I agree it is a belief. I can't count how many times people argue atheism is simply a lack of belief, and nothing more, not a belief at all. Which is untrue of course. I consider it a valid point of view as a matter of faith, as one of several alternatives to traditional theism as a matter of faith.
Whoa, whoa....don't misquote me. I didn't say anything about atheism, I was strictly speaking about science and the view that the universe is natural. Atheism is not science and not all atheists believe in the big bang. They are not synonymous. I've met atheists who believe in aliens, panspermia, that the earth is flat (yes, for real), that believe in ghosts, bigfoot, who are republican and conservative, who hold some beliefs that are as dogmatic as religion. The only thing that all atheists share in common, is that we all do not believe in any gods....that's it. So when you say "Atheism is a belief", I don't know how you can justify that, especially since not believing in something or not accepting something is proven...is not a positive belief. It's a "I'm not convinced "x" is true, so I don't believe it". By that same logic, I could say that your non-belief in another god is a belief and that you have faith that their god is not true. It just doesn't make any sense. Faith is a positive belief, pronouncing something as true...not pronouncing that you lack a belief that something is true.
I wouldn't agree with that, as what happened prior to the Big Bang has nothing science can look at. The laws of this universe began at that point, as far as we know. And we can't look at anything prior to that with the sciences. But even within the systems of this universe, how can science even begin to evaluate whether God exists or not? Who is defining what God is? Five year old Sally from Sunday School class who imagines God as a man with a beard in the sky? Science deals with the material world. Is God a material form of some sort, like a cow or a giant planetoid with eyes?
I agree that science cannot evaluate what happened before the big bang and I never said they did. What I said was is that based upon the evidence of our universe, that it will eventually collapse onto itself and the math indicates it will create another big bang or universe, hence the "infinite cycle" idea. That's based upon math, looking at the expansion of the universe, actual data using the cosmic background radiation and red light shift as measuring tools. Again, it's not a "we know for sure this will happen", it's an extrapolation using the available data. Agree, disagree...it doesn't matter since it's the best possible explanation as of now. The other questions about god is up to those claiming that one or many exists and up to them to prove it. Until then, until data can be examined, tested, etc...it's just an idea and not one warranted by the evidence, but one born of tradition & superstition.
While I appreciate hypothesis such as a multiverse, even science itself recognizes that's beyond science and moves more into philosophy, or if one makes it a matter of what they believe, a matter of faith.
Actually no they don't. Multiverse isn't "philosophy" at all. It's still a hypothesis yes, but not sure if you know, a hypothesis is still based upon observations or evidence and then comes up with an idea to explain what they see. The graduation occurs when scientists are able to test the hypothesis and gather multiple lines of evidence to support it becoming a working model or a theory. The multiverse utilizes the big bang model as well as quantum mechanics, and the observation that our universe...while finite, is not everything there is. There is indeed space outside of our universe, we just don't have the technology to see what's there yet. The idea is simple though, if there's all of this space and our universe only occupies a portion and quantum mechanics is a constant, then likely there are other universes. It's easier to visualize if you look at them like galaxies. This isn't just some wild idea, it's got logical inference behind it using the available data. So no...again, not faith at all, because all of these ideas require evidence and no one is stating that it is truth.
Why should it? What does God have to do with scientific inquiries? I don't think mature theists try to argue like the fundamentalist does that we can prove God with science. They are misguided about what constitutes matters of faith. If God could be proven by science, then what does that have to do with faith? I would argue they lack faith in trying to get science to justify their choice of belief. Faith is a matter of what the heart sees, not what the empirical sciences looks at, which is the material world.
Everything since people claim that this god or gods either created or interacts with the universe. That's a truth claim about the natural universe and one that should be born by the evidence, but is not. I'm not sure why you believe you need to have faith? Again, faith is not of value to anyone, but the person who thinks it's valuable. You cannot get to truth strictly through faith. Faith is believing something is true, but not caring if it actually is. I care whether it actually is.
I agree. But that does not mean God does not exist. It means the models have nothing to do with God. This seems to imagine God as a man in the sky who controls atoms and molecule to perform for him. That's a view of God I consider naive and misguided.
