Copenhagen, the wash up

[Mike375]

I get the impression you think that atheism is something you opt into. Perhaps it is for some people but for others it is the realisation that there are no supernatural beings, no after life - just the fact the evidence does not support the idea of God/gods. Not perhaps the most cheerful realisation but who says everything has to be cheerful.

So try to remember that atheism is the absence of belief not an alternative belief system.

Atheism is a belief system.

The issue....how did it all come about?

1) A supernatural or supernaturals or

2) Without the aid of any life force.....a product of natural laws

There is no proof for either 1 or 2. Therefore the choice of 1 or 2 is a belief based on what the person feels is some evidence.

 

[Mike375]

Now you are being ridiculous.

Besides Easter is nothing to do with Christianity although they do try to claim this ancient festival as their own. "Easter" is from the same roots as "estrus" (and spelling variants) and is a fertility festival held on the first moonlit weekend following the nothern hemisphere Spring Equinox.

Reading a newspaper would be more than enough to inform anyone of the goings on in a church.

It is in the general language. The boss says.....for Christ's sake use the other computer....

You comments about the origins of Easter show you don't understand the issue.

What would be a viable option is if Chistianity/Bible was taught as an historical subject or similar but not as a fact.

 

[Galaxiom]

But I have only mentioned Hawking in connection with his work.

You insinuated that because (you claim) Hawking said there was nothing before the Big Bang that atheists must believe the same. I was explaining that the status of the scientist has no bearing on the their claims. I presented Einstein as the classic case of a scientist who had made a huge contribution yet was not afforded any extra credibility for a hypothesis that he could not support with observations.

All hypotheses that do not contradict current observations are afforded some degree of credibility. Beyond this, those which require the least special physical circumstances are considered the leading candidates in the quest for an acceptable theory. However no hypothesesis is fully accepted as a theory until it is able to predict a previously unobserved phenomonon.

Meanwhile religion claims credibility on the basis of "Jesus said" or "Mohammed said". That is the point I was trying to make.

 

[Galaxiom]

Atheism is a belief system.

The issue....how did it all come about?

1) A supernatural or supernaturals or

2) Without the aid of any life force.....a product of natural laws

There is no proof for either 1 or 2. Therefore the choice of 1 or 2 is a belief based on what the person feels is some evidence.

If Athism is a belief system its foundation belief is that coherent evidence is required to support any theory.

There is neither evidence nor a need for the fundamental premise of the first hypothesis to explain the origin of life.

The second is supported by a large body of observations and coherent scientific theory.

In fact the origin of life now has a leading hypothesis that the transition from mineral structures to living structures happened in deposits issuing from alkaline hydrothermal vents in olivine substrates on the bottom of the ocean. This is supported by coherent observations from geoscience and molecular biology. As yet no observation has contradicted the hypothesis.

"Life force" is not required to initiate life.

However there is nothing to disprove a possiblity of some kind of life force beyond the organism as a result of its existence. There has simply been no repeatable evidence to support this hypothesis.

As an open minded scientist I am not prepared to wholly dismiss any hypothesis that has not been proven to be wrong. However I will certainly not accept one for which there is no evidence. Claims of miraculous events that defy the accepted Laws of Nature supported by nothing more than having been written in an old book do not meet my criteria for evidence.

 

[Mike375]

You insinuated that because (you claim) Hawking said there was nothing before the Big Bang that atheists must believe the same

Can you show me any scientist who has said our natural laws existed pre Big Bang.

What do you believe was the situation pre Big Bang and what do you base that belief on.

 

[Mike375]

The second is supported by a large body of observations and coherent scientific theory.

In fact the origin of life now has a leading hypothesis that the transition from mineral structures to living structures happened in deposits issuing from alkaline hydrothermal vents in olivine substrates on the bottom of the ocean. This is supported by coherent observations from geoscience and molecular biology. As yet no observation has contradicted the hypothesis.

"Life force" is not required to initiate life.

I am not talking about the origin of life. That is way down the track.

Personally I don't believe life needs a life force to start it. But a life force might have kicked of the natural laws and then let nature takes it course. In fact if there was life force that was all powerful then that is the only logical conclusion because life is a long way from perfect. On the other hand if a god, gods or God started and controlled life and its eveloution then such a god has limited horsepower.

But in the context of this discussion the origin of life (and evolution) are like discussing the last 10 yards in the Olympic games sprint. This discussion is how the stadium and track came about so the sprinter could make his run.

Actually I am not sure if you are a true atheist. I say that because you continually refer to religion and life. Maybe you are areligious, aBible or similar.

