science would find it.

What scientists actually do is exclude assumptions not supported by evidence. When people claim that this means scientists exclude their god(s), it says more about those gods than the people complaining probably realize.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The idea that scientists acted to exclude god from science is just a paranoid delusion. Science is a tool, a way to learn things - if there were evidence of God, science would find it.

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[42] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How can one discern when that is the motive?


How is it known that Hoyle's motive was to debunk religion?
Most (perhaps all) of the atheists I know support the big bang theory, which is a result of Lemaitre's work. How is it evidence for a god? And if so why do atheists buy into it, instead of objecting?


How do you know that atheists uniformly push these theories in order to disprove gods? Would this mean that believers oppose them as unscientific?

I don't see the same pattern. Moreover, I don't see that any of these "atheistic" theories support atheism or debunk the existence of gods at all.

see above

 

[Guy Threepwood]

First, I don't think most atheists claim God doesn't exist.
Second, science vs the scriptures have little to do with it. There is simply a lack of credible evidence for this God person.
No relation. The existence of God has nothing to do with the literature about Him.

Lack of evidence, pure and simple.

see above

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What scientists actually do is exclude assumptions not supported by evidence. When people claim that this means scientists exclude their god(s), it says more about those gods than the people complaining probably realize.

see above, the fact that this history is so little known underscores the point.

For the greatest scientific discovery of all time, Lemaitre never got a nobel prize, and is still largely unheard of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[42] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator

So what?

If you look through the history of science, you'll see this pattern repeated over and over:

- someone comes up with a hypothesis
- initially, the scientific community doesn't accept it because of lack of support.
- as time goes by, evidence is gathered and support is built for the hypothesis.
- eventually, the scientific community recognizes the support that's built up and accepts the hypothesis.

This is how it's supposed to work. I'm not sure why you're painting Hoyle as somehow being in the wrong.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So what?

If you look through the history of science, you'll see this pattern repeated over and over:

- someone comes up with a hypothesis
- initially, the scientific community doesn't accept it because of lack of support.
- as time goes by, evidence is gathered and support is built for the hypothesis.
- eventually, the scientific community recognizes the support that's built up and accepts the hypothesis.

This is how it's supposed to work. I'm not sure why you're painting Hoyle as somehow being in the wrong.

the scientific community didn't accept it because of it's lack of support... for atheism... that was their explicit reason for objection, their own belief systems

That was the problem here that held scientific progress back for decades

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

see above, the fact that this history is so little known underscores the point.

What point?

For the greatest scientific discovery of all time, Lemaitre never got a nobel prize, and is still largely unheard of.

Many scientists who have made great contributions are largely unheard of.

Have you ever heard of Alfred Wegener? He never won a Nobel Prize either, even though his hypothesis - continental drift - revolutionized several disciplines of science and allowed evolution to be reconciled against geology.

Still, even though his theories drove the final nail into the coffin of the idea that creationism should be considered a reasonable possibility.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What point?


Many scientists who have made great contributions are largely unheard of.

Have you ever heard of Alfred Wegener? He never won a Nobel Prize either, even though his hypothesis - continental drift - revolutionized several disciplines of science and allowed evolution to be reconciled against geology.

Still, even though his theories drove the final nail into the coffin of the idea that creationism should be considered a reasonable possibility.

continental drift versus the origins of the universe? hardly the same league is it?!
by that measure the inventor of the chip clip should have got one too!

Point being, Lemaitre's and his unparalleled discovery, were not celebrated as others were, because it was simply not very popular, not the answer the majority of atheist academia were looking for, many of them outwardly mocked it.

 

[McBell]

the scientific community didn't accept it because of it's lack of support... for atheism... that was their explicit reason for objection, their own belief systems

Prove it.
Otherwise it is nothing more than a bold empty claim.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Prove it.
Otherwise it is nothing more than a bold empty claim.

see above in bold

 

[McBell]

see above in bold

You should look up the definition of "prove" and try again.