No one can disprove a negative. How could anyone ever disprove something that has no evidence for it to begin with. My point is that the universe operates as if there wasn't one. So proposing a god is kind of pointless unless you can actually provide some kind of reasonable argument and then support it with evidence. Until then, at best, you can say "I believe there's a god, but I can't prove it" and then everyone stops listening because there's nothing to go over or examine. In science if you have an unproven idea...they will say "interesting idea, now prove it" and then walk away. I still can't understand why we give "gods" so much attention when they aren't even testable.
It's all one and the same. What I believe is what the Buddhists say. "Emptiness is form, and form is Emptiness". These natural systems are not outside the Divine, nor the Divine outside of them. The problem begins when we try to separate them. That God is outside creation and creation outside God. And that this God is an idea of an external agent tinkering with toys, is a dualistic idea. God is the 'taste' of the universe, not a collection of atoms and molecules sitting on a planet somewhere, in a room, looking down all of it.
It's not one in the same. One idea has evidence for it, one does not. For example your statement about the divine. You are invoking something unproven, so while anyone can make statements using magic as the answer...it's not factual in any way. For example, I could say "Natural systems are not outside the Matrix, nor the Matrix outside of them." The concept rings true since if this was a computer simulation, we wouldn't know it, but there would be a real work and a simulated one. Just because I can have a concept that makes sense...doesn't mean I'm warranted in making the statement as a matter of truth. I have no business mixing the Matrix with the natural order, just as you have no business mixing "the Divine" (whatever that is) and the natural order as if somehow the divine is actually real. You must prove the divine is real before you invoke it, otherwise it's as meaningless as my statement about the Matrix. Same goes with the rest of your statements with "god", it's something you cannot hope to prove.
They also believe God has a body and lives on the planet Kolob near the constellation Betelgeuse. It's a novel idea, and one a lot like Sally's idea of God as a man in the sky with a long beard. Very dualistic, and not really very sophisticated. Disproving that logically, is sort of child's play. It's kind of low hanging fruit for the atheist, and not fruit up on the higher branches.
Indeed, but it wasn't meant to be an example of disproving something, it was meant to show how faith is not a pathway to truth. If you can get a wrong answer, or right answer using faith, then you need some other mechanism by which to determine the truth. Faith just doesn't do it. Faith makes people believe that Muhammed rode to the moon on a winged horse, or that Jesus rose from the dead, or that you can be saved from dangerous snakes by praying to Jesus, or that you can invoke god and a Tiger won't maul you, or that you can pray for sickness to go away without seeking medical treatment (which has caused people to die, even their children). Faith is not a virtue, it's not valuable and not on the same level at all as anything in the realm of science that is evidence based and tentative.
Many theists accept science and find no conflict with faith. Science is just science. But taking science and forming your personal worldviews based upon what you take from it, is not science. It's philosophy or faith.
Forming a worldview based upon science only speaks to what you view on the natural world. It doesn't speak to your personal morality, or ethics or politics, or anything else. As you said, science is science. The only thing I took from science was that the world, life, the universe...could be explained naturally without having to invoke a god, but that was after I de-converted from christianity due to reading the bible and finding it both immoral, imperfect and ridiculous. Reading the bible is what made me turn from christianity, not science. The rest of my worldview was developed by learning from multiple fields. None of it requires any faith at all as I don't insist that any of it is absolute and I go with the evidence and put my ego to the side. If tomorrow someone proves there is a god, I'll believe it based upon the evidence, not someone insisting it is true because they have faith. Every religion has faith..it's a concept without value.
Of course I'm not aware of all of them. I doubt you are too. But I'm probably more aware of them that you assume. I love string theory, quantum mechanics, systems theory, the complexity sciences, and the like. The natural world fascinates me. But to take that as say "no God" is outside of science. That's a matter of faith.
Good, please don't stop learning about them. But I never said "no God". I said, there's no reason to invoke one and that all gods as of now are unproven, which is a stark difference and one that isn't a matter of faith, it's a fact. But if you think it's not, then it's simple...prove there is one and I'll admit I was wrong.
