Science vs. Atheism

[Divine Insight]

[youtube][/youtube]

I agree with this view in general. I personally don't see science as supporting atheism actually.

Now it's true that I am extremely atheistic toward the Abrahamic religions. But not for scientific reasons. I reject those religions based on their own self-contradictions and absurdities. When it comes to spirituality in general I'm definitely open-minded and agnostic. I even intuitively lean toward the spiritual. Albeit confessing that I can't know it to be true.

I just thought I'd post this here to see how others view this topic.

So please share your views.

[Divine Insight]

Moderator Comment

These series of posts are getting too personal.

I agree.

It started out being about whether science actually supports secular atheism or whether it should actually support agnosticism. It seems to have deteriorated into false accusations being made toward me personally just because I don't agree with hardcore secular atheistic evangelists who use science to support their atheistic extremism.

[scourge99]

It seems to have deteriorated into false accusations being made toward me personally just because I don't agree with hardcore secular atheistic evangelists who use science to support their atheistic extremism.

No, its deteriorated because instead of giving straightforward answers to questions and statements about your positions, you give obtuse and obscure responses like "All I claim to have are QUESTIONS. "

You engage in obscurantism, whether you are aware of it or not.

[Divine Insight]

It seems to have deteriorated into false accusations being made toward me personally just because I don't agree with hardcore secular atheistic evangelists who use science to support their atheistic extremism.

No, its deteriorated because instead of giving straightforward answers to questions and statements about your positions, you give obtuse and obscure responses like "All I claim to have are QUESTIONS. "

You engage in obscurantism, whether you are aware of it or not.

I disagree.

Here's Wikipedia's definition of obscurantism:

Obscurantism is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known.

I most certainly do not engage in obscurantism neither purposefully, nor subconsciously. I am totally open and willing to answer any questions concerning claims or views that I actually make.

What I will not tolerate is what John A. has been doing, and that is to accuse me of being wrong about claims that I never even made.

All I'm saying is that modern science to date has in no way proven that reality has to be purely secular and cannot have a mystical or magical foundation.

And that I will back up scientifically because it's true.

And you know it's true. Other than the atheistic radicals who preach atheism in the name of science there has not been an official statement by the scientific community as a whole that science has proven that reality has to be secular and cannot have any foundation beyond what we already know. That's baloney.

There are tons of mysteries in science and the physicists are the first to admit it.

I have exposed Krauss' trickery. And fortunately the man has been honest enough to confess the truth himself both in his lectures and in his interviews.

He starts his universe from "nothing" using the postulate of the existence of Quantum Field Theory. And even with that he confesses that he still can't even show how space can come from that without a theory of Quantum Gravity. And he's merely assuming that QG will eventually come down the pike. It probably will, but even if it does that doesn't change the fact that he still starts with the assumption that Quantum Field Theory is already in place, and then he'll be adding Quantum Gravity to that as well. So he'll be starting with two prerequisite properties of nature.

That is NOT starting with nothing. Where is there any obscurantism in that?

Krauss claims that he is starting with "nothing", and his argument there is based upon the idea that modern day physicists accept that empty space (which we used to think was nothing) is now teeming with quantum activity. So Krauss claims that we now need to use the more modern definition of "nothing" as our new starting point.

Now THAT is obscurantism! In fact, I would call it downright dishonest. But I'm sure that Krauss would argue, "It's just physics". But still he's starting with properties that already exist, and that's not NOTHING. So there is some dishonesty in his claims.

I mean, forget about mysticism or anything like that. I totally disagree with Kruass' position from the point of view of a pure secular scientist. Just because I'm open to the possibility of a mystical essence to reality doesn't negate my ability to think about science from a pure secular point of view.

I agree with Stephen Hawking's comment on this, "Even if we had a single mathematical theory of everything. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

You can't just point to the mathematics and say "That's where the universe came from".

Something is going on at the quantum level. In fact, to deny this is to actually proclaim mysticism! If Krauss wants to claim that he can start with Quantum Field Theory as pure mathematics and create an actual physical universe from pure mathematics, then he's basically supporting Plato's mystic mathematical realm that exists beyond reality, and gives rise to reality.

And if that's true, then perhaps life is a dream in the mind of a God. After all where would this mathematics that can magically produce a physical universe come from?

Where is there any obscurity in anything I'm saying?

I'm trying my best to be as open and frank about everything as I can possibly be.

And I'm not even claiming to know what any final answers are. All I'm saying is that Kruass has NOT shown how a physical universe can come into being out of nothing. He's starting with the rules and mathematics of Quantum Field Theory.

John A. asked me if I really expect Krauss to describe a universe starting with absolutely nothing at all. Of course I don't. Why should I? I don't believe that would be possible anyway. That's not the point. Krauss simply shouldn't be claiming that he can create a universe from nothing when that's not what he's doing. Even if he starts with pure mathematical rules, he's still starting with something. In fact, if he needs those rules to get started then, like I say, he's supporting Plato's mystical mathematical "Mind of God".

So where am I being obscure about anything?

I'm trying to lay all the cards out on the table face-up where everyone can see them all.

I have nothing to hide.

[instantc]

It seems to have deteriorated into false accusations being made toward me personally just because I don't agree with hardcore secular atheistic evangelists who use science to support their atheistic extremism.

No, its deteriorated because instead of giving straightforward answers to questions and statements about your positions, you give obtuse and obscure responses like "All I claim to have are QUESTIONS. "

You engage in obscurantism, whether you are aware of it or not.

