Debate on the existence of god

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Given that the fortress of your "reasoning" presupposes that elucidation would be fruitless since I would "choose" not to listen (false, by the way: I accept any argument that is well-supported), I will only challenge you to list a single question that science will never at any point be in a position to answer.

I'm also still rather curious to know what these "assumptions that only atheists make" are. (As evidenced by the fact that you deleted said line from your initial post, you know as well as I do that the statement was tenuous to put it generously.)

Lol, as I've been reading your posts lately I wonder if we are reading the same forum. I haven't modified any post in this thread and I rarely do so in any thread except to correct spelling/grammar mistakes and such.

The type of assumption that only an atheist would make is something like, "science can potentially answer any question". Science is merely a way of drawing conclusions. It gives itself certain limitations, so that it can more efficiently answer the types of questions that it is designed to answer. Science has a structure. That structure defines what falls within the bounds of science and what does not. If you study the structure of science on your own you will find what does and does not fall within the bounds of science. The question of the existence of a deity does not fall within the bounds of science regardless of whether that answer is affirmative or negative.

 

[Anja]

Why have them?

I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.

It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?

An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?

Here's my take: people work out their beliefs by testing them out on others. Practice. Besides a lot of people think it's fun.

Bottom line for me, as I've stated elsewhere, is that there are certain immutable natural laws. You can call it God or Science, Whichever you prefer.

Break enough of 'em often enough and you'll create your own hell; get into accord with them often enough and youll make the best of a life which you have been given somehow, by Something, and then we'll all pass on to what nobody can know for sure.

But it's more interesting to argue about it, yeah?

 

[Anja]

Basically what I think too.

I know for some people even this level of debate feels destructive, but I enjoy conversations where ideas can be impersonally challenged and we are all just putting things on the table for examination.

As soon as it starts to get personal, exasperating, or disdainful to other viewpoints (and I think we can sense that when it starts to happen), well, I would rather be gone.

I was just thinking that people who try to destroy the ideas and ideals of Believers are really no different than the Believers who do the same in the name of their beliefs. They're all missing the point!

 

[Mycroft]

The type of assumption that only an atheist would make is something like, "science can potentially answer any question".

Science is merely a way of drawing conclusions. It gives itself certain limitations, so that it can more efficiently answer the types of questions that it is designed to answer. Science has a structure. That structure defines what falls within the bounds of science and what does not. If you study the structure of science on your own you will find what does and does not fall within the bounds of science. The question of the existence of a deity does not fall within the bounds of science regardless of whether that answer is affirmative or negative.

No. Science is applied ration. Whether ration, in the figurative hands of mankind, can indeed answer any question remains to be seen, but the simple fact is that ration is the only tool for gathering accurate and objective information. So you put the cart before the horse: a man who realizes that only ration and the evidence it produces will lead to answers will of course turn to science, as science is the application of ration. As there is no evidence in favor of a deity at present, and in fact quite a lot against, he will be what is known as an "atheist".

And while scientists are not concerned with the specific question of whether a deity exists, they are certainly concerned with the question of how the universe came about. Further, if, indeed, there were a deity that actively involved himself in the goings-on of the universe it would have powerful ramifications that would need to be taken into account.

 

[LostInNerSpace]

I was just thinking that people who try to destroy the ideas and ideals of Believers are really no different than the Believers who do the same in the name of their beliefs. They're all missing the point!

I personally don't want to destroy anyone's belief in anything. This is a free country. Go ahead and believe you were impregnated with aliens for all I care--I was. I'm just stating my opinion.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

No. Science is applied ration. Whether ration, in the figurative hands of mankind, can indeed answer any question remains to be seen, but the simple fact is that ration is the only tool for gathering accurate and objective information. So you put the cart before the horse: a man who realizes that only ration and the evidence it produces will lead to answers will of course turn to science, as science is the application of ration. As there is no evidence in favor of a deity at present, and in fact quite a lot against, he will be what is known as an "atheist".

