Definitions of atheism. Can atheism be scientifically defined?

[gnostic]

The Young Earth Creationism, which tells that the Universe is 7000 years old, comes from revelation (the Bible).

But if you accept Natural Theology, then you will be rejecting divine revelation and miracles.

And if you accept divine revelation, then in effect, you would be rejecting Natural Theology.

You do understand divine revelation is a complete contrast to Natural Theology?

 

[PureX]

No, I literally said the exact opposite. My entire point is that humans are limited in our ability to observe effects but that doesn't mean those effects don't exist and doesn't mean those couldn't be subject to scientific method. Humans are irrelevant to these wider concepts.

Science is a means by which we humans observe effects in the physical world around us. It is not a separate observing entity, and it is limited to the physical realm of existence, only. So it is very limited in the scope of effect that it is able to help us observe. Certainly, science is incapable of observing any aspect of God, as God.

Yes, because the question is about God existing.

I agree that the question is, itself, flawed. A general definition for "God" is: the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. So asking; "does God exist" is foolish on several levels. One; as God is defined as being the source of existence, itself, how could God then NOT exist? And yet, we humans cannot know "all that is", we can only surmise that it is somehow limited in scope by what "is not". Which is nothing more to us then an abstract negation. So we can't know what God's existing would even mean.

So the why are we asking such an unanswerable question?

Existing must mean within existence by literal definition.

That would assume that our definition of existence defines existence. But it does not. It merely defines the limited and incomplete conception of existence that we hold in our heads. Our idea of what exists does not define what exists. And a great MANY things may exist that we have no idea about. So our 'literal definition' is of little significance, here. It can only point to an ideal that we cannot fully even comprehend.

The concept of anything "outside existence" is taking an entirely different path where none of our ideas, language or logic applies.

We can apply them as we choose. We just can't know them to be relevant.

Also, even if you have the idea of God "outside existence", if you are proposing that God can have any kind of effect or influence on anything "within existence", those effects would exists and thus could be studied.

Those effects would exist, but there is no reason to assume that we could recognize them, or 'study' them for what they are. We may be surrounded by them, absolutely, as everything is a 'divine effect', and yet we would never know it.

You're free to make that assertion but you can you support it in any way? What is you basis for declaring all effects are the result of God? Would it be from someone observing those effects and reaching a conclusion based upon them?

It would be on the basis that "God" is defined by we humans as the "(mystery) source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is". By this conception, existence is itself, 'of God'.

 

[HonestJoe]

Science is a means by which we humans observe effects in the physical world around us.

My point is that science is a means any intelligence being could use to understand the universe. The concept of science doesn't need humans to exist, just some form of conscious intelligence. That is why the fact humans are (currently or always) unable to observe something doesn't mean that thing can't be observed by anything or can never have scientific method applied to it (if only hypothetically).

Certainly, science is incapable of observing any aspect of God, as God.

How do you know that?

Also, by your statements above, don't you mean humans are incapable of observing any aspect of God? So all the various people who have claimed to have experienced some aspects of God were mistaken or lying?

One; as God is defined as being the source of existence, itself, how could God then NOT exist?

If that definition was wrong. If Ra is defined as the reason the sun rises in the morning, does the sun rise prove that Ra must exist?

Also, the idea that something exists which created everything that exists is circular. That leads to the classic question of "What created God?" (though regardless of the answer, we circle back to "How do you know?" )

So we can't know what God's existing would even mean.

You're making a lot of definitive statements about the nature of God to then say this. My basic point is "We don't know". I always have a problem with people who make such detailed and definitive statements about gods (or indeed anything else) but when challenged on anything difficult, fall back on the "We can't know the mind of God", "God is a mystery" or "You're not ready". You can't have it both ways.

So the why are we asking such an unanswerable question?

In the context of this thread (and a lot of other situations), it is due to people making definitive assertions about a god or gods and then expecting (or demanding) everyone to behave in the way those people tell us to because they say it's what those gods want/expect/demand.

Those effects would exist, but there is no reason to assume that we could recognize them, or 'study' them.

No reason to assume we could, I agree. There's no reason to assume we couldn't either though. If we've currently not observed something though, we can't assert that it exists or say anything meaningful about it. That'd just be writing speculative fiction.

