The Athiest-MPS Link's Destruction of Spirituality

a reply to: Woodcarver

I think your argument doesn't really represent the truth in the regard the op is using.

This is clearly a discussion of philosophy. Which has a formal lineage in debate over the argument of God.

Diagoras kicked it off for us in the west more than 3000 years ago. Since then it has been argued for century after century by many philosophers and is taught in formal academic philosophy in ontology and cosmology.

Science and philosophy meet in cosmology and ontology so this discussion and argument is regarded in science to a degree.

The russel's teapot argument your using is not solid philosophy.

The cosmological regard for a designer or necessary being is a concept that has "logic". A unicorn does not have cosmological function I am aware of. This creates a red herring or straw man in response to the argument for god.

Also in philosophy atheism is recognized as two distinct groups. Those that make claims about God and those that don't.. Why,.. because they are different points of view.

On says god does not exist. ..

The other says I don't hold any beliefs about God.

Hard/Soft there are a few adjectives but the two groups have enough people to make a distinction.

Saying god doesn't exist or it it is a silly notion is making a claim.

Saying I don't believe in god, I would rather form my world view on information is a different perspective.

Hence Negative/Positive or Hard/Soft atheism when discussing the topic around the argument for god.

Those arguments are Cosmological, Ontological, Teleological if you haven't read through any of them.

a reply to: luthier

Whether god exists or not is not a philosophical question. It is a scientific question. If you want to ask what God thinks about vanilla ice cream or homosexuals that is a philosophical question. We definately have enough information to dismiss the claims of christians and muslims alike. We know that the being described in the bible and the quran cannot exist as it is described. As well as the hundreds of other beings that have been described throughout history.

They are making a claim, i am saying that i don't believe their claim because they have no evidence that supports what they are saying. In fact none of the observations we have been making point to any validity in those stories.

This is not me saying that gods can't exist. Just that the gods that they are describing can't exist. Also that they do not have sufficient reason to claim that any of the god concepts that they are describing, do exist. This distinct position is not covered in your previous post. It is difficult to say that no gods could ever exist, because you might find something that could technically be considered godlike, but as soon as you start giving these supposed gods properties which would make them impossible, then it is easy to say that those gods do not exist and could not exist.

a reply to: Woodcarver

This is not me saying that gods can't exist. Just that the gods that they are describing can't exist.

Precisely.

We’d better pray that God doesn’t exist, because if He did, life truly would be Hell.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

Whether god exists or not is not a philosophical question. It is a scientific question. If you want to ask what God thinks about vanilla ice cream or homosexuals that is a philosophical question. We definately have enough information to dismiss the claims of christians and muslims alike. We know that the being described in the bible and the quran cannot exist as it is described. As well as the hundreds of other beings that have been described throughout history.

They are making a claim, i am saying that i don't believe their claim because they have no evidence that supports what they are saying. In fact none of the observations we have been making point to any validity in those stories.

This is not me saying that gods can't exist. Just that the gods that they are describing can't exist. Also that they do not have sufficient reason to claim that any of the god concepts that they are describing, do exist. This distinct position is not covered in your previous post. It is difficult to say that no gods could ever exist, because you might find something that could technically be considered godlike, but as soon as you start giving these supposed gods properties which would make them impossible, then it is easy to say that those gods do not exist and could not exist.

Whether god exists or not is not merely science. The entire arguments have taken place in philosophy. Diagoras, Aristotle, Aquinas, Anselm those kind of debates. Why is God's existence a scientific question? Are you unfamiliar with formal philosophy?

You should seriously reconsider your viewpoints as far as definitions here.

Cosmology is both science and philosophy. God is also a metaphysical concept.

And no science rarely has the purpose of proving or disproving anything. It falsifies information.

When discussing quantum, and cosmological physics there is not always "proof".

Are you familiar with modern cosmology? Can you show 10 dimensions, in string theory? 11 in m theory?, how about the 26 in bosonic theory?

Can you show me the multiverse? Can you explain away the observation of cosmic fine tuning?

