The Folly of Atheism

[QuestioningMind]

Knowing how the physical universe works (which we do not) still does not tell us anything about why it works as it does. And that 'why' includes the question of both source and purpose. It would be wrong to assume that science has given us anything more than some insight into relative functionality. Functionality is good, but it is nowhere near being 'truth'.

I disagree. The scientific method very often does lead us to the truth about the relative functionality of things. It's by far the best method we've come across thus far for determining the truth about the relative functionality of things. If you think you have a better method I'd love to hear about it.

As for the universe having a 'purpose', you can make the claim that it does, but until you provide some sort of verifiable evidence for the assertion, I feel quite comfortable ignoring it. The universe having a purpose automatically assumes that there must have been a creator being and as an atheist I am still waiting for any shred of verifiable evidence that any such creator exists.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You were evaluating the worth of science. That can't be done using science, because the evaluation is subjective.
Again read:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Now I will spell out for you:

Better is a variant of good.

You can use that knowledge by denying it.

You can keep repeating that the scientific method doesn't do what the scientific method wasn't designed to do until you're red in the face. NO ONE IS ARGUING WITH YOU!

What I keep asking is what is the ALTERNATE method for determining how the universe functions that is AS reliable or MORE reliable? If you can't provide an answer, then simply accept that my claim that the scientific method is by far the best method we've found for determining how the universe functions is TRUE?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It might just be arbitrary. If you are a result of causality, you are an effect and not your own cause.

As for knowledge, I am a skeptic. We can check your knowledge, but based on prior experience, I doubt, you have Knowledge.

"As for knowledge".... Citation Needed-- you have failed to demonstrate any actual knowledge.

Word Salad comprised of lettuce-- no dressing.

Nice try, though.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God does care about atheists but God does not barter with humans as to how he will reveal Himself.
.

Again, you attempt to use Might Makes Right.

A Perfect Being would not need to "barter" -- it would know what was needed to be convincing and would never goof around with Super-Special Teacher's Pets.

Fail.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That is not logically so. From the omniscient, omnipotent God's perspective, we would have no free will. But from our non-omnipotent, non-omniscient perspective, we would still have (limited) free will. Our choice comes from our not knowing the outcomes of the various possibilities that we see as being available to us. That choice remains (to us) even if God does determine both the possibility and the result. The same is true even if we are foolish enough to believe that nature is omnipotent, and inevitable, and thereby determines every "choice" we make and every result. The choice still has to be made because WE don't know that there is no other possibility, and because WE don't know the result in advance.

Nope. If god knows THE as in One And Only Future?

Then? The future is on Railroad Tracks, Immutable, Unchangeable, No surprises.

And Free Will would become Impossible: What mere human could choose something an All Powerful God already knows?

Only if this "god" of yours does not know our final choice-- at the moment we make the choice-- can Free Will Exist.

Since, by Definition, god knows everything? Free Will cannot exist.

Whether we know or not isn't the point-- YOUR version of "god" eliminates to 100%, Free Will.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Make up your mind Bob. First you say that we should not need faith, then you say you would love to have faith... Which is it? You either want to have faith or not..

Oh, I'd love to be back in the Bedazzled Land Of Make-Belief where I was full of faith.

But you cannot Un-See what you have Learned-- and I Learned that all gods, as described, are mostly EVIL.

Since I see GOOD in the world? These gods cannot exist. I cannot UN-KNOW that FACT.

Faith is a choice. .

You are telling a false-hood, again. Can you suddenly choose to FORGET something you have LEARNED?

NO? There you go-- Knowledge Destroys Faith-- always will.

Because FAITH is a kind of INSANITY. The cure? Knowledge.

Since you told a LIE? I quit reading the rest of your post, by the way... that's why I didn't quote any of it.

 

[Trailblazer]

A Perfect Being would not need to "barter" -- it would know what was needed to be convincing and would never goof around with Super-Special Teacher's Pets.

God would do that if He wanted to be convincing.
Obviously He doesn't want to be.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh, I'd love to be back in the Bedazzled Land Of Make-Belief where I was full of faith.

But you cannot Un-See what you have Learned-- and I Learned that all gods, as described, are mostly EVIL.

And I would like to be back where I was before I became a true believer, but that is impossible given what I now know.
I cannot Un-see what I see and I learned that God is good.

 

[atanu]

Well, there were quite a few steps before a "knowing subject" eventually emerged.

Yeah. Nice story.

 

[atanu]

The only logic and reason that I have ever seen practiced has been by living sentient human beings, never by an inanimate object.

Yes. But we not only hypothesise that the conscious subject is the product of some special combination of inanimate objects, we believe this story like religion.

If you know of a way that a cognizant being can come into existence outside of the physical laws of the universe, I'd love to hear your verifiable evidence for the claim.

There are three observations.

One. Light need not be illumined by a second light. Similarly, conscious subject is self evident. Consciousness being the subject itself, how will one detect it as an object? Most materialists do not take this into account. OTOH, some scientists think panpsychism is plausible and some of them are trying to objectively prove it. But the fact remains that consciousness is the subject itself and cannot be known as an object.

Two. If consciousness cannot be verified as an object, does it mean that the story of creation of the conscious subject from inanimate matter is true? What are the verifiable evidences?

Three. Spiritual traditions teach that the consciousness is unborn, un-fabricated, and unformed and space-time-objects appear and disappear in it. These traditions also teach meditative methods to verify this teaching. There may or (may not be) spiritually adept meditators who can tell about it personally. But this needs to be verified for oneself by oneself subjectively. There can no other way even as there is no way to know the thrill of orgasm second hand.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. The scientific method very often does lead us to the truth about the relative functionality of things.