And while scientists are not concerned with the specific question of whether a deity exists, they are certainly concerned with the question of how the universe came about. Further, if, indeed, there were a deity that actively involved himself in the goings-on of the universe it would have powerful ramifications that would need to be taken into account.

Well we are at the point where we are using different definitions for the same word. I would never equate reason with science, because if you look at what scientists do reason is secondary while data and evidence are primary. If you look at fields like philosophy or mathematics reason is the sole method of drawing conclusions. This is why it is misleading to equate science with reason. I occasionally hear people do so, but it sounds more like propoganda than an appropriate definition.

 

[Eric B]

Ironically these are also 34 unconvincing arguments for atheism. What is most accurate is FWM's comment that different groups are operating under different assumptions. The explanation of why these arguments are unconvincing use assumptions that only atheists make.

Inasmuch as Christians have often heaped weak or unthoughtout answers, even I have to admit that those 34 answers are mostly good. The weak spot is that they jump to the assumption that the soul is nothing but chemical reactions. But I do not see how chemicals alone can produce a self-conscious entity, which is the normal definition of a soul. Yes, it can be affected by changes in the body chemistry. The way I see it, the soul is made dependent in the physical realm on physical chemistry. We need these bodies to sustain our consciousness in the physical world. That doesn't mean that without the bodies, we don't exist anywhere. And just because we can't see or know "where" this other realm of existence is doesn't mean it can't be real. String theory came close to this by suggesting that between and beneath the size of strings, the notion of space and time break down into some sort of "primeval realm" that is totally different from existence as we know it. But this seems to have been moved away from now in favor of a superspace in which colliding 3D universes produce big bangs.

And arguments such as whether cell division produces one or two souls also don't really say much. If there are two separate self-conscious entities produced by a split of an egg, it was two souls. If two come together to form one person, and it has only one self-consciousness, it is one soul. No one knows exactly when the self-conscious entity begins, but I would think it would be sometime after initial cell division. (Though Christians will insist on fertilization in their arguments against abortion).

 

[LostInNerSpace]

But I do not see how chemicals alone can produce a self-conscious entity, which is the normal definition of a soul.

There is a point at which we are unable to explain with current science our existance. That unknown is a form of god, I suppose. We know a whole lot more now than we did a few thousand years ago. How many people would choose to go back in time and worship say a light bulb?

 

[Mycroft]

Well we are at the point where we are using different definitions for the same word. I would never equate reason with science, because if you look at what scientists do reason is secondary while data and evidence are primary.

Then by what faculty do you propose scientists determine what data to collect, by what method to collect it, and, subsequently, how to interpret it, if not ration?

(It should also be pointed out that data only becomes evidence when a thinking human being has applied the faculty of ration, making your assertion that evidence is separate from and superior to ration nonsensical.)

 

[Anja]

I personally don't want to destroy anyone's belief in anything. This is a free country. Go ahead and believe you were impregnated with aliens for all I care--I was. I'm just stating my opinion.

Amen. That's the interesting part about debating.

As you noticed, I was reflecting on Jennifer's observation about when it gets mean-spirited and personally uncomfortable.

 

[Anja]

Eric's point touches on a question about Near Death Experience that I raised in the thread of the same name. Does something not exist just because we have not learned yet how to quantify it? There's where scientists who reject the possibility of spirit are in error, I think.

And the light bulb would have never been invented with that kind of dismissive thinking.

 

[Totenkindly]

Eric's point touches on a question about Near Death Experience that I raised in the thread of the same name. Does something not exist just because we have not learned yet how to quantify it? There's where scientists who reject the possibility of spirit are in error, I think. And the light bulb would have never been invented with that kind of dismissive thinking.

All that is true.

However, it doesn't do scientists much good to speculate about options that cannot be tested or measured -- they can't bring anything to bear on the question that will provide any sort of clarification, other than continuing to explore options that DO allow for some possibility of verification.

That's why it's usually more the realm of the theologian or artist.

There is a point at which we are unable to explain with current science our existance. That unknown is a form of god, I suppose. We know a whole lot more now than we did a few thousand years ago.

I find the whole idea of computers interesting, in reference to Eric B's comments about the development of a self-conscious entity.