 

[columbus]

You do not get it. Even a fictional literature contains thoughts, which can be used in answering people. As example, the Hamlet has said "to be or not to be". And when an atheist says: "what difference God makes?" You could write the quote: "to be or not to be" (Hamlet).

This is why I consider religion fiction, the invention of humans.
Including yours.

It can definitely hold and impart meaningful truths. The problem I have with religionists is when they start making truth claims about The Unknown and Unknowable. Or worse, when they start making truth claims about the known, like whether the age of the universe is closer to 6000 years or 15,000,000,000 years.

Frankly, it doesn't much matter to me. Maybe the universe is 15B y/o, maybe it was created last Thursday. It's still my birthday.
Tom

 

[PureX]

This is why I consider religion fiction, the invention of humans.
Including yours.

It can definitely hold and impart meaningful truths. The problem I have with religionists is when they start making truth claims about The Unknown and Unknowable. Or worse, when they start making truth claims about the known, like whether the age of the universe is closer to 6000 years or 15,000,000,000 years.

Frankly, it doesn't much matter to me. Maybe the universe is 15B y/o, maybe it was created last Thursday. It's still my birthday.
Tom

There are legitimate claims that we can make about the unknown and the unknowable. And there are legitimate arguments that can be posed about what we think we DO know.

Maybe it's time to accept this. To accept that we humans not only don't have all the answers, but that we may not have ANY of the answers.

 

[columbus]

So it is very limited in the scope of effect that it is able to help us observe. Certainly, science is incapable of observing any aspect of God, as God.

Here's the thing.

Historically speaking, it was quite recently when humans couldn't observe microorganisms, or galaxies. As our methods and tools became more sophisticated we learned more. Became more able to observe and learn and understand.

I expect human capacity to observe and learn and understand to keep expanding.
Tom

 

[gnostic]

Frankly, it doesn't much matter to me. Maybe the universe is 15B y/o, maybe it was created last Thursday. It's still my birthday.
Tom

LOL

Well, happy 15B-year birthday, Tom!

 

[Willamena]

That would assume that our definition of existence defines existence. But it does not. It merely defines the limited and incomplete conception of existence that we hold in our heads. Our idea of what exists does not define what exists. And a great MANY things may exist that we have no idea about. So our 'literal definition' is of little significance, here. It can only point to an ideal that we cannot fully even comprehend.

It's as good an assumption as realism.

 

[gnostic]

There are legitimate claims that we can make about the unknown and the unknowable. And there are legitimate arguments that can be posed about what we think we DO know.

Maybe it's time to accept this. To accept that we humans not only don't have all the answers, but that we may not have ANY of the answers.

Of course we don’t have all the answers.

Scientists don’t or shouldn’t make assumptions that everything are known in science.

The great thing about science, is there are always more to learn, more to discover. Science itself is a learning process, and it is call progress.

Like Columbus said, we learn more over time, when we developed better tools tossing with search and research:

Historically speaking, it was quite recently when humans couldn't observe microorganisms, or galaxies. As our methods and tools became more sophisticated we learned more. Became more able to observe and learn and understand.

His example about galaxies is a good one.

When Galileo made his own telescope shortly after its invention, he didn’t have all the answers. Nor did other astronomers after him, like Newton, Kepler, Messier, Herschel, all had better telescopes before each one, some of their identification of objects.

All astronomers before Edwin Hubble in 1919, thought objects like Andromeda, Triangulum, Virgo A were nebulas, not galaxies. Pre-Hubble astronomers all thought that the Milky Way was the only galaxy in the universe, because their telescopes could only allow them so much.

When Hubble used the largest telescope at that time in 1919, the Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, his discovery changed everything: there were many galaxies out here, and the universe was even larger than Hubble thought.

The discovery had also changed our view with cosmology, and in the 1920s 3 independent astrophysicists - Friedmann, Robertson and Lemaître - came up with similar concept: the expanding universe model, later known as the Big Bang model (late 1940s).

Then radio astronomy gave us the technology to observe even more galaxies. And we were able to learn even more with space technology.

