Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?

[Dhyana]

You are wrong, dhyana.

Multiverse cosmologies are provable; they are just NOT testable.

Multiverse cosmology is theoretical physics, not experimental physics. And theoretical physics rely on mathematical models and mathematical equations, not on tests or evidences.

In the language of science, evidence and proof are two different things.

Most science rely on verifiable evidences or testable predictions, and less on proof. Theoretical physics rely on proof, and "proof" being mathematical models and equations, but lest on empirical evidences and experiments.

The Big Bang cosmology used to be theoretical physics, but have been verified through observations and tests. Observations as in the detections of the cosmic background


If you are saying that ALL scientific theories are "idle speculation", then you really don't understand science at all.

Experimental physics or empirical physics, as stated earlier, have theories that can be tested. Most other scientific branches (physics, chemistry, biology) fall under "empirical" or "experimental" umbrella, because they are testable.

If all theories are just speculation, then there wouldn't be modern technology, like computers, mobile phones, cars, airplanes.

A theory...in the realms of science...is a scientific explanation of the natural and artificial (like computer, electronics, man-made stuffs) worlds, that can be tested, through the scientific method.

In the areas of physics, the theory of Relativity (both Special Relativity and General Relativity), Quantum Physics, and the Big Bang cosmology, all used to be theoretical physics, but since evidences (and therefore verifiable and testable) have been found in all three of them, their theories are no longer "theoretical".

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was discovered in the 1960s (and confirmed again recently by the WAMP mission), verified that the universe have been expanding since 13.6 billion years ago. This mean the Big Bang cosmology is testable.

The same can't be said about the multiverse cosmology, because it is untestable, but is provable by mathematical models and equations, hence multiverse cosmology falls under theoretical astrophysics. Other untestable cosmologies are the Big Rip, Big Bounce, Big Crunch, all of which fall under theoretical astrophysics.

Other theoretical physics in modern science, are string theory, superstring theory, M-theory.

Scientific "proof" is mathematical model or mathematical equation; proof is not the same things as evidence, experimentation or test.

Theories that are testable, hence empirical science, can be found in gravity, relativity, evolution, electronics, computers, engineering.

Evolution, like electronics and engineering, have real world application. The study of medicine, diseases (like bacterial and viral diseases), genetics, required understanding of evolution (biology).

So if most theories have real-life or real world application, then those theories are not just "idle speculation". For you to say it is, showed that don't known anything about scientific theory.

I hoped that you grasp what I am saying, because I am tired of theists who deliberately (or deceptively) misuse or misrepresent what science have to say.

Thank you for a well expressed thoughtful, informative post. It is much appreciated. Seriously. I am tired of condescending know-it-alls who feel the need to preach to the unwashed.

 

[gnostic]

Whoah there I did not say omnipotent. I can't prove that one.

Sorry, but isn't suggesting that a divine being being "immortal" imply omnipotent?

Cannot die, cannot be killed - makes not only one - immortal, but omnipotent too. And suggesting that god can do anything and everything (eg. creating universe or creating human), also imply omnipotent.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry, but isn't suggesting that a divine being being "immortal" imply omnipotent?

Cannot die, cannot be killed - makes not only one - immortal, but omnipotent too.

No. Omnipotent means all powerful. Not being subject to death does not equal all powerful. For instance, Greek gods are immortal but not omnipotent. Certainly these gods are powerful but they are not all powerful.

 

[gnostic]

Thank you for a well expressed thoughtful, informative post. It is much appreciated. Seriously. I am tired of condescending know-it-alls who feel the need to preach to the unwashed.

Isn't when you don't anything about science, but you think you are right because of your religious belief, whatever that religion may be, make YOU a mister-know-it-all?

 

[gnostic]

No. Omnipotent means all powerful. Not being subject to death does not equal all powerful. For instance, Greek gods are immortal but not omnipotent. Certainly these gods are powerful but they are not all powerful.

Doesn't suggesting that god can do anything and everything, also imply omnipotent. Having the power to create (eg. creating universe or creating human), for instance.

 

[gnostic]

You still haven't answer my question, George.

Can you really compare a mother to a god? And in what way is a mother "immortal" or "infallible"?

Those are your words for a god, isn't it?

 

[Curious George]

You still haven't answer my question, George.

Can you really compare a mother to a god? And in what way is a mother "immortal" or "infallible"?

Those are your words for a god, isn't it?

Immortal is without death. Baby's can not grasp the concept of death, therefore the mother cannot in the baby's mind be subject to death. Therefore, in the baby's mind the mother is immortal.

Infallible is without flaw. The baby has no concept of flaw. Therefore the mother cannot have flaw in the baby's mind. Therefore to the baby she is infallible.

 

[Dhyana]

Isn't when you don't anything about science, but you think you are right because of your religious belief, whatever that religion may be, make YOU a mister-know-it-all?

it's not true that I don't know "anything" about science. I know next to nothing about mathematically intensive theoretical physics, and admit it.

I am particularly drawn to early 20th century physicists such as Bohr and Heisenberg, and the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (as well as I can understand it). They seem to confirm certain of my philosophical beliefs- which I really hope are not woo-woo. I would be loathe to subscribe to woo-woo philosophy (which I understand to be a point of view supported by an incorrect layman's understanding of certain scientific principles). I seriously do NOT want to be that guy.

I do happen to believe that human reason and what is known as "naive realism" have limits which can be transcended via monistic idealism. I will never, however, preach that belief nor attempt to impose it on anyone.

