*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[McBell]

(I'm guessing that if you answer at all, you will attack the questioner or the questions rather than answering them, answer with "I dunno," or offer a philosophical answer thinking it's scientific--something like random fluctuations in the quantum field, for example.)

you just broke my irony meter...

 

[Yerda]

"God," by definition, is alone uncaused and cannot not exist so the question doesn't apply. It's like asking what's north of the North Pole.

Shimon Malin, a physicist, says, " The scientific claim that so-called inanimate entities are really lifeless is a statement about the scientific method and not about the entities. In reality there is nothing in the current scientific knowledge that disproves the proposition that the putatively inanimate entities are alive.

"This proposition can only be verified or disapproved through experiences and modes of knowledge that light outside of the methodology of present-day science. . . . If the universe is indeed alive, or "ensouled" as the ancient Greeks put it, this aliveness will not show up in a scientific context."

I had a weird, eh, experience a few years back where I was astounded to find that the difference between life and non-life was a matter of reference frame. Like motion is. An observer shifted in just the right way would observe the vacuum teeming with life while another would find the entire universe entirely lifeless. After the experience wore off I had no idea what the meaning of these words could possibly be and accepted that there was no proper meaning.

The quote you shared has a certain charm, I think, but it seems to have meaning only in a metaphorical or poetic sense.

 

[Reflex]

I had a weird, eh, experience a few years back where I was astounded to find that the difference between life and non-life was a matter of reference frame. Like motion is. An observer shifted in just the right way would observe the vacuum teeming with life while another would find the entire universe entirely lifeless. After the experience wore off I had no idea what the meaning of these words could possibly be and accepted that there was no proper meaning.

The quote you shared has a certain charm, I think, but it seems to have meaning only in a metaphorical or poetic sense.

You are absolutely right: "An observer shifted in just the right way would observe the vacuum teeming with life while another would find the entire universe entirely lifeless." The problem (if you want to call it that) is that science is at an impasse. It has probed the depths of material reality and determined that there are events at the quantum level whose cause cannot be determined by the scientific method even in principle. Some scientists, perhaps most, assume that randomness is therefore the ultimate cause of everything. The “God of the gaps” is replaced with “chance in the gaps.” It's a philosophical assumption that requires the blind faith of a religious fanatic to believe.

How do I know that everything that has a beginning has a cause? Anything can be rationalized, so let's not make it a philosophical question. Facts, the pride and joy of atheism and the foundation of the scientific enterprise, is based on the assumption that every effect has a cause. So, let's start from there.

To grasp something, to prove it, one must isolate the object from from everything else. But, ironically, scientific reductionism has verified that either every part of creation is also the whole, or the moon isn't there when no one is looking. (Here's an interesting article on that from Nature magazine: Quanundrum). If life isn't just a part of creation but the whole of creation, then there are mysteries that cannot be grasped. The pursuit of highest truth necessarily leads beyond the confines of material science.

When scientific reasoning falters in an encounter with an insurmountable problem, “I dunno” is invariably the fallback position. That it's a vacuous position and epistemologically worthless doesn't seem matter and therefore represents a failure to follow reason to ultimate conclusions. It's next of kin, “prove it,” can't reason its way out of a paper bag if it were given a road map and instructions.

I do not have the words to describe how truly pathetic "prove it" is. Atheism claims that it is the hallmark of reason, but began with a gross misrepresentation of the cosmological argument—a lie—and the lie (post #1050) is ignored as though it has no bearing on atheism's intellectual honesty.

 

[viole]

Is that a philosophical question or a scientific one?

In general. What do you think? Are we really sure that everything that begin to exist has a cause?

You can choose a scientific or phylosophical explanation. As you like.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are absolutely right: "An observer shifted in just the right way would observe the vacuum teeming with life while another would find the entire universe entirely lifeless." The problem (if you want to call it that) is that science is at an impasse. It has probed the depths of material reality and determined that there are events at the quantum level whose cause cannot be determined by the scientific method even in principle. Some scientists, perhaps most, assume that randomness is therefore the ultimate cause of everything. The “God of the gaps” is replaced with “chance in the gaps.” It's a philosophical assumption that requires the blind faith of a religious fanatic to believe.

How do I know that everything that has a beginning has a cause? Anything can be rationalized, so let's not make it a philosophical question. Facts, the pride and joy of atheism and the foundation of the scientific enterprise, is based on the assumption that every effect has a cause. So, let's start from there.

To grasp something, to prove it, one must isolate the object from from everything else. But, ironically, scientific reductionism has verified that either every part of creation is also the whole, or the moon isn't there when no one is looking. (Here's an interesting article on that from Nature magazine: Quanundrum). If life isn't just a part of creation but the whole of creation, then there are mysteries that cannot be grasped. The pursuit of highest truth necessarily leads beyond the confines of material science.

When scientific reasoning falters in an encounter with an insurmountable problem, “I dunno” is invariably the fallback position. That it's a vacuous position and epistemologically worthless doesn't seem matter and therefore represents a failure to follow reason to ultimate conclusions. It's next of kin, “prove it,” can't reason its way out of a paper bag if it were given a road map and instructions.

