So many people I know and respect are smug know-it-all atheists...

[Bagseed]

But, how is the absolute absence of explanation better?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

 

[Profit Prophet]

Before science. Before religion.
The question is given to two groups.
Why are we here? How did this happen?

They groups go off and work on it.
Then they come back with their answer.

Group 1 says, "We investigated near death experiences.
Those involved reported encountering an almighty presence.
What if this ultimately powerful being created the universe?"

Group 2 comes back and says, "We got nothing."

Forget Occam's Razor. It doesn't even apply here. You're misapplying it.
How does absence of an explanation imply fewer assumptions?

Break it down.
What are the assumptions in both case?

To assume a creationist God exists, you assume that something cannot be created from nothing.
To assume a creationist God does not, you assume the opposite.

But what about a non creationist God?
What assumptions exist, either way, with this?

Nothing is not better than something, as a rule of thumb. That is ridiculous.
The absolute absence of an explanation is not better than an explanation that may or may not be true.
Potentially, the explanation is superior. However inane.
Like, if you're on Jeopardy and you accidentally buzz.
Just say something. This might be the right answer.



...

Let me try this way. Apply the razor to intelligent life in the universe.
Which is the simpler answer? Aliens, yes or no. And what are the assumptions?

 

[Ninae]

Glad to see someone else pick up this argument. As always, it will get nowhere. People don't realise it takes intelligence to understand God, they think it's necessarily below it.

 

[alasdairm]

profit prophet, when you come crashing in as a newbie, telling people that their ideas are ridiculous and they are arrogant, you're going to get a little push back. if you're not comfortable getting opinions, you shouldn't ask for them.

you can't analyse this stuff rationally. this thing from the bible makes no sense? oh, you're taking it too literally. this other thing from the bible makes no sense? oh, you're not taking it literally enough.

christianity requires that things be taken 100% on faith so things like evidence, facts, logic and substantiation have no currency in the discussion (in the same way that blind faith has no currency where the scientific method is concerned).

alasdair

 

[belligerent drunk]

The difference between blind faith (under which Christianity falls) and the scientific method is that, one is based on assumptions based on emotions, and the other one is based on observations (and derivations thereof) of reality.

Believers speak of god in such certainty as though they know for sure what it is and what it does. But do you have any real evidence to support your claims other than "I feeeeel this way". The Big Bang theory is a product of actual observations and experiments, and the current hypothesis (that I'm inclined to agree with) is that our universe is, in simplistic terms, a big quantum fluctuation, that gave rise to intelligent life that is able to observe it (aka humans).

Proposing that there is a god who is outside of our realm brings on an infinite loop of questions. Where did she come from? Who created her, and who created her creator? And if she's been there all along, how do you know that? Surely not because you read it in a book written by peasants some 2000 years ago who thought the Earth was flat?

Many apologists say that the question "where does god come from" is a stupid question. But why? What evidence do you have to suggest so, other than hearsay? The Big Bang and multiverse hypotheses, on the other hand, have real, reproducible evidence going for them.

I mean, after all, I can say that the flying spaghetti monster is the ultimate ruler of the universe. And if you ask why I think so, I will reply "what a stupid question! it just is!". It's not an argument, however.

Oh, and to clarify some things. The current theory is that the universe did have a beginning. Look up the Big Bang theory. Recent speculations (again, based on real evidence), suggest that our universe has zero total energy, and may have been a result of a "big quantum fluctuation", the likes of which we observe daily, albeit on much lesser scales. But the the anthropic principle explains why we find ourselves in this universe. Because even if there are/were billions of trillions of other universes created according to similar mechanics, but were not suitable for life, we wouldn't find ourselves there. We'd find ourselves in the (albeit very unlikely) universe where such intelligence life can be supported.

PS I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. You cannot disprove that something exists unless you are able to map out the whole realm, and we're very far away from doing it. As I said in another thread. How do you disprove that the Earth is flat? By showing that it's something else - a sphere. So far, we've been successful at eliminating the god element by showing simple mechanisms that explain the phenomena we observe without the need for any divine intervention. Just look at the history. Back in the day (thousands of years ago), people explained everything by applying the "god 'dun it" explanation, but with the advancement of science, we've been able to explain many of those things without the need for any gods. And that's how we're going to show that there's no need for god (if there really is none) as far as science advances.