 

[Galaxiom]

Can you show me any scientist who has said our natural laws existed pre Big Bang.

What do you believe was the situation pre Big Bang and what do you base that belief on.

The cutting edge of cosmology is firmly focused on the grand structure that underlies the generation of the BigBang. There are several credible hypotheses but none as yet has been able to predict an as yet unexpected but observable property of the universe.

Several suggest our universe is one of a multitude which have quite different natural laws. This makes it quite difficult to test any hypothesis since the natural laws may be the result of random precursor conditions in what I like to term the Omniverse.

I think you put too much emphasis of the word "natural" and arbitrarily limit its scope to mean the physical laws of our universe. The environment and conditions that led to the Big Bang can rightly be termed natural even though they are currently unfamiliar to us. Many things now considered natural were once part of the supernatural to the limited understanding of our ancestors.

The ultimate goal of physics is Grand Unification of all forms of energy and the particles manifested by their fields. While the present goal is to unify Quantum Mechanics and Relativity within our universe, the moment this is grasped the focus will move further outwards aiming to unify the forces pervading the Omniverse. Indeed a successful Grand Unification Theory is like to elucidate the lases governing the Omniverse.

As it happens I one of my most passionate hobbies is Cosmology and I do have a novel theory as to the conditions that generated our universe. However although it make a prediction, it requires the entire Universe to be observed. Unfortunately much of the Universe has already receded over the horizon beyond our view.

However as my hypothesis is not yet complete enough to publish I am not going to discuss the details. You can probably guess that no gods or "supernatural" forces are involved.

 

[Mike375]

The cutting edge of cosmology is firmly focused on the grand structure that underlies the generation of the BigBang. There are several credible hypotheses but none as yet has been able to predict an as yet unexpected but observable property of the universe.

Several suggest our universe is one of a multitude which have quite different natural laws. This makes it quite difficult to test any hypothesis since the natural laws may be the result of random precursor conditions in what I like to term the Omniverse.

I think you put too much emphasis of the word "natural" and arbitrarily limit its scope to mean the physical laws of our universe. The environment and conditions that led to the Big Bang can rightly be termed natural even though they are currently unfamiliar to us. Many things now considered natural were once part of the supernatural to the limited understanding of our ancestors.

The ultimate goal of physics is Grand Unification of all forms of energy and the particles manifested by their fields. While the present goal is to unify Quantum Mechanics and Relativity within our universe, the moment this is grasped the focus will move further outwards aiming to unify the forces pervading the Omniverse. Indeed a successful Grand Unification Theory is like to elucidate the lases governing the Omniverse.

As it happens I one of my most passionate hobbies is Cosmology and I do have a novel theory as to the conditions that generated our universe. However although it make a prediction, it requires the entire Universe to be observed. Unfortunately much of the Universe has already receded over the horizon beyond our view.

However as my hypothesis is not yet complete enough to publish I am not going to discuss the details. You can probably guess that no gods or "supernatural" forces are involved.

And that should be the case.

I think you put too much emphasis of the word "natural" and arbitrarily limit its scope to mean the physical laws of our universe. The environment and conditions that led to the Big Bang can rightly be termed natural even though they are currently unfamiliar to us.

I do because 99.999999999999999999999999% of atheists think the answer will come from the natual laws within our universe.

Personally I see the issue of atheist Vs supernatural like making a business decision. You make it today, it might be wrong but you pick the most likely. At the moment I don't think the natural laws we have will ever provide the answer. In other words I would liken our natural laws to chemical energy. It simply won't provide the solution as to how an alien's physically small bomb leveled a city.

 

[chergh]

Personally I see the issue of atheist Vs supernatural like making a business decision. You make it today, it might be wrong but you pick the most likely.

 

[Mike375]

Athiesm has just as many "man made" branches.

One has a supernatural as the kick starter and the other has natural laws as the kick starter.

Occams' Razor would suggest supernatural as that is a definite and simple answer and not a bunch of dead ends. Athiesm requires all sorts of study that up to the current time have only explored dead ends.

 

[Galaxiom]

Athiesm has just as many "man made" branches.

One has a supernatural as the kick starter and the other has natural laws as the kick starter.

Occams' Razor would suggest supernatural as that is a definite and simple answer and not a bunch of dead ends. Athiesm requires all sorts of study that up to the current time have only explored dead ends.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the different branches of not having theism. I guess there is Not-Judaism; Not-Christianity; Not-Moslem. But then all atheists must be members of each of these to qualify so perhaps not.

The exploration of dead ends is abandonned when evidence disproves the hypothesis. For example: Four Elements; phlostogen theory of combustion; the static universe.