We don't know very much about cosmology, or ontology. We are trying ideas of holograms,simulations etc as far ontology goes.

There is almost no way to say even Abrahamic gods don't exist. Once you believe in the multiverse which is how many physicists explain fine tuning, we are in a position where every possibility for reality is possible, same with some dimensional theory. Time and space has an entire division of philosophy which works with physics for time and space concepts.

Throw in the possibility of superposition in visible objects, etc. Life is weird man. The Greek gods are less weird and more believable to your common man than half of physics cosmological explanations.

Chances are we are stuck by the anthropic principle as far as our ideas of reality.

And no I not a theist. I have never felt in line with anything bUT some of the moral or philosophical concepts in the prose.

I am fairly certain the books are not helpful currently tly to mankind, and that they are not accurate cosmology, however I can only prove that the time line is off, unless of coarse we get in multiple dimensions, alternate universes etc, the. I have no way of knowing if some being exists, or can cross through these different planes. So if your a scientists using the current cosmological theories god just became further away and harder to prove or disprove.

So in this case "hard" atheism is also making claims. God does not and can not exist and we are all just matter that decays and nothing else...is a claim.

Soft atheism is not this way. It just says I have no beliefs in god I don't see any information to justify it's existence.

Do you recognize these two different opinions?





For reference youtu.be...

www.quantamagazine.org...

And even today there is a question of whether falsification or emperic evidence is they only way in which to work on cosmology and theoretical physics in general. If you Google the topic you will find some good journal peer reviewed work on the subject of how to work on theoretical physics.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

Whether god exists or not is not a philosophical question. It is a scientific question. If you want to ask what God thinks about vanilla ice cream or homosexuals that is a philosophical question. We definately have enough information to dismiss the claims of christians and muslims alike. We know that the being described in the bible and the quran cannot exist as it is described. As well as the hundreds of other beings that have been described throughout history.

They are making a claim, i am saying that i don't believe their claim because they have no evidence that supports what they are saying. In fact none of the observations we have been making point to any validity in those stories.

This is not me saying that gods can't exist. Just that the gods that they are describing can't exist. Also that they do not have sufficient reason to claim that any of the god concepts that they are describing, do exist. This distinct position is not covered in your previous post. It is difficult to say that no gods could ever exist, because you might find something that could technically be considered godlike, but as soon as you start giving these supposed gods properties which would make them impossible, then it is easy to say that those gods do not exist and could not exist.

Whether god exists or not is not merely science. The entire arguments have taken place in philosophy. Diagoras, Aristotle, Aquinas, Anselm those kind of debates. Why is God's existence a scientific question? Are you unfamiliar with formal philosophy?

You should seriously reconsider your viewpoints as far as definitions here.

Cosmology is both science and philosophy. God is also a metaphysical concept.

And no science rarely has the purpose of proving or disproving anything. It falsifies information.

When discussing quantum, and cosmological physics there is not always "proof".

Are you familiar with modern cosmology? Can you show 10 dimensions, in string theory? 11 in m theory?, how about the 26 in bosonic theory?

Can you show me the multiverse? Can you explain away the observation of cosmic fine tuning?

We don't know very much about cosmology, or ontology. We are trying ideas of holograms,simulations etc as far ontology goes.

There is almost no way to say even Abrahamic gods don't exist. Once you believe in the multiverse which is how many physicists explain fine tuning, we are in a position where every possibility for reality is possible, same with some dimensional theory. Time and space has an entire division of philosophy which works with physics for time and space concepts.

Throw in the possibility of superposition in visible objects, etc. Life is weird man. The Greek gods are less weird and more believable to your common man than half of physics cosmological explanations.

Chances are we are stuck by the anthropic principle as far as our ideas of reality.

And no I not a theist. I have never felt in line with anything bUT some of the moral or philosophical concepts in the prose.

I am fairly certain the books are not helpful currently tly to mankind, and that they are not accurate cosmology, however I can only prove that the time line is off, unless of coarse we get in multiple dimensions, alternate universes etc, the. I have no way of knowing if some being exists, or can cross through these different planes. So if your a scientists using the current cosmological theories god just became further away and harder to prove or disprove.

So in this case "hard" atheism is also making claims. God does not and can not exist and we are all just matter that decays and nothing else...is a claim.

Soft atheism is not this way. It just says I have no beliefs in god I don't see any information to justify it's existence.

Do you recognize these two different opinions?





For reference youtu.be...

www.quantamagazine.org...

And even today there is a question of whether falsification or emperic evidence is they only way in which to work on cosmology and theoretical physics in general. If you Google the topic you will find some good journal peer reviewed work on the subject of how to work on theoretical physics.

I am familiar with formal philosophy I just disagree with it. Most of those people were dogmatic in their views, they are already wrapped up in the mindset of religiosity. Plus, they lived hundreds of years ago, and had no concept of particle physics.we have figured out a lot since then. The question of whether something exists or not Is solely in the realm of science. Just like the existence of rocks and oxygen are also solely in the realm of Scientific inquiry. Just because people can imagine an argument doesn't make that argument true. You must observe anything having a property before you can apply that property to the description of that thing. Just look at presuppositional apologetics.

Just because somebody wrote something down a long time ago does not mean that it holds more validity than something figured out in modern times. You have to look at what they're saying, and then apply that too what we can observe.

There is no other object that you would agree exists without physical evidence. Why would a God be any different than a watermelon or a baseball. We know these things exist because we can observe them. We know about their properties because we have observed of them. Why would anybody suppose that A god exists without some kind of physical evidence? How is god exempt from this?

a reply to: Woodcarver

Again your at a loss. Can you prove super strings or the multiverse?

Where is the evidence?

You don't believe in philosophy? That is strange. The entire reason say empericism (John locke) and science exists is through philosophy.

How about John locke writing two treatises of government which is regarded as the inspiration for the constitution? The work on the idea of the social contract

Why do some atheists believe we are just matter that decays and that is all? That a first cause or necessary being is impossible?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

Whether god exists or not is not a philosophical question. It is a scientific question. If you want to ask what God thinks about vanilla ice cream or homosexuals that is a philosophical question. We definately have enough information to dismiss the claims of christians and muslims alike. We know that the being described in the bible and the quran cannot exist as it is described. As well as the hundreds of other beings that have been described throughout history.

They are making a claim, i am saying that i don't believe their claim because they have no evidence that supports what they are saying. In fact none of the observations we have been making point to any validity in those stories.

This is not me saying that gods can't exist. Just that the gods that they are describing can't exist. Also that they do not have sufficient reason to claim that any of the god concepts that they are describing, do exist. This distinct position is not covered in your previous post. It is difficult to say that no gods could ever exist, because you might find something that could technically be considered godlike, but as soon as you start giving these supposed gods properties which would make them impossible, then it is easy to say that those gods do not exist and could not exist.

Whether god exists or not is not merely science. The entire arguments have taken place in philosophy. Diagoras, Aristotle, Aquinas, Anselm those kind of debates. Why is God's existence a scientific question? Are you unfamiliar with formal philosophy?

You should seriously reconsider your viewpoints as far as definitions here.

Cosmology is both science and philosophy. God is also a metaphysical concept.

And no science rarely has the purpose of proving or disproving anything. It falsifies information.

When discussing quantum, and cosmological physics there is not always "proof".

Are you familiar with modern cosmology? Can you show 10 dimensions, in string theory? 11 in m theory?, how about the 26 in bosonic theory?

Can you show me the multiverse? Can you explain away the observation of cosmic fine tuning?

We don't know very much about cosmology, or ontology. We are trying ideas of holograms,simulations etc as far ontology goes.

There is almost no way to say even Abrahamic gods don't exist. Once you believe in the multiverse which is how many physicists explain fine tuning, we are in a position where every possibility for reality is possible, same with some dimensional theory. Time and space has an entire division of philosophy which works with physics for time and space concepts.