 

[drug_mentor]

To ask who created God is a bit ridiculous imo. It's like a blind person asking who created colors. You can describe what it's like, but they'll never really understand. It's the same scenario with God, just on a much bigger scale.

The point in asking such a (rhetorical) question is to illustrate that creationist stories don't have any explanatory virtues over science. Not because the questioner expects to get a coherent answer.

 

[Profit Prophet]

profit prophet, when you come crashing in as a newbie, telling people that their ideas are ridiculous and they are arrogant, you're going to get a little push back. if you're not comfortable getting opinions, you shouldn't ask for them.

I'm totally comfortable. Just don't think have to engage with everyone equally and respond to everything that has been said. I don't have time to do so. Not doing so does not make me rude or ignorant, as suggested. That's all was saying... And for the record, he said my ideas were arrogant first. I tried to avoid him. I only called him arrogant (eventually) because he said the only reason one might avoid is because they are inferior. This is typical petty internet behavior. And, it is arrogant. So, the shoe fits.

If anyone was offended by me saying the atheistic explanation is ridiculous, then they need to toughen up a bit anyway. This is probably helpful, I think. I'm not going to dance around on egg shells. But, at same time, I'm not going to stand around silently while someone insults me on a public forum. If I said the same things in a "polite" way, it would be okay. This is nonsense. And, I am very straight-forward person.

you can't analyse this stuff rationally. this thing from the bible makes no sense? oh, you're taking it too literally. this other thing from the bible makes no sense? oh, you're not taking it literally enough.

Christianity requires that things be taken 100% on faith so things like evidence, facts, logic and substantiation have no currency in the discussion (in the same way that blind faith has no currency where the scientific method is concerned).

Like I said, I'm not Christian.
I have no interest in Christianity.
I'm not attempting to analyse / dissect religion.

I agree, though, in that it would be nice if religious-minded people discuss religion more than atheists... or, at least, be open-minded to thinking in a different way. Christian scientists still use the scientific method when they're at work. So, if facts and logic have no currency here (I disagree somewhat), why is existence of God dependent on normal logic such as Occam's razor?

...

Thanks for posting on topic, belligerent drunk.
I will respond when I have time.

The point in asking such a (rhetorical) question is to illustrate that creationist stories don't have any explanatory virtues over science. Not because the questioner expects to get a coherent answer.

This is why you should have asked me to define God.
But, I guess it is more convenient to stick to this Christian / creationist nonsense.

Leave God undefined. It's easier this way.
(Rather than defining, as convenient to you.)
Let's just call it a broad theory. Existence of God.
The absence of this theory doesn't have any "explanatory virtues" over the theory itself.

 

[drug_mentor]

And for the record, he said my ideas were arrogant first. I tried to avoid him. I only called him arrogant (eventually) because he said the only reason one might avoid is because they are inferior. This is typical petty internet behavior. And, it is arrogant. So, the shoe fits.

I didn't call your ideas arrogant, I said one particular claim it seemed like you were making seemed arrogant to me, there is a substantial difference. I already explained this.

I never said you were inferior. I provided counterarguments to your position, you refused to engage with them and I drew (what I take to be) the obvious conclusion.

Making things up isn't going to do you any favours. Anybody can read the thread and see what you are saying here isn't true. I don't want to engage with you anymore, as far as I can tell you aren't interested in having an open and honest debate. That's fine, but leave me out of it from here on out please.

 

[Profit Prophet]

Likewise, I said what you said was arrogant.
There is no difference between what I said and you said.
The only difference is, you said it first (unprovoked).

And, you suggested I am inferior.
Because you could not fathom any other reason why I didn't want to talk to you. You do this in a polite "civil" enough way, that you get away with it.
Perhaps you really believe that the only reason 100 % of people don't engage with you is because you're so smart. I don't know.
That just the way it came across. I'm not making anything up. Everyone is welcome to read.

I don't want to engage with you anymore, as far as I can tell you aren't interested in having an open and honest debate. That's fine, but leave me out of it from here on out please.

I'm defending myself.
I had no interest engaging you in the first place.
You cornered me, remember?