No scientist would agree to that statement. A theory that functions via experimentation is not taken by any scientist as "truth". It's a primary axiom of science not to do so.

It's by far the best method we've come across thus far for determining the truth about the relative functionality of things. If you think you have a better method I'd love to hear about it.

There is no "truth of relative functionality". There is only relative functionality. How it relates to the truth is anyone's guess.

As for the universe having a 'purpose', you can make the claim that it does, but until you provide some sort of verifiable evidence for the assertion, I feel quite comfortable ignoring it.

Ignorance can be comforting, yes. That's why it's so often willful. But the idea of purpose is being implied by the nature of existence as we perceive it, not by any claim of mine.

The universe having a purpose automatically assumes that there must have been a creator being and as an atheist I am still waiting for any shred of verifiable evidence that any such creator exists.

Yes, and that's a good example of the folly of atheism.

 

[PureX]

Nope. If god knows THE as in One And Only Future?

Then? The future is on Railroad Tracks, Immutable, Unchangeable, No surprises.

If, if, if, ... from our perspective it remains an 'if'. Thus, we still have to choose, even 'if'. But it appears that "Bob the Unbeliever" actually believes quite strongly in his nonsensical proposition, as most of those atheists so loudly proclaiming their "unbelief", do.

And Free Will would become Impossible: What mere human could choose something an All Powerful God already knows?

Every one of them, because even though God may already know their choice, the humans would still have to do the choosing, because they don't already know.

Since, by Definition, god knows everything? Free Will cannot exist.

Whether we know or not isn't the point-- YOUR version of "god" eliminates to 100%, Free Will.

Repeating this does not magically make it make sense. But I can see that you believe, and so there will be no dissuading you.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God would do that if He wanted to be convincing.
Obviously He doesn't want to be.

So you say. So you paint an IMPERFECT THING, who is a BULLY.

As I said from the start... and you now confirm. Again.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And I would like to be back where I was before I became a true believer, but that is impossible given what I now know.
I cannot Un-see what I see and I learned that God is good.

Except that your god IS NOT actually GOOD. Too much evil. Your god is too much of a capricious bully, who plays Special Favorites (unfair).

It's unfortunate you are so deep into the peanut butter jar, to see the light just over your head...

 

[Trailblazer]

Every one of them, because even though God may already know their choice, the humans would still have to do the choosing, because they don't already know.

God knows what we will choose but God does not cause us to choose what He knows we will choose. Our free will enables us to make choices that God knows we will make because God is All-Knowing.

Humans do not do the choosing simply because they do not know what God knows, they do the choosing because they have been given free will to choose and nothing would happen if they did not choose.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you say. So you paint an IMPERFECT THING, who is a BULLY..

God would be a bully if He forced Himself on us in order to convince us.
God is not a bully and that is why He does not force us to believe in Him.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except that your god IS NOT actually GOOD. Too much evil.

All evil comes from man, because man has free will to do either good or evil.

“All that which ye potentially possess can, however, be manifested only as a result of your own volition. Your own acts testify to this truth. Consider, for instance, that which hath been forbidden, in the Bayán, unto men. God hath in that Book, and by His behest, decreed as lawful whatsoever He hath pleased to decree, and hath, through the power of His sovereign might, forbidden whatsoever He elected to forbid. To this testifieth the text of that Book. Will ye not bear witness? Men, however, have wittingly broken His law. Is such a behavior to be attributed to God, or to their proper selves? Be fair in your judgment. Every good thing is of God, and every evil thing is from yourselves. Will ye not comprehend? This same truth hath been revealed in all the Scriptures, if ye be of them that understand.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 149-150

 

[PureX]

God knows what we will choose but God does not cause us to choose what He knows we will choose.

We can't know the extent of God's hand in our choices, so we're still choosing for ourselves, regardless.

Our free will enables us to make choices that God knows we will make because God is All-Knowing.

The point is that free will is the product of OUR UNKNOWING, not of anything God does or does not know.

Humans do not do the choosing simply because they do not know what God knows, they do the choosing because they have been given free will to choose and nothing would happen if they did not choose.

Yes, but we do that choosing because we do not know the "right choice". It is our unknowing that creates the options we choose from in the first place.

 

[Trailblazer]

We can't know the extent of God's hand in our choices, so we're still choosing for ourselves, regardless.
The point is that free will is the product of OUR UNKNOWING, not of anything God does or does not know.
Yes, but we do that choosing because we do not know the "right choice". It is our unknowing that creates the options we choose from in the first place.

That is another way to look at it.
God might have a hand in our choices even though we make them.
We do not know what God wants us to do so we just try to make the right choices.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can keep repeating that the scientific method doesn't do what the scientific method wasn't designed to do until you're red in the face. NO ONE IS ARGUING WITH YOU!

What I keep asking is what is the ALTERNATE method for determining how the universe functions that is AS reliable or MORE reliable? If you can't provide an answer, then simply accept that my claim that the scientific method is by far the best method we've found for determining how the universe functions is TRUE?

No, I find a combination of hard science, social science, humanities and philosophy better.
BTW I don't find the universe that interesting. Now what is in it, humans. That is far more interesting thus my top answer.
In a sense I don't care how the universe functions, because what matters are how humans function and how they interact with the world, they are in.