Sometimes questioning things can be a valid contribution. I admit I haven't followed this conversation, but isn't that what atheists generally do on this forum, especially in the apologetics subsection? They question other people's views without having any answers themselves, which is constructive given that those views stand on false grounds.

[JohnA]

It seems to have deteriorated into false accusations being made toward me personally just because I don't agree with hardcore secular atheistic evangelists who use science to support their atheistic extremism.

No, its deteriorated because instead of giving straightforward answers to questions and statements about your positions, you give obtuse and obscure responses like "All I claim to have are QUESTIONS. "

You engage in obscurantism, whether you are aware of it or not.

Sometimes questioning things can be a valid contribution. I admit I haven't followed this conversation, but isn't that what atheists generally do on this forum, especially in the apologetics subsection? They question other people's views without having any answers themselves, which is constructive given that those views stand on false grounds.

Maybe you should read the thread first (look at the evidence), and then make conclusions. Not the other way around as you just did.

[scourge99]

It seems to have deteriorated into false accusations being made toward me personally just because I don't agree with hardcore secular atheistic evangelists who use science to support their atheistic extremism.

No, its deteriorated because instead of giving straightforward answers to questions and statements about your positions, you give obtuse and obscure responses like "All I claim to have are QUESTIONS. "

You engage in obscurantism, whether you are aware of it or not.

I disagree.

Here's Wikipedia's definition of obscurantism:

Obscurantism is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known.

I most certainly do not engage in obscurantism neither purposefully, nor subconsciously. I am totally open and willing to answer any questions concerning claims or views that I actually make.

What I will not tolerate is what John A. has been doing, and that is to accuse me of being wrong about claims that I never even made.

All I'm saying is that modern science to date has in no way proven that reality has to be purely secular and cannot have a mystical or magical foundation.

And that I will back up scientifically because it's true.

And you know it's true. Other than the atheistic radicals who preach atheism in the name of science there has not been an official statement by the scientific community as a whole that science has proven that reality has to be secular and cannot have any foundation beyond what we already know. That's baloney.

There are tons of mysteries in science and the physicists are the first to admit it.

I have exposed Krauss' trickery. And fortunately the man has been honest enough to confess the truth himself both in his lectures and in his interviews.

He starts his universe from "nothing" using the postulate of the existence of Quantum Field Theory. And even with that he confesses that he still can't even show how space can come from that without a theory of Quantum Gravity. And he's merely assuming that QG will eventually come down the pike. It probably will, but even if it does that doesn't change the fact that he still starts with the assumption that Quantum Field Theory is already in place, and then he'll be adding Quantum Gravity to that as well. So he'll be starting with two prerequisite properties of nature.

That is NOT starting with nothing. Where is there any obscurantism in that?

Krauss claims that he is starting with "nothing", and his argument there is based upon the idea that modern day physicists accept that empty space (which we used to think was nothing) is now teeming with quantum activity. So Krauss claims that we now need to use the more modern definition of "nothing" as our new starting point.

Now THAT is obscurantism! In fact, I would call it downright dishonest. But I'm sure that Krauss would argue, "It's just physics". But still he's starting with properties that already exist, and that's not NOTHING. So there is some dishonesty in his claims.

I mean, forget about mysticism or anything like that. I totally disagree with Kruass' position from the point of view of a pure secular scientist. Just because I'm open to the possibility of a mystical essence to reality doesn't negate my ability to think about science from a pure secular point of view.

I agree with Stephen Hawking's comment on this, "Even if we had a single mathematical theory of everything. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

You can't just point to the mathematics and say "That's where the universe came from".

Something is going on at the quantum level. In fact, to deny this is to actually proclaim mysticism! If Krauss wants to claim that he can start with Quantum Field Theory as pure mathematics and create an actual physical universe from pure mathematics, then he's basically supporting Plato's mystic mathematical realm that exists beyond reality, and gives rise to reality.

And if that's true, then perhaps life is a dream in the mind of a God. After all where would this mathematics that can magically produce a physical universe come from?

Where is there any obscurity in anything I'm saying?

I'm trying my best to be as open and frank about everything as I can possibly be.

And I'm not even claiming to know what any final answers are. All I'm saying is that Kruass has NOT shown how a physical universe can come into being out of nothing. He's starting with the rules and mathematics of Quantum Field Theory.

John A. asked me if I really expect Krauss to describe a universe starting with absolutely nothing at all. Of course I don't. Why should I? I don't believe that would be possible anyway. That's not the point. Krauss simply shouldn't be claiming that he can create a universe from nothing when that's not what he's doing. Even if he starts with pure mathematical rules, he's still starting with something. In fact, if he needs those rules to get started then, like I say, he's supporting Plato's mystical mathematical "Mind of God".

So where am I being obscure about anything?

I'm trying to lay all the cards out on the table face-up where everyone can see them all.

I have nothing to hide.

I give a 2 sentence reply and i get a wall of text in response. And you claim your aren't engaging in obscurantism? The evidence just continues to mount against you.

[Divine Insight]

I give a 2 sentence reply and i get a wall of text in response. And you claim your aren't engaging in obscurantism? The evidence just continues to mount against you.

What?

I give you a detailed reply and you accuse me of being obscure?

Clearly you didn't even bother to read the details.

I'm being honest and offering as much information as I can so as to NOT be obscure, and then you throw that back in my face proclaiming that this is evidence that I'm being obscure.

And you didn't even bother to address a single solitary point that I made.

Clearly I've touched a nerