The God idea. Argue with this.

[Michaelm]

and hopefully there will be many many more churches and mosques built in the netherlands in the coming years

I'm flattered by your devotion to me

Most people that call themselves atheist display a belief in science that reminds me of religion.

believe in science without question.

Science differs greatly from religion cause they are open to new proven views.
Also all people know this. There have been changes in views all over the years. So saying that most people believe in science without question or even calling it a religion is far from the truth.

Now everyone thinks there is a finite answer and we can find it, I wouldn't be too surprised if in the next 50 years this concept will be disproven as well.

The concept of science ?

[Ed Oscuro]

Hey Michaelm, I already discussed that with SpooN...maybe taking up too much space to do so. If you think you can do a better job explaining it, knock yourself out...but I'm going to make a wild guess that we've moved on. Your choice really!

[SpooN]

God my english skills apparently suck, or perhaps my wording in general (glad I could at least reach common ground with you Ed).

I was talking about the concept of a finite answer to everything.

And if you are a person that has no clues of current scientific discoveries and theories then believing in science is really close to a religion which is true for about anybody you'd meet outside.. (you see, believing without question)
If you ask people how the universe originated most will answer Big Bang as if this would explain anything at all (at least they can't explain because they have no clue).

Science differs only from religion if you understand and question it's results.

[CMoon]

I haven't read all this thread (is there really a good reason to?), but have any of you checked out the HILARIOUS youtube videos with noted athiest Christopher Hitchens? This is comedy gold regardless what you believe in! Hearing this guy (who absolutely looks drunk) trashing all things religion, but also coming off as enormously clever (whether he actually is or not), is a real hoot.

Many clips are funny so I don't know which to pick, but this one is pure gold:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMa ... re=related

[Michaelm]

If you ask people how the universe originated most will answer Big Bang as if this would explain anything at all (at least they can't explain because they have no clue).

I prefer this over people telling me there is a god who judges us.

Science differs only from religion if you understand and question it's results.

Science differs far more from religion as it actively seeks for answers and religion says it holds the answers already.

I just had to quote this earlier thing you said:

somewhat funny since logic itself is - like religion - just a principle made up by humans

Logic existed from the start of the universe and must have existed before for the universe to even start to exist.

[doctorx0079]

[Ed Oscuro]

Many clips are funny so I don't know which to pick, but this one is pure gold:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMa ... re=related

What's funny are the Fox News punks getting puffy eyes because Hitchens tells them he doesn't need to honor the memory of a dangerous man.

Actually, I loved how he tells them that Falwell's business will be consolation enough for the bereaved children. Classic Hitchens.

p.s. Geordi LaForge rules.

[jpj]

science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. many great physicists were religious, mainly because (like many other people who have a faith) they do not take the scriptures too literally. indeed the big bang theory itself was first put forward by a roman catholic priest. chalk one up for the monotheists. and talking about god as something not worth arguing over because it's existence can't be proven or disproved, whilst scientists argue over other things which can't be seen or proven, like string theory (there are 10+ different dimensions, we can only see 3, and the others we cannot test for...?). currently, science can only explain 4% of what makes up the universe. the other 96% consists of stuff we don't know what exactly it is, how it works, or where it comes from. or why the universe is predominantly matter, instead of anti-matter, when both were created equally during the big bang. and while we can talk about the first moments of the big bang (up to the first 10,000,000th of a second), we simply don't have the science to explain the actual moment of creation because we don't have laws of science without the properties of time and space (general relativity).

while this thread has largely been a waste of time, an evening of cosmology lectures via google video has officially fried my brain

[JoshF]

Truth isn't a mad lib.

[Randorama]

while this thread has largely been a waste of time, an evening of cosmology lectures via google video has officially fried my brain

Which begs the question: why one should buy the fairy stories? Answer: 'I want everything now!'. Fine, but as long one does not pretend for his beliefs to be automatically proven, tried and true, that's not really a problem. Anyone could tell me that he knows where the missing 96% of stuff is, but if it's about stuff written on some piece of paper and a lot of pinks and browns menacing me yell to show that it's `true', I guess that something is not quite right about their 'argument'.


And again, the mind of one individual can accommodate beliefs in Spaghetti Monsters and knowledge about the 10th dimension effortlessly. What is in the mind does not prove what is outside of it (I could make jokes about multiple personalities, since we're here). That works for both Falwell, mr. Ratzinga and his holinesses Dawkins and Hitchens. But ehi, it's all about arguments and which tribe wins. Let's not get stuff like 'facts' around, since no one has any.