Newton's gravitation was not exact but a great start that was refined by Relativity. Definitely not a dead end.

One could hardly call Electromagnetism, Relativity or Quantum Theory dead ends. Obviously all electrical devices rely on Electromagnetism. Part of virtually every modern electronic device relies on Quantum Theory. Your satellite navigation system relies on both Quantum and Relativity.

Work continues to unify them all. The largest most complicated machine in the world has been built to continue the investigation. Don't expect CERN thinks they are working on a dead end.

The discovery of expanding universe is has been driving exciting developments in cosmology for decades.

 

[Mike375]

Perhaps you could elaborate on the different branches of not having theism. I guess there is Not-Judaism; Not-Christianity; Not-Moslem. But then all atheists must be members of each of these to qualify so perhaps not.

Atheists leaders like religious leaders have their different "religions" to gather different flocks for a different approach to what they see as the problem. For example, many atheists see religious school funding and tax exempt status etc as the big issue to be removed. But they don't all agree on how it should be done so different groups etc. Just like the religious crowd.

The exploration of dead ends is abandonned when evidence disproves the hypothesis. For example: Four Elements; phlostogen theory of combustion; the static universe.

Newton's gravitation was not exact but a great start that was refined by Relativity. Definitely not a dead end.

One could hardly call Electromagnetism, Relativity or Quantum Theory dead ends. Obviously all electrical devices rely on Electromagnetism. Part of virtually every modern electronic device relies on Quantum Theory. Your satellite navigation system relies on both Quantum and Relativity.

Work continues to unify them all. The largest most complicated machine in the world has been built to continue the investigation. Don't expect CERN thinks they are working on a dead end.

The discovery of expanding universe is has been driving exciting developments in cosmology for decades.

Athiesm is about the belief that natural laws provide the answer to how it all started. At the moment the answers are all dead ends and have been dead ends. Individual things like Electromagnetism are not a dead end but the answers to how it all started are dead ends.

If I remember correctly you posted recently that you have a theory of how it all started. How that can be if the others are a "go". Of course you are developing your theory because the others are a "no go"

Supernatural = Occam's Razor

The alternative = well, which theory are we talking about and from which time. Will your theory be the answer or just another fictional work that is rejected. The alternative to supernatural is like Days of our Lives

 

[Thales750]

I don't get this continued "debate".

 

[Brianwarnock]

I don't get this continued "debate".

Nor me, but then I don't see why we should worry as to how it started, nor do I see why disbelif in religion has to equate to non belief in a god or supernatural existence.

I don't accept religions for reasons which these deep thinkers will think of as superficial, but as to whether a supernatural being or god exists no one knows one way or the other.

Brian

 

[Mike375]

nor do I see why disbelif in religion has to equate to non belief in a god or supernatural existence.

Only for atheists and because your sentence below forces them to a belief at the basic level

but as to whether a supernatural being or god exists no one knows one way or the other.

Brian

And therefore either position is based on a belief.

 

[Brianwarnock]

You obviously believe that the obverse of every statement is true.

Religious people must believe in a God, does not mean that if one accepts that a god might exist one must accept religion.

Also you seem to believe that a non belief is a belief.

Brian

 

[Mike375]

You obviously believe that the obverse of every statement is true.

Religious people must believe in a God, does not mean that if one accepts that a god might exist one must accept religion.

Not at all. I don't even see religion as part of this debate. Someone could be a deist.

Also you seem to believe that a non belief is a belief.

Brian

In this case there is the issue of how it call came about. There are two possibles, supernatural or natural laws. And as you said no one knows for sure therefore someone who takes either position does it on the basis of a belief.

Of course there is the third position, that of the agnostic. In that case they don't see enough evidence on either side to allow them to believe.

 

[Rabbie]

Atheism is a belief system.

Yawn. You keep saying this and refuse to listen to any argument against it. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief. Can't you get your head round that.

 

[Rabbie]

Supernatural = Occam's Razor

The alternative = well, which theory are we talking about and from which time. Will your theory be the answer or just another fictional work that is rejected. The alternative to supernatural is like Days of our Lives

Wrong again

There are less assumptions in assuming the laws of nature than in assuming Supernatural beings created the universe.

Where do the supernatual beings come from, who created them. Sooner or later down this chain you cometo a point when a universe/crator just appears.

I (and Occams razor) prefer the simplest explanation that the universe arose as a consequence of the laws of nature

 

[Mike375]

Yawn. You keep saying this and refuse to listen to any argument against it. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief. Can't you get your head round that.

Do you have an opinion as to how it all started?

If so is your opinion based on proof?