Throw in the possibility of superposition in visible objects, etc. Life is weird man. The Greek gods are less weird and more believable to your common man than half of physics cosmological explanations.

Chances are we are stuck by the anthropic principle as far as our ideas of reality.

And no I not a theist. I have never felt in line with anything bUT some of the moral or philosophical concepts in the prose.

I am fairly certain the books are not helpful currently tly to mankind, and that they are not accurate cosmology, however I can only prove that the time line is off, unless of coarse we get in multiple dimensions, alternate universes etc, the. I have no way of knowing if some being exists, or can cross through these different planes. So if your a scientists using the current cosmological theories god just became further away and harder to prove or disprove.

So in this case "hard" atheism is also making claims. God does not and can not exist and we are all just matter that decays and nothing else...is a claim.

Soft atheism is not this way. It just says I have no beliefs in god I don't see any information to justify it's existence.

Do you recognize these two different opinions?





For reference youtu.be...

www.quantamagazine.org...

And even today there is a question of whether falsification or emperic evidence is they only way in which to work on cosmology and theoretical physics in general. If you Google the topic you will find some good journal peer reviewed work on the subject of how to work on theoretical physics.

all of these philosophers you bring up already presuppose the existence of a God. They have no idea what particle physics is, and not a single one of them was an accomplished scientist. They most likely believed in ghosts and spirits. And had no real understanding of science.

All of the theories that physicists present as possible models for reality, Are recognized as just that. Possibilities. However they don't just come up with these ideas willy-nilly. They have very good reasons to postulate these ideas. Based on what they have observed , And mathematical formulas they used to create these models. Where are the observations that Point to God?

a reply to: Woodcarver

The evidence? It's a concept. What is the beginning?

How could something come from nothing? Those kind of things. You haven't read the arguments so your making assumptions.

Also that science and scientists don't consider "god" or a designer as a possibility even today is obsurd.

I did work in college on cosmology. I can tell you have no idea of the subjects theories and what they would imply if true.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Just came into the thread to say I started out as a Catholic and it wasn't until after YEARS of reflection that I became JUST a Christian (non-denominational). It took many more years to become an agnostic. It was after much time on ATS learning about different conspiracies and religions that I started calling myself an atheist. No pressure whatsoever. Christianity and Spirituality had their chance but whenever I look up evidence for them, it always comes out wanting.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Just came into the thread to say I started out as a Catholic and it wasn't until after YEARS of reflection that I became JUST a Christian (non-denominational). It took many more years to become an agnostic. It was after much time on ATS learning about different conspiracies and religions that I started calling myself an atheist. No pressure whatsoever. Christianity and Spirituality had their chance but whenever I look up evidence for them, it always comes out wanting.

I went the opposite. I was catholic until 3rd grade when my mom had the sense to pull me out of school when I asked why jews don't go to heaven.

I was never truly a theist, was an atheist in high school and part of college. When I started to get deer in to philosophy, mainly cosmology I started seeing an explaination for the super natural with multi dimensional modern cosmology. It opened me up to understand we don't have a clue. If you decide something anything is 100 percent true your a believer and don't have the facts to back that up.

Is the sky blue?

Only to an observer who see's that, in this dimesion, in this time, in this space.

If a multiverse exists is there a universe with Greek gods?

Arrogance of proof is something science tries to avoid at the higher levels of discovery.

Even in this universe we have physical anomalies which hopefully new theories of gravity are fixing (like emergent)

a reply to: luthier

Ok. Let me rephrase that a bit. When I talk about Spirituality, I'm talking about ANY description of the other that humans have come up with. Humans are notoriously bad guessers and all religions and spirituality beliefs are mostly guesses with little to no controlled testing. So it is likely all vastly wrong in all conceivable ways. That's not to say a god or ghosts or demons don't exist. They just aren't what we think they are.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Ok. Let me rephrase that a bit. When I talk about Spirituality, I'm talking about ANY description of the other that humans have come up with. Humans are notoriously bad guessers and all religions and spirituality beliefs are mostly guesses with little to no controlled testing. So it is likely all vastly wrong in all conceivable ways. That's not to say a god or ghosts or demons don't exist. They just aren't what we think they are.