[SpooN]

First since it seems it still isn't clear: I'm not talking about science beeing like a religion but about people treating science as if it was a religion, people like you:

Logic existed from the start of the universe and must have existed before for the universe to even start to exist.

And how to you prove this statement scientifically? If you can't how does that statement differ from anyone who says there must be a god?

[Michaelm]

Logic existed from the start of the universe and must have existed before for the universe to even start to exist.

And how to you prove this statement scientifically? If you can't how does that statement differ from anyone who says there must be a god?

Easy !
From the start of the big bang everything is logical.
So to get to such a point logic should have existed beforehand.

In every experiment we have done we had to make sure to start from a setpoint so we could calculate exactly what would happen.
If anything was off the experiment could fail.
So if logic was off at the big bang all our logic calculations about the big bang would be wrong. But they do add up almost perfectly.
So logic must have existed at the start of the big bang.

I only go by logic to get to this.

You are trying to start an argument about religion vs science which aren't comparable at all.
The only valid point you might have is that some people experience science as if it is a religion in the sense they believe it without questioning but still they differ greatly and are not comparable as is.

Proving science is real cause it all adds up is easy.
Proving god exists is equal to proving Pinokio exists, so not doable at all.

[SpooN]

Your "proof" is flawed in so many ways that any further discussion seems futile since you try (for whatever reason I might only guess) as hard as possible to appear as the kind of person I was describing as "science believer".

And I never tried to start an argument religion vs science (remember if anything at all I'm with science, may religion altogether disappear for all I care).
You can argue against a literally interpretation of the bible with science but you cannot argue against the concept of god. You are however free to not believe in it and to believe in what you call logic (it appears to me you don't really know what logic is, correct me if I'm wrong).

Btw if you don't see any flaw in your "proof", take my congratulations for winning this argument beforehand so I don't have to write another post.

[Michaelm]

Your "proof" is flawed in so many ways that any further discussion seems futile since you try (for whatever reason I might only guess) as hard as possible to appear as the kind of person I was describing as "science believer".

You must be mad to describe persons who believe in logic, as opposed to science, as religious believers. It's also mad in the first place to try to compare the two.

You are however free to not believe in it and to believe in what you call logic (it appears to me you don't really know what logic is, correct me if I'm wrong).

I'm very interested in what your definition of logic is.

Btw if you don't see any flaw in your "proof", take my congratulations for winning this argument beforehand so I don't have to write another post.

Then please explain what is flawed if you want to be taken serious.
You don't bring any arguments other then comparing science with religion and calling me stupid over and over again.
If you think you show you're clever this way then think again.

[SpooN]

Ok why not.

Easy !
A From the start of the big bang everything is logical.
B So to get to such a point logic should have existed beforehand.

You basically just say A=>B and A is true.
Let me construct a similiar proof:

A From the start of the big bang everything is Gods work.
B So to get to such a point God should have existed beforehand.

(both statements would be wrong if B was wrong btw)

In every experiment we have done we had to make sure to start from a setpoint so we could calculate exactly what would happen.
If anything was off the experiment could fail.
So if logic was off at the big bang all our logic calculations about the big bang would be wrong. But they do add up almost perfectly.
So logic must have existed at the start of the big bang.

Besides we don't know if any calculations about the Big Bang are true and experiments in astrophysics are notorious inaccurate and the conclusions often hasty your argument here is wrong on a logic basis as well:

Be A: There is logic.
Be B: Any prediction we make.

A=>B is always true if "not A".

I will agree that my translation into logic forms is not very accurate but any other form would have similiar flaws.

So to what logic is: First like I said there are different logics, but all have in common to be invented by humans. I'm used to boolean logic which I used above and to some extend to formal logic used in IT which would have been a lot more complicated to apply here. I don't know what kind of logic is used in philosophy and I'm sadly oblivious to theories of modal logic and such so I can't really talk about them but in any case you should skim through Gödels theorems which offer some funky conclusions.

I am by no means an expert but as far as I know our standart boolean logic fails completely in quantum mechanics*, perhaps they defined (or try to) a new logic for this field, I don't know but in either case we must change our logic according to the universe and not the other way around.

I'm sorry, my post was more offending than meant to be.

[EDIT]: *The whole concept that a statement is either true or false seems to be wrong in the real world.

[Michaelm]

You basically just say A=>B and A is true.
Let me construct a similiar proof:

A From the start of the big bang everything is Gods work.
B So to get to such a point God should have existed beforehand.

(both statements would be wrong if B was wrong btw)

It's not as simple as that.
You can prove logic exists but you can't prove god exists.
I think in what I said B is an educated guess coming out of the proven A and in what you said both points remain unproven.

Besides we don't know if any calculations about the Big Bang are true and experiments in astrophysics are notorious inaccurate and the conclusions often hasty your argument here is wrong on a logic basis as well:

We know that we are missing information cause some calculations simply don't add up. We most probably still don't know all forms of energy I think.

So to what logic is: First like I said there are different logics, but all have in common to be invented by humans. I'm used to boolean logic which I used above and to some extend to formal logic used in IT which would have been a lot more complicated to apply here. I don't know what kind of logic is used in philosophy and I'm sadly oblivious to theories of modal logic and such so I can't really talk about them but in any case you should skim through Gödels theorems which offer some funky conclusions.

Ok, you sure know more about different forms of 'logic' then I do.
When I think about logic I think about math. Numbers don't lie.

I am by no means an expert but as far as I know our standart boolean logic fails completely in quantum mechanics*, perhaps they defined (or try to) a new logic for this field, I don't know but in either case we must change our logic according to the universe and not the other way around.

Boolean logic is only true or false.
It's hardly useful in trying to explain anything complicated.

I'm sorry, my post was more offending than meant to be.

Didn't notice this. Thanks for elaborating your thoughts !

[EDIT]: *The whole concept that a statement is either true or false seems to be wrong in the real world.

Yes, thats true. As soon as stuff gets more complicated boolean logic fails.

[jpj]

From the start of the big bang everything is logical.

that's not true

Proving science is real cause it all adds up is easy.

also not true

(links can be provided if necessary...!?)

there are so many different (and conflicting) ideas about the start (and eventual demise) of the universe. if one of them is actually correct, all the other are thereby incorrect. or none of them are correct and they are all incorrect. you say science "all adds up" when in reality the same information and the same observations can be used to explain totally different ideas on the universe; the scientists don't agree with each other. when the real scientists themselves can look at so-called dark matter and dark energy, put their hands up, and say: 96% of the universe is made up of this stuff, and we have no fucking clue what it is, how it works, why it exists, and where it came from... you need to be able to say: science can't explain everything.

[sethsez]

From the start of the big bang everything is logical.
So to get to such a point logic should have existed beforehand.

The big bang was the initial point for time as well as space. Saying that something existed "before" it doesn't make logical sense.

In the whole science versus religion thing I'm personally on the side of science 100% of the time, but this really isn't the best application of it.

[sethsez]

when the real scientists themselves can look at so-called dark matter and dark energy, put their hands up, and say: 96% of the universe is made up of this stuff, and we have no fucking clue what it is, how it works, why it exists, and where it came from... you need to be able to say: science can't explain everything.

Change the bolded to "science hasn't explained everything" or perhaps "scientists can't explain everything." Science is merely the gathering and analysis of data, and any failings are the results of those practicing it, either due to their own faults or simple human limitations. And don't assume we're at the pinnacle of science right now... remember, it was only around a century ago when the aether was still considered a solid scientific fact. If we make mistakes, we'll find them and fix them. It may take a while, it may even take multiple generations, but it happens because that's how the entire process works.

And no, science will never explain everything, but that's because we don't have an eternity to do so and infinite resources with which to observe all there is to observe. The method isn't faulty, the application is, but that's not the fault of either science or scientists, it's just how things are and we make the best of it. There is nothing outside the scope of science as a method, but there's plenty currently outside the scope of how we are capable of applying it.

[jpj]

i'm not disagreeing with you, and i have no problem against science and the various schools of thought on the subject. i'm just echoing spoon's sentiments. i'm glad you also concede that science can never explain everything, and also that science can (and has) been wrong. when talking about the creation and evolution of the universe.....even einstein fucked it up

so when someone says "there is no scientific proof that god exists", how much weight does that actually have?

[Ed Oscuro]

i'm glad you also concede that science can never explain everything,

Ahem. It's premature to say that.

Certainly the origin questions are outside the reach of scientific inquiry at the moment, however.