I do not have the words to describe how truly pathetic "prove it" is. Atheism claims that it is the hallmark of reason, but began with a gross misrepresentation of the cosmological argument—a lie—and the lie (post #1050) is ignored as though it has no bearing on atheism's intellectual honesty.

I think the more accurate answer that is given is, "I don't know. Let's look into it and find out. How can we go about doing this?"

Or I guess we could just say, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause, therefore god did it." And be done with it.

 

[ArtieE]

there are events at the quantum level whose cause cannot be determined by the scientific method even in principle. Some scientists, perhaps most, assume that randomness is therefore the ultimate cause of everything. The “God of the gaps” is replaced with “chance in the gaps.” It's a philosophical assumption that requires the blind faith of a religious fanatic to believe.

How do I know that everything that has a beginning has a cause?

Yes how do you know that everything that has a beginning has a cause when there are events at the quantum level whose cause cannot be determined by the scientific method even in principle?

 

[outhouse]

God," by definition,

Who did this defining? I know you cannot answer nor will you because it corners you in

Ancient mens mythology already proven inaccurate ?

 

[outhouse]

Shimon Malin, a physicist, says,

Nothing credible here.


But you quote mined well

 

[outhouse]

is alone uncaused and cannot not exist

You are right.

he cannot exist because nothing is or ever has been observed scientifically

It's like asking what's north of the North Pole.

No

it is like asking if personal feelings and emotions and imagination and mythology can be proven to be real outside of the conscious mind.


To date sir, they are just a typical human condition

 

[Paleo]

But Atheism isn't really a 'world view' it is simply non-theism, a state of (non)religion that believes in no deities. Unless I misunderstand all this.

 

[MountainPine]

But Atheism isn't really a 'world view' it is simply non-theism, a state of (non)religion that believes in no deities. Unless I misunderstand all this.

Atheism is a world view without God and religion, and with a perspective on the universe based on scientific materialism and naturalism. Atheism doesn't produce any fruit because it has no moral principles, or codes of conduct. If any atheist has morals, then it is influenced by religion. No one is influenced by atheism.

 

[ArtieE]

Atheism is a world view

No it isn't just like theism isn't a world view.

without God

Without GODS (plural)

and religion,

Nonsense. There are religions such as Buddhism without gods.

and with a perspective on the universe based on scientific materialism and naturalism.

Nonsense. An atheist can have any perspective on the universe he likes as long as no gods are involved.

Atheism doesn't produce any fruit because it has no moral principles,

Neither does theism.

 

[ArtieE]

But Atheism isn't really a 'world view' it is simply non-theism, a state of (non)religion that believes in no deities. Unless I misunderstand all this.

Atheism is simply absence of theism. You can perfectly well be an atheist and have a religion. For example Secular Judaism and Buddhism.

 

[Reflex]

In general. What do you think? Are we really sure that everything that begin to exist has a cause?

You can choose a scientific or phylosophical explanation. As you like.

Ciao

- viole

I think #1083 took care of that, even stating that I think it is better to look at the question from a scientific point of view.

Yes how do you know that everything that has a beginning has a cause when there are events at the quantum level whose cause cannot be determined by the scientific method even in principle?

From a philosophical point of view, you're right, but I already made two points that pertain to this POV. First, science is based on the assumption that every effect has a cause; second, "I dunno" has no epistemic value.

Note: I can't help but notice how easily skeptics overlook the fact that these past few posts began with a gross misrepresentation of the cosmological argument—a lie.

 

[outhouse]

Atheism doesn't produce any fruit because it has no moral principles, or codes of conduct

Unsubstantiated rhetoric with no credibility or correctness.

Most of this worlds fruits have come from freedom FROM religion, and those who left your MYTHOLOGY behind

If any atheist has morals, then it is influenced by religion. No one is influenced by atheism.

Factually false.

Why don't you start supporting your statements with credible sources, we do require honesty here.

 

[outhouse]

. Facts, the pride and joy of atheism and the foundation of the scientific enterprise, is based on the assumption that every effect has a cause. So, let's start from there.

And when we do start from there------ WE see the cause of your od is mythology plagiarized from previous traditions.

So yes your gods do have a cause, theology using mythology.


But thanks for playing

 

[ArtieE]

Note: I can't help but notice how easily skeptics overlook the fact that these past few posts began with a gross misrepresentation of the cosmological argument—a lie.

You wrote and I quote: "Atheism claims that it is the hallmark of reason". "Atheism" claims nothing of the sort. That is a lie. Atheism is just an absence of belief in gods and says nothing about reason.

 

[outhouse]

To grasp something, to prove it, one must isolate the object from from everything else.

Isnt this hypocritical when you don't apply the same to the mythology you follow?

 

[outhouse]

When scientific reasoning falters in an encounter with an insurmountable problem, “I dunno” is invariably the fallback position.

FALLACY ALERT

Scientific reasoning DOES not falter, and I do not know is often the most credible answer due to limited data.


Unlike hypocritical theist who claim mythology did it

 

[outhouse]

I dunno" has no epistemic value.

Factually false


Sometimes that is the most credible answer or conclusion. To overstate the case would then mirror religious faith.