Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Mike375]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, or how this is relevant to this debate. This is probably due to my newly diagnosed mental illness, courtesy of the brilliant psychiatrists available on the Access world forums. Nonetheless, I beg you to clarify.

You are talking real 2 + 2 stuff but when it comes to this general area Hawking is a long wayc from that

"Another attempt to avoid a beginning to time," Set things up to try and get a result.

 

[Mike375]

I will do it in aprts for you Alisa

"So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion"

Get a conclusion that is not suitable, do it a different way

 

[dan-cat]

To be honest it all is kind of a blur anyway...

Apart from the word of Barry which clarifies all with glorious radiance.

 

[Mike375]

I just love this one

"This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there. This would mean that science could not predict how the universe would have begun. Instead, one would have to appeal to an agency outside the universe. This may be why many religious leaders, were ready to accept the Big Bang, and the singularity theorems.

It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who."

 

[CraigDolphin]

-Is not based on evidence, and goes so far as to reject the entire concept of evidence.

The first part might be a fair statement if you added the word objective. However, the second part is all wrong. When have I ever rejected the concept of evidence? I think it much more accurate to say that I clearly understand there are limits to the questions that objective evidence can provide answers for. This does not negate, or reject, in any way the fact that scientific method is an extremely helpful tool in understanding the universe we live in.

 

[ColinEssex]

To be honest it all is kind of a blur anyway...

More like boring. . . . .*yawn*

Col

 

[Mike375]

More like boring. . . . .*yawn*

Col

Then why do you read and post on the thread. Is it normal for you to read what bores you and participate in what bores you

 

[ColinEssex]

Then why do you read and post on the thread. Is it normal for you to read what bores you and participate in what bores you

I'll read and post wherever I like. It's none of your business what I do or don't do.

Anyway, if I don't read it I won't know it's boring.

Col

 

[Alisa]

The first part might be a fair statement if you added the word objective. However, the second part is all wrong. When have I ever rejected the concept of evidence? I think it much more accurate to say that I clearly understand there are limits to the questions that objective evidence can provide answers for. This does not negate, or reject, in any way the fact that scientific method is an extremely helpful tool in understanding the universe we live in.

This is where I got the idea that you rejected the idea that objective evidence of god is possible to obtain:

I never said that it was proof that God exists. This is especially egregious since I've made the point, many times, that I was not offering that as objective evidence of the existence of God and further, and that I believe that no such evidence exists, or is even possible to obtain.

 

[CraigDolphin]

That's because the question you're trying to ask requires evidence that you can never obtain using tools constrained by the rules of this unverse i.e., physics, space, and time). That's not a repudiation of those tools, just a recognition of their limits.

You're talking about two different things here.

Your original statement said that religion does away with the concept of evidence altogether, with no proviso that limites the scope of that statement.

and goes so far as to reject the entire concept of evidence

That's a very broad claim and is just not true.

My claim was that we can't find or get evidence to test the hypothesis that God exists.

This is a very specific instance of a question that can't be answered with the toolset at our disposal. Not a sweeping generalisation that we not use such a toolset where appropriate.

These are two different things altogether.

 

[Alisa]

That's because the question you're trying to ask requires evidence that you can never obtain using tools constrained by the rules of this unverse i.e., physics, space, and time). That's not a repudiation of those tools, just a recognition of their limits.

You're talking about two different things here.

Your original statement said that religion does away with the concept of evidence altogether, with no proviso that limites the scope of that statement.

That's a very broad claim and is just not true.

My claim was that we can't find or get evidence to test the hypothesis that God exists.

This is a very specific instance of a question that can't be answered with the toolset at our disposal. Not a sweeping generalisation that we not use such a toolset where appropriate.

These are two different things altogether.

Point taken, my statement was too broad. However, the point of my original argument stands: Religous faith REJECTS the concept that its tenets be based on evidence. This is in contrast to scientific "faith" (as Mike insists on calling it), which REQUIRES every conclusion to be based on evidence.

 

[Mike375]

This is in contrast to scientific "faith" (as Mike insists on calling it), which REQUIRES every conclusion to be based on evidence.

Alisa,

I did not say science was faith but that you needed faith and in particular for ubjects as being discussed on this thread as you have no direct evidence. In these areas you are completely dependent on the writings of others.....and I put some of Hawking's stuff just to illustrate how rough around the edges this stuff can be.

And it has heap off IIF to get get around \0

"Another attempt to avoid a beginning to time,"
"So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion"

Does it not make you wonder or even be the slightly curious when fellows like Hawking, Davies etc have not got a clue about the kick off for the universe (or even if it had a start) and no one has a clue how life started.....is it possible, even just remotely possible that something else is happening or did happen.

 

[Alisa]

Does it not make you wonder or even be the slightly curious when fellows like Hawking, Davies etc have not got a clue about the kick off for the universe (or even if it had a start) and no one has a clue how life started.....is it possible, even just remotely possible that something else is happening or did happen.

Yes, I am extremely curious about the origins of the universe, and how life began.

In order to be satistfied with the answer that some supernatural force created the universe, you would have to be an exceptionally UNcurious person, because that answer creates more questions than it answers. Where did the supernatural force come from? Who created the supernatural force? Why did the supernatural force create the universe, and earth, and life on earth in particular? If the supernatural force cared enough to create us, then why does the supernatural force no longer seem to care about us? If the supernatural force cared about us, wouldn't it be influencing the course of events in the world today? If it is influencing the course of events today, then why is there so much evil in the world, and why can we not detect that influence? If the supernatural force doesn't care about us, then what is the point of religion at all? I could go on, but you get the picture. Of course, many people of faith neatly do away with this whole line of reasoning by saying we are not meant to understand, or it is beyond the realm of our comprehension. But to me, this is just a convenient excuse to stop looking, to stop asking, to stop questioning, to stop wondering. It is like when your child whines but Why do I have to go to bed and you say because I said so because you are just sick of hearing about how they don't want to go to bed.
This is just not an answer that any naturally curious person would be satisfied with - it just doesn't provide enough of an explanation.

 

[CraigDolphin]

Where did the supernatural force come from?

You seem to be presupposing that the 'supernatural' dimension has some equivalent to what we think of as 'linear time' that would make such a question germane.

 

[Mike375]

Where did the supernatural force come from?

It is supernatural...self solving

Who created the supernatural force?

It is supernatural...self solving

Why did the supernatural force create the universe, and earth, and life on earth in particular? If the supernatural force cared enough to create us, then why does the supernatural force no longer seem to care about us?

One reason might be that we, the earth etc were not directly created, just an outcome of the physical laws he/it put in place. On the other side of the coin would you expect an ant to arrive at accurate conclusions concerning what you do and don't do?

If the supernatural force cared about us, wouldn't it be influencing the course of events in the world today?

As above.

If it is influencing the course of events today, then why is there so much evil in the world, and why can we not detect that influence? If the supernatural force doesn't care about us, then what is the point of religion at all?

It appears that you are limited to connecting a supernatural with religion. But if you need to connect it to religion then religion is about the next life.

But I will tell you where you have a problem. The fellows like Davies and Hawking have said physics breaks down if you go back before the Big Bang....so we can't go there.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Alisa
If it is influencing the course of events today, then why is there so much evil in the world, and why can we not detect that influence? If the supernatural force doesn't care about us, then what is the point of religion at all?
Mike
It appears that you are limited to connecting a supernatural with religion

These statements are so important. A discussion of a supernatural force or God always ends up discussing a religious perspective as I said in a very early post, and if one considers the Christian view of a loving Father then Alisa's question is very valid, however the Muslim view of God is of a Master and that is a whole different ball game.

Brian

 

[Mike375]

Brian,

I think the "loving Father" bit is still about the after life.

But it is impossible for a human to work out why God or a god with God like abilities does what it does. How often do parents punish their children. Can you imagine a 5 year old's brain waves when due to some medical condition it is forced into hospital for surgery.

 

[Rabbie]

Where did the supernatural force come from?

It is supernatural...self solving

Who created the supernatural force?

It is supernatural...self solving

a classic example of begging the question.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I think the "loving Father" bit is still about the after life.

That's a view I suppose.

But it is impossible for a human to work out why God or a god with God like abilities does what it does.

"He moves in mysteriuos ways His wonders to perform"
I always thought that a religious cop out

How often do parents punish their children.

Don't usually wipe them out with tsunami or starve them to death

Can you imagine a 5 year old's brain waves when due to some medical condition it is forced into hospital for surgery.

This one puzzled me.

Brian

 

[Mike375]

Can you imagine a 5 year old's brain waves when due to some medical condition it is forced into hospital for surgery.

This one puzzled me.

The child would suffer great fear.