Speaking of mathematically intensive theoretical physics, can you chime in on the argument I had with Shad about the Uncertainty Principle? I had understood it to be a fundamental limit mathematically as espoused by Heisenberg ( and thereby supporting my idea of limits on human reason) while Shad maintains it is a measurement problem that can be circumvented with the proper instruments. Who is closer to correct? Thanks.

 

[jontheseminarian]

Are we to assume then that belief in God is a goal in itself?

If so, it must then follow that it is not at all an issue if many people are simply not interested in that specific variety of faith.

If you look back to the early period of Genesis, and many books in the Torah(books of Moses) the belief in God was common sense, many Old Testament peoples knew for a fact God was with them.

 

[jontheseminarian]

Which is almost exactly why it's a terrible idea to use faith as justification for anything.

Look back to Adam and Eve, God's word was the law, which they broke anyway.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, I am using an abstract concept of god. This is how we determine what qualifies as God or not God. Baby's concept of mom is a God. That the baby doesn't call her God means little. If you believed in an infallible, immortal entity that was incomprehensible but you did not label it, I would still say you believe in a god.

A baby has no idea about these concepts. Infallible? Immortal? To the baby they are meaningless terms.
You have a baby who has no need to label their mother as God, and a group of outsiders who understand fully that the mother is not God.

Why the heck do you want to insert 'God' into this picture?

 

[gnostic]

Look back to Adam and Eve, God's word was the law, which they broke anyway.

If they didn't know the difference between right and wrong, without eating from the Tree of Knowledge, then how could they possibly they know that disobeying God is "wrong"?

The story of Adam and Eve has a paradox, that if you actually look deeper at the story (Genesis 2 & 3), the story don't make sense.

 

[Curious George]

A baby has no idea about these concepts. Infallible? Immortal? To the baby they are meaningless terms.
You have a baby who has no need to label their mother as God, and a group of outsiders who understand fully that the mother is not God.

Why the heck do you want to insert 'God' into this picture?

I insert it because it fits. That the baby does not refer to their mother as infallible or immortal does not change the fact that they see her as such. And that someone does not describe a God archetype as a God, but nevertheless believes in the entity's existence does not mean they don't believe in a god.

On a side note, baby's have no idea about the concept of atheism, why would anyone want to insert such a term?

 

[outhouse]

What better word do we have for an infallible, immortal being on whose influence the person's being depends?

MYTHOLOGY

 

[outhouse]

why would anyone want to insert such a term?

Because that is what they are. They have not learned the learned trait of theism.

Because you don't understand the definition of atheism does not require a conscious rejection of ANY god to be an atheist.


My daughter was born an atheist, and to this day she is still an atheist. There was never a day in her life she was a theist, and she giggles when she is told people actually believe in these concepts.

 

[Curious George]

MYTHOLOGY

Hmm, what are you going for here. Mythology is a framework, collection, or study not a description of an infallible, immortal entity.

But perhaps you are pointing out that these beliefs the baby has will eventually be replaced with a more true perception. I agree, but that doesn't make them not theists.

 

[Curious George]

Because that is what they are. They have not learned the learned trait of theism.

Because you don't understand the definition of atheism does not require a conscious rejection of ANY god to be an atheist.


My daughter was born an atheist, and to this day she is still an atheist. There was never a day in her life she was a theist, and she giggles when she is told people actually believe in these concepts.

Your daughter was born accepting an infallible, immortal entity. That she giggles now means she has corrected her erroneous thoughts. But she did at one time accept an entity which in her mind would rival any God concept of which we know. That she did not call this concept God does not change this.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I insert it because it fits. That the baby does not refer to their mother as infallible or immortal does not change the fact that they see her as such. And that someone does not describe a God archetype as a God, but nevertheless believes in the entity's existence does not mean they don't believe in a god.

Babies understand infallible and immortal? By what leap of logic do you conclude that? And since when is 'infallible' a neccessary trait of God?

Why do you need to insert God into this at all? It's frankly bewildering. Give a man a hammer I guess...

On a side note, baby's have no idea about the concept of atheism, why would anyone want to insert such a term?

Because the baby has no idea about theism. No theism = atheism. The word is not a positive claim of anything, but instead the LACK of a positive claim. Such a usage of the word atheism is borderline useless, and serves not much purpose in my opinion, but it's accurate enough.

 

[Curious George]

Babies understand infallible and immortal? By what leap of logic do you conclude that? And since when is 'infallible' a neccessary trait of God?

Why do you need to insert God into this at all? It's frankly bewildering. Give a man a hammer I guess...



Because the baby has no idea about theism. No theism = atheism. The word is not a positive claim of anything, but instead the LACK of a positive claim. Such a usage of the word atheism is borderline useless, and serves not much purpose in my opinion, but it's accurate enough.

Infallible=not flawed
Immortal= not subject to death.

If a baby has no concept of flaws they cannot see something as "flawed" If a baby has no concept of death they cannot see something as subject to death.

So no, the baby does not understand the concept of infallibility or immortal anymore than they understand the concept of atheism. But the term still fits.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you look back to the early period of Genesis, and many books in the Torah(books of Moses) the belief in God was common sense, many Old Testament peoples knew for a fact God was with them.

I can only assume that they had a conception of "being with God" that not much resembles that which exists in the current mainstream, then.

Or, perhaps, the accuracy of those writings is not the best.