[Twiddle]

if what i can ascertain of your post is at least a minute possibility that you can believe in my theoretical god you aight wit me bro

[sethsez]

i'm glad you also concede that science can never explain everything

Only as far as we can never implement it to its fullest extent. It doesn't mean science is flawed.

and also that science can (and has) been wrong.

Everyone admits this. The problem comes when people look at it as a flaw of science as a method. The fact that science can be re-evaluated and encourages the falsification of statements is a benefit, not a drawback. Making a statement and sticking with it regardless of evidence to the contrary is the kind of thing that gets you stuck in a war in Iraq, not the kind of thing that invents microprocessors. And although there are certainly scientists who do ignore evidence that contradicts what they say, this doesn't mean science is flawed, it means those are bad scientists who aren't applying the method properly.

so when someone says "there is no scientific proof that god exists", how much weight does that actually have?

More than when someone says "God exists," which is founded on ground shakier than science has ever been. Of course, "God exists" isn't even a statement science can really handle because the Abrahamic God is defined in such a way that it's completely impossible to falsify. This makes the entire statement meaningless from a scientific perspective.

You've set up a question that has no possible answer (due to the fact that God can just change the rules at his whim anyway) with the hopes that people will just give up and go "okay, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't." The problem, of course, is that the burden of proof lies with those making the positive claim. It is not up to science to prove that God doesn't exist (which, as stated, is impossible anyway). It is up to those claiming God exists to back it up.

[jpj]

i'm not disagreeing with what you're saying seth. rather the people who talk like michaelm and say: Proving science is real cause it all adds up is easy. we can't explain everything with science. but we can try. will we be able to reach a theory of unification? who knows.

and my point was that you haven't "won" an argument against religion by citing the lack of scientific evidence.

[jpj]

i'm not liking all these ninja edits you guys do

You've set up a question that has no possible answer

i'm not trying to provide an answer. like i said before, atheists need to choose their words a bit more wisely. rather than saying "there is no god", it's better to say "the existence of god is unfounded".

edit:

the burden of proof lies with those making the positive claim.

i'm deliberately trying to not be too anal about semantics, but if religion(s) could provide proof that god exists, it would not be a religion. you're talking about removing faith from the equation (this is where we start talking about Mohammed's People...). for religion to work, you need subservitude. someone who is religious isn't going to see it that way, that they need to prove anything to you. in the end, it's always going to arrive at a stalemate.

[Michaelm]

The big bang was the initial point for time as well as space. Saying that something existed "before" it doesn't make logical sense.

I guess 'before' is slightly misinterpreted.
I mean it has to exist for the outcome to be as it is so it should already be in existence when the big bang started.
So the very very beginning 'before'.

rather the people who talk like michaelm and say: Proving science is real cause it all adds up is easy.

Ofcourse I mean exactly what Seth already explained.
Science has been wrong but it's quick to adapt to new views when proven.
By saying it all adds up I mean that even we still don't know certain things, what we know we can prove. As time goes on, we'll know more and can prove more or change or views on certain things.

we can't explain everything with science. but we can try. will we be able to reach a theory of unification? who knows.

and my point was that you haven't "won" an argument against religion by citing the lack of scientific evidence.

The way science has been going I think we can safely say it would be very unlikely that the existence of a god like in the sense of monotheism will be proven.

To state again that I'm not against 'religion' I believe in energy and a sort of reincarnation without the live lesson part like in some other religion.
So if people wouldn't believe they be judged by a god and then either go to paradise or be punished but instead they would believe that life goes round in circles so behaving good and productive will benefit a later 'life' of your current 'life energy' then the world would be a better place.
I'm only against monotheism and not the other religions or my own personal one.

rather than saying "there is no god", it's better to say "the existence of god is unfounded".

I can agree with that (logic).

[jpj]

i wasn't expecting that kind of post. so you believe in stuff similar to hinduism?

[Michaelm]

i wasn't expecting that kind of post. so you believe in stuff similar to hinduism?

No not really.
There's nothing supreme about energy.
There's no consequence in how you live your life either.

[Twiddle]

There's no consequence in how you live your life either.

yeah those sociopaths are totally a non-concern

[jpj]

i'm not sure i follow, because you wrote: "behaving good and productive will benefit a later 'life' of your current 'life energy'".

this is a little ironic, as obviously you have no science or logic to back up reincarnation. but it's not in me to belittle someone's ideas. as i said at the start of the thread, i'm happy for people to believe (or not believe) in whatever makes sense to them, as long as it doesn't intrude on others. i wonder what you think i believe in?