I think of you as a pretty open and well read person. I was just trying to explain what the op was getting at.

Many atheists who are in the hard style of this perspective are militant like hard evangelical theism.

Many people who say science is this:....
Have no idea what cutting edge science is saying and many applied science types I have met have just as much stuburn beliefs in what reality is as theists. The physicists tend to be a little more open knowing how strange it is out there and that just because a door is "solid" or you can make a machine throw a ball doesn't mean you have the whole story.

a reply to: luthier

Yeah. I can see that being true rather easily. Anti-evolution people seem to pull these types from the woodwork all the time. Some natural sciences doctor talking about geology or something. But one thing I learned about the scientific method is that it needs to be applied equally to everything, including (especially) your own biases.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver

The evidence? It's a concept. What is the beginning?

How could something come from nothing? Those kind of things. You haven't read the arguments so your making assumptions.

Also that science and scientists don't consider "god" or a designer as a possibility even today is obsurd.

I did work in college on cosmology. I can tell you have no idea of the subjects theories and what they would imply if true.

Even concepts need to be plausible. We judge their plausibility by comparing it to what we do know about reality. To assume that a god exists is jumping over the very fundemental step of observation. There is an odd trend going on where people who know longer trust the common religions and realize that those gods probably don't exist, are trying to find some kind of God that does exist. All the while assuming that it is a "God" that you are looking for. Because you are used to thinking about a world created by Gods.

Science shows us that all processes are scaled down from chemical to electromagnetic to quantum to use general terms in nature. That is an undeniable fact. The four fundamental forces are well understood and what they term the quantum scale is being deeply investigated. Nowhere in any of these fields is there room for a magical personality that answers prayers. So we can knock that possibility right off the table and any gods that are described with that property can be as well.


Who said anything about something came from nothing? This is where philosophy makes it's fatal errors. It tries to answer things that science is still waiting for enough information to speak intelligently about. You can't prove things with word problems alone. You need properly applied observational science, or you are just guessing.

Why would scientists believe that God is a possibility when there is no correlating evidence to suggest such a thing? Where is the correlating evidence that would make such a possibility reasonable?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Just came into the thread to say I started out as a Catholic and it wasn't until after YEARS of reflection that I became JUST a Christian (non-denominational). It took many more years to become an agnostic. It was after much time on ATS learning about different conspiracies and religions that I started calling myself an atheist. No pressure whatsoever. Christianity and Spirituality had their chance but whenever I look up evidence for them, it always comes out wanting.

I went the opposite. I was catholic until 3rd grade when my mom had the sense to pull me out of school when I asked why jews don't go to heaven.

I was never truly a theist, was an atheist in high school and part of college. When I started to get deer in to philosophy, mainly cosmology I started seeing an explaination for the super natural with multi dimensional modern cosmology. It opened me up to understand we don't have a clue. If you decide something anything is 100 percent true your a believer and don't have the facts to back that up.

Is the sky blue?

Only to an observer who see's that, in this dimesion, in this time, in this space.

If a multiverse exists is there a universe with Greek gods?

Arrogance of proof is something science tries to avoid at the higher levels of discovery.

Even in this universe we have physical anomalies which hopefully new theories of gravity are fixing (like emergent)

But you were acting as though all possibilities are equally plausible and that is just not the case

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver

The evidence? It's a concept. What is the beginning?

How could something come from nothing? Those kind of things. You haven't read the arguments so your making assumptions.

Also that science and scientists don't consider "god" or a designer as a possibility even today is obsurd.

I did work in college on cosmology. I can tell you have no idea of the subjects theories and what they would imply if true.

Even concepts need to be plausible. We judge their plausibility by comparing it to what we do know about reality. To assume that a god exists is jumping over the very fundemental step of observation. There is an odd trend going on where people who know longer trust the common religions and realize that those gods probably don't exist, are trying to find some kind of God that does exist. All the while assuming that it is a "God" that you are looking for. Because you are used to thinking about a world created by Gods.

Science shows us that all processes are scaled down from chemical to electromagnetic to quantum to use general terms in nature. That is an undeniable fact. The four fundamental forces are well understood and what they term the quantum scale is being deeply investigated. Nowhere in any of these fields is there room for a magical personality that answers prayers. So we can knock that possibility right off the table and any gods that are described with that property can be as well.


Who said anything about something came from nothing? This is where philosophy makes it's fatal errors. It tries to answer things that science is still waiting for enough information to speak intelligently about. You can't prove things with word problems alone. You need properly applied observational science, or you are just guessing.

Why would scientists believe that God is a possibility when there is no correlating evidence to suggest such a thing? Where is the correlating evidence that would make such a possibility reasonable?

First off you really are making an incredible amount of assumptions about philosophy and science.

Philosophy does not say something comes from nothing nor does it have a fatal flaw of being word games.

These are simply concepts. Science and philosophy work extremely close together in the actual real world. In cosmology it's a joint effort. Scientists don't have time to decide what things "meaning" are so they need feedback to direct tests.

If you look at the cosmology departments say at the University of Chicago Fermi labs doing physical science with cutting edge machines they work with philosophers directly.

The concept of miracles or prayer is hardly impossible. It may be explained in the future as states of consciousness, quantum entaglement, etc. But your being a little rediculous being so specific and fatalistic to say, "there is no room for this in science"

For all you know we are genetically altered monkeys who have a quantum entanglement with our creators.


If science is scaled down,...or up then are we subject to superposition?

Is "heaven" another dimension or reality? Confused or manipulated by beings that have a greater understanding of physics and we're able to trick us earlier in evolution?

Who knows. You can't say really now can you.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would say the same for hard science atheism. They put up ant evolution people as how absurd Christianity is.

When in reality creationism is a rarity in religion. Most people until evolution lead to out of Africa 1 and 2 theories thought is was a teaching story. Suddenly after it is discovered we have a single ancestry creation is literal. Probably out of racism if I had a guess. "There is no way I came frome them"

Mendel, and Laimatre were priests who pushed science to new areas of discovery. They believed genesis was not literal. In fact most Christians in history and jews before knew it was allegory just like "the cave" was.

I don't know if it's really racism that lead American christians to creationism but it's not a majority belief.

I agree but will say unbias is impossible. At the very least the anthropic principle plays a part in keeping the blinders on.

A scientists knows they are biased and does everything they can to control the bias.

The observers place in space and time alone creates bias.

a reply to: luthier

This is why I try not to assume my opponent's debates anymore. It's best to just let them explain their point and address that. If something seems confusing or is leading you down a path that seems absurd, ask a question for clarity.

If I construct an thread critical of Christianity these days I'll try to allow for multiple view points of the religion or if I want to speak to a certain belief I'll specifically address that one.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's also ats so you get a lot of very polarizing views and people challenging ideas so some of the extremes are ever present.

And just for reference I am not a believer. I think there are men who have mastered there mind and bodies in profound ways, I can't say if they can communicate with the cosmos or god, but what we think of reality is in fact an illusion (because it's such a small piece of everything).

"that which is thought" is not compatible with the "thing-in-itself", the latter meaning things as they exist apart from their existence as images in the mind of an observer.

Since we have to see the data and think about it, well we are biased by our mental and sensory limitations. Equipment helps extend our senses but science isnt going to make us understand what color we can't see looks like or sounds we can't hear sound like, or something we can't feel with no reference feels like.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

If Revelation is genuine prophecy then Christians (those who believe in the second coming, actually in those times believe in that a certain person has been the second coming, he or she is also the lamb that opens the 7 seals, and will be sacrificed as a lamb to the slaughter bank) will be prosecuted again very severely. Can only be done by atheists or luciferians or something.