Computer tech has radically leaped ahead in the last 50 years... all operating on a principle that is essentially just an extremely long, extremely insane flipping of gate bits (1's and 0's). Even the DNA strand is an incredibly long list of just 4 compounds (basically), with the pairs already predefined, arranged in various orders. And that seemingly simple setup generates all the complexity we see in the world.

We cannot create "sentinent" beings at this point, but definitely we can generate things that operate on complex levels and we just don't know whether we'll ever be able to create things that are as "self-conscious" as humans seem to be.

(Although I'm still not sure how "self-conscious" we truly are -- I mean, philosophers cannot even agree on whether humans have free will or whether every behavior is determined based on the multitude of data from the past moment.)

 

[ptgatsby]

Eric's point touches on a question about Near Death Experience that I raised in the thread of the same name. Does something not exist just because we have not learned yet how to quantify it? There's where scientists who reject the possibility of spirit are in error, I think.

You can either have a wide margin of belief, which will include very many things that aren't true, or you can have a narrow margin of belief, which will exclude many thing that are true.

You can't have it both ways, unfortunately. (I think I made a reference to I to the Type I and Type II statistical errors before, this is essentially what it comes down to). The normal resolution is to express knowledge in terms of confidence.

So, to turn it around, what's your degree of confidence - how sure are you - that life after death exists because of these examples? Mine is very small, for example, for the reasons I mentioned above.

And the light bulb would have never been invented with that kind of dismissive thinking.

I don't think that's the case - it would of been invented eventually, simply because of the way things work. And the same applies to this issue. So long as knowledge grows, then the truth will emerge.

 

[Anja]

Well, you know that I am at a disadvantage dealing in a debate thread. Very difficult, if not impossible, for me to do it the way you guys can. I'm trying here.

But I am certain of this: Keeping my mind open is the best way to discover my truth.

I find it ironic that there are those who, using the fact that we have not completely been able to figure out when someone is dead, can be convinced that that is evidence for no existence after death. But alternately cannot include the possibilty that it may be evidence for life after "death."

This is nit-picking in return, pt, but what I was saying about the light bulb? I'm saying that anyone who believed that it was impossible for man to create light wouldn't have been the man who worked to create a light bulb. His mind, that it wasn't possible, was already made up. An open-minded person would have been the one who pursued it.

A man who states categorically that there is no spirit because he can't quantify it, is inconsistent when he then says a person isn't really dead - we just can't quantify it yet.

Does that help clarify myself?

(I continue to be amazed at the amount of misunderstanding that can occur for me between TP and FP!)

 

[Neo Genesis]

Why have them?

I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.

It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?

An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?

I'll take a quote from one of my favorite movies Thank you for Smoking:

Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right.
Joey Naylor: But you still didn't convince me
Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them.
[points into the crowd]

 

[ptgatsby]

I find it ironic that there are those who, using the fact that we have not completely been able to figure out when someone is dead, can be convinced that that is evidence for no existence after death. But alternately cannot include the possibilty that it may be evidence for life after "death."

I don't think this is the case, or at least it isn't with me.

From my perspective, the two here are the one and the same. Once we define death, then the evidence you have is much more compelling. If a person is truly unable to sense anything (dead or otherwise), and are able to tell you what they could not of sensed, then there is something very exciting there.

The start of it, however, is to make sure that the evidence actually supports that. I'm not convinced that it does. The standard of evidence needs to be very high (that is, we need a narrow mindset if our conclusions are likely to be correct). If it wasn't, a low standard of evidence means that we need to accept a huge amount of things that are unlikely to be true, just because it's possible.

This is nit-picking in return, pt, but what I was saying about the light bulb? I'm saying that anyone who believed that it was impossible for man to create light wouldn't have been the man who worked to create a light bulb. His mind, that it wasn't possible, was already made up. An open-minded person would have been the one who pursued it.

Well... point taken.

(But I wouldn't use the lightbulb as an example of this. Proof of concept for the lightbulb came almost a century before the lightbulb was invented, and was part of working with electricity in general. No one needed to be terribly open minded when it was already invented, so to speak, and especially not since the actual lightbulb design was stolen.)