Science is accumulating knowledge, where past discoveries are corrected or replaced, all depending on the available evidence discovered.

Science isn’t a fixed knowledge, there are always more to learn.

 

[Tiberius]

Please tell me, do I understand the following correctly. I am opened to productive discussions.

These definitions of atheism are equivalent:
Non-belief in the existence of True God,
Belief in the non-existence of True God.

No, you do not understand this correctly.

Lacking a belief in X is not the same thing as believing X does not exist.

I do not believe that there is a cat sitting at my front door. I have no reason to hold such a belief. I do not own a cat, and my neighbour's cat rarely comes out during the day. So I conclude that the chances of a cat sitting at my front door are very very low, and thus I do not hold that belief.

But that doesn't mean that I believe that there can't possibly be a cat there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

These definitions of atheism are equivalent:
Non-belief in the existence of True God,
Belief in the non-existence of True God.
The True God is not an idol, the idol is man-made and wrong understanding of god.

I really don't get this obsession of certain theists in attempting to muddy the waters when it comes to defining atheism.


Atheism: the non-belief of theistic claims.

In other words, an atheist is someone who answers "no" to the question "do you believe god(s) exist(s)?"

That's it. It's not hard, nore is it complicated.

An atheist is simply a nonbeliever. Nothing more or less.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Jesus is consistent: God is Life, thus, who is against Life, serves Death.

What you believe religiously, is of no importance in context of atheism (or any other religion, for that matter)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The reality has sources. The illusion has sources. The original source of reality is God. The original source of illusion is satan. There is no third option in my religion.

Yes. In YOUR religion.

What will it take to make you understand that YOUR religious beliefs, are of no consequence to those who don't share your religious beliefs?

 

[PureX]

Here's the thing.

Historically speaking, it was quite recently when humans couldn't observe microorganisms, or galaxies. As our methods and tools became more sophisticated we learned more. Became more able to observe and learn and understand.

I expect human capacity to observe and learn and understand to keep expanding.
Tom

But it's still limited to the physical realm of existence. And "God" is not being proposed as a physical phenomenon. So science will never be able to "see" God. There will not be an instrument devised that's capable of it.

 

[PureX]

Of course we don’t have all the answers. .... Science isn’t a fixed knowledge, there are always more to learn.

None of this addresses the fact that science is limited to the realm of physical phenomena, and as such will never be able to investigate the metaphysical proposition that we call "God".

 

[questfortruth]

None of this addresses the fact that science is limited to the realm of physical phenomena, and as such will never be able to investigate the metaphysical proposition that we call "God".

Care to read the initial investigation? Please, look the file here:

 

[PureX]

Care to read the initial investigation? Please, look the file here:

Biblical mythology is irrelevant to the question of God's nature or existence. Biblical mythology is relevant only to how some humans chose to represent God in story form for the purposes of religious expression.

 

[cladking]

Science isn't interested in atheism or defining it...

Your post would make perfect sense, be completely logical, and probably have a great deal of truth in it if we knew even 1% of everything.

I'd compare our knowledge to the spectrum of hydrogen: Very little light and a great deal of "gap".



In a very real way even scientific terms can't be defined "scientifically". This is why there are competing interpretations of experiment.

 

[Tambourine]

There are legitimate claims that we can make about the unknown and the unknowable. And there are legitimate arguments that can be posed about what we think we DO know.

Maybe it's time to accept this. To accept that we humans not only don't have all the answers, but that we may not have ANY of the answers.

Except of course the answer that there is a God, because in that field we can totally make far reaching claims based on nothing but the vague intuition of a supreme being - a notion which very definitely isn't be an artifact of the way human brains work, unlike the entirety of human knowledge.

 

[cladking]

Except of course the answer that there is a God, because in that field we can totally make far reaching claims based on nothing but the vague intuition of a supreme being - a notion which very definitely isn't be an artifact of the way human brains work, unlike the entirety of human knowledge.

I couldn't disagree more. I could point out that in my opinion you have it completely backward but will instead just observe that "human knowledge" doesn't even contain a working definition for "consciousness" which is the only possible means of framing or holding any fact at all. I will observe that "human knowledge" is based in words with indefinite definitions and models which vary from consciousness to consciousness.