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

I'm always impressed at how religious discussions usually degrade into verbal warfare of some type.

 

[Profit Prophet]

The difference between blind faith (under which Christianity falls) and the scientific method is that, one is based on assumptions based on emotions

This is how an atheist would define blind faith, not a religious person.
I disagree with your definition.

This is were atheists fail, when approaching religion.
They assume that there is no basis for belief.

The religious experience, historically, was drug-influenced.
Nobody has responded to this properly, yet.
This is drug forum, yes?

People have encountered *something* for thousands of years and religions have formed around it.
Religion has been corrupted, yes, but it wasn't just made up in first place.
You can see primitive religion still operating and connect the dots.

Believers speak of god in such certainty as though they know for sure what it is and what it does. But do you have any real evidence to support your claims other than "I feeeeel this way".

From reading this, I'm - honestly - not sure if you spend much time around believers.
The way atheists define religious people is always so inaccurate, for me.

I don't encounter such certainty, even within religions.
Faith is fluid. Religious people struggle with it.
And Christians don't blindly follow the Bible.
Maybe fundamentalists...

The Big Bang theory is a product of actual observations and experiments, and the current hypothesis (that I'm inclined to agree with) is that our universe is, in simplistic terms, a big quantum fluctuation, that gave rise to intelligent life that is able to observe it (aka humans).

That doesn't mean anything.It is the absence of an answer.
We make observations. But, the observations are not a conclusion.
The conclusion, here, is missing.

We can observe something.
We call it the Big Bang.
But we don't know what it is.
The Big Bang is not an alternative to God.
It is an alternative / parallel to Genesis.
But, Genesis is not God.

Proposing that there is a god who is outside of our realm brings on an infinite loop of questions. Where did she come from? Who created her, and who created her creator? And if she's been there all along,

how do you know that?

No. Actually, it doesn't propose any more questions than the absence of a God.

Who created her? -> What was before the Big Bang?
Who created her creator? -> What was before the thing that came before the Big Bang?
How do you know? -> Personally, I've encountered God.

Surely not because you read it in a book written by peasants some 2000 years ago who thought the Earth was flat?

You moderate a spirituality forum?

Many apologists say that the question "where does god come from" is a stupid question. But why? What evidence do you have to suggest so, other than hearsay? The Big Bang and multiverse hypotheses, on the other hand, have real, reproducible evidence going for them.

Not everything is science. Love and art are not science. And, neither is God.
Atheists are always treating religion like science, because - then - it is absurd.
Obviously, there is no hard evidence. Because there can't be.
So, you can discount God scientifically. But what's the point?
You can't treat art like accounting and expect it make sense.

Religions were formed independent of each other, in primitive society.
These societies were shamanistic. They experienced something.
They called it God. They formed religion.

I mean, after all, I can say that the flying spaghetti monster is the ultimate ruler of the universe.

If you cross-reference all historic religion and you end up with the common denominator of spaghetti monster, then there is some basis.
Religion has existed longer than anything that resembles modern science.
Name another thing, like religion, that we just made up.

I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic.

Perhaps.
But, you read like an atheist.
Your mind is closed.

 

[spacejunk]

The religious experience, historically, was drug-influenced.

What historical evidence do you support this bold statement with?

But, you read like an atheist.
Your mind is closed.

And you call atheists smug?

 

[swilow]

I feel like I've picked the alt.

 

[Kittycat5]

Why?

 

[swilow]

I'd agree with you on that. Still, I don't see the point in adopting a passive aggressive attitude to prove that science > spirit. If anything, we should be striving to show that science = spirit

Unfortunately, the feelings are shared between atheists and non-atheists (ha). Consider the title of this thread. That is a nice example of an aggressive tack.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that science=spirit. Many people would consider them very different things. Most attempts by the scientific or spiritual to demonstrate that science can quantify spirituality have failed. I can't really imagine a way that this could ever happen. I don't see that as a bad thing- just a fact- science is concerned for the external world, in only validating what can be independantly known as fact; spirituality is about our inner world, the world that nobody else can ever truly know. This is not meant as a criticism of either science or spirit, or a way to seperate them. In fact, both fields cover all aspects of our experience- that of our senses and that of our mind. I imagine there might be a way for them to work in tandem to complete our picture of existence, but so far this hasn't happened. I certainly haven't discovered it.

But they are different and I understand valuing one over the other. I'm of the view that spirituality, so far as manifested by mass religion, has not been altogether good and not much different from superstition of which our diminishing reliance upon has largely proven valuable. In the realms of consciousness and experience, science is somewhat quiet. But anything which diminishes the impact of abritrary, world-shaping superstitions is valuable IMO, as long as it is factual.

Spirituality should focus on the inner world as it falls down when used to describe the outer, to describe causes for effects. Paraphrasing Leonard Mlodinov, spiruality is the opening and closing remarks in a court case. The substantiation for its claims are entirely missing and that is why science has become dominant. But there are things that cannot really be substantiated and this does not mean they should be devalued or discarded and these things will always be part of being human. Love, idea's, creativity, awe, emotions. There is a value in what happens in our inner world if we use slightly different tools to that with which we probe the outer.

 

[Vagina Lover]

Atheism is just another way of looking at the world, albeit not the most rational one.

I don't see atheism as any more "smug" than "my God is better than your God"

 

[swilow]

I don't mean it literally - obviously they are very different methodologies. I just think that for every scientific explanation there's a corresponding spiritual explanation (and vice versa). Think of it like a mathematical proof where you'd have to show that two sides of an equation are the same.

The main difference is that science proves things. Spirituality cannot. You'll always be let down if that's what you seek.

Sure, I don't think anyone can argue against that. However, in the same way that superstitions are not convincing to you, I feel like science is not convincing enough on its own. There's so much about the way we think and behave that goes beyond reason, I kind of take it for granted that we're missing something.

And yet the only thing that defines science is evidence. If that is not enough, how is speculative conjecture?

Science does not have all the answers but those it does have are substantiated. Science is a method, not an ideology.

 

[One Thousand Words]

I am a man of science who happens to be agnostic. I don't completely discount a higher power or force which directs the universe, I only doubt it is a bearded man pushing and pulling levers in the clouds.

Organised religion to me is unsatisfactory. It is created by men to give people hope, which in itself is not a bad thing, however scriptures are usually cherry picked and used to control those people who choose not to think. I cannot accept being told faith is the answer when history shows the church is usually the last bastion of ignorance. The sun revolving around the earth, dinosaurs, the fact Noah's ark couldn't possibly have contained even a fraction of the planets organisms. On one hand I'm expected to believe in fables and fairy tales while on the other I'm told God has absolute rules such as what I can eat or fuck.

For me spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive. I watch patients die and ask what is the difference between living and death, and is this a soul or some great force powering life? However I live my life on this planet and my ethics and morals are for the now, not for gaining brownie points in a proposed after life which may end up being nothing more than a transfer of my energy to the next organism in the circle of life. Science is a way to explain how life exists, not why it's exist.

 

[Vagina Lover]

Fair enough, but aren't you curious to see whether the how and the why are intertwined?

I'm fairly sure that one can grasp the answer to that question by reinterpreting what he wrote.

Science does indeed seem to explain the how over the why.

However, through the screens of interpretation and being, one can add their own spin on the why, which seems to be the reason for many religious people using science as a basis to attempt to rationalise what had been written 2000+ years ago.

If you look at it long enough, pun intended, the why becomes irrelevant through the sands of time.

We are here, so let's coexist through a peaceful journey, by being true to the foundations of reason, logic, and observation.

 

[One Thousand Words]

Fair enough, but aren't you curious to see whether the how and the why are intertwined?

Of course I'm curious but not one man who has ever lived actually knows the truth so I'm not alone in missing out.

Even religious scholars are interpreting grimm's fairy tales. All religious texts are written by men, most translated through several languages after centuries of being passed down by word of mouth. The bible in particular has been translated and reimagined by several differing kings and popes to fit their own views on population control, not God's. It may have some valid life lessons regarding morals and ethics but so does Aesopes tales, and I'm hardly going to believe a rabbit and a tortoise conversed halfway during a foot race.

I choose to live for the now, to be the best human to my family and friends to make this life better, not because I risk punishment in the afterlife. I may regret eating bacon if I'm proved wrong but at least I've known the joys of oysters kilpatrick in this world.