At the end, I give my stance, and how I think being open minded fits into this.

A man who states categorically that there is no spirit because he can't quantify it, is inconsistent when he then says a person isn't really dead - we just can't quantify it yet.

I have to disagree here - consistency isn't the issue. Using a definition of death that gives evidence of a spirit is consistant, but not necessarily valid. The opposite, however, is to conclude what death is (and in this case, the definition needs to show that they are able to sense something beyond their body's ability to sense it) and then see if there is something beyond it that shows out-of-body possibilities.

But I am certain of this: Keeping my mind open is the best way to discover my truth.

To highlight my concern:

If you believe in everything, then you will have discovered all truths, so why not do that? (And the opposite: If you believe in nothing, then you will never have believed in something untrue.)

It's a question of where you draw a line between these two.

(This is to explain my stance and why I'm critical of the evidence - but I can tell you what I need to see in order to solidify the evidence. To me, that is being open minded. Belief in a conclusion is not open-minded to me... quite the opposite. To accept the challenge of evidence, to test to see if it is valid and to accept the results - that's open minded, to me.)

I think the evidence is sufficient for you, here, but it isn't for me. It's similar with the God argument.

 

[nightning]

I'll take a quote from one of my favorite movies Thank you for Smoking:

"Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right.
Joey Naylor: But you still didn't convince me
Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them.
[points into the crowd]"

Ah right... the onlookers. Thank you.

It was kind of funny seeing as how I mentioned such a few days ago in explaining why I bothered with my lengthy argument on the astrology thread, and not see that it applies here.

I guess both sides, atheists and religious folks are looking for the off-chance for converting the agnostic individuals. Perhaps the more noise you make, the more likely people will take notice.

 

[Anja]

pt, I'm reading you with interest.

Will you please check out my last post on the NDE thread and respond?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Then by what faculty do you propose scientists determine what data to collect, by what method to collect it, and, subsequently, how to interpret it, if not ration?

(It should also be pointed out that data only becomes evidence when a thinking human being has applied the faculty of ration, making your assertion that evidence is separate from and superior to ration nonsensical.)

Well a person can build a house with a hammer, but that doesn't mean the hammer is the same thing as the house. One might say that a house is wood and nails, but they wouldn't say that it's a hammer. Reason is certainly used to establish scientific ideas, but it is not reason alone. It really depends more on data.

The biggest problem with your definition is that it's too vague. People use reason for all sorts of things that shouldn't be classified as science if you want your definition to actually reflect "that thing that scientists do". For example Law is also applied reason. It is reason applied to legislation and past court cases. When you apply reason to legislation you get a different outcome than when you apply it to data. That is why data is a fundamental part of science, but data is not a fundamental part of reason.

 

[Mycroft]

Well a person can build a house with a hammer, but that doesn't mean the hammer is the same thing as the house. One might say that a house is wood and nails, but they wouldn't say that it's a hammer.

This doesn't even make sense.

Reason is certainly used to establish scientific ideas, but it is not reason alone. It really depends more on data.

Incorrect. It is the application of the faculty of ration that determines what data would be required to root out the truth sought, how to go about procuring that data, and how to interpret it subsequently.

You seem to have some notion of a bunch of people in lab coats collecting data for shits and giggles and then getting around to applying the faculty of ration to it should they see fit. Again, you place the cart before the horse. (And, to use MBTI terminology, you also seem to be convinced that "introverted thinking" and "ration" are synonymous.)

The biggest problem with your definition is that it's too vague. People use reason for all sorts of things that shouldn't be classified as science if you want your definition to actually reflect "that thing that scientists do". For example Law is also applied reason. It is reason applied to legislation and past court cases. When you apply reason to legislation you get a different outcome than when you apply it to data. That is why data is a fundamental part of science, but data is not a fundamental part of reason.

Very well, I will update my definition, even though I should think the idea represented in this addendum would be self-evident:

Science is applied ration in the pursuit of the understanding of how the universe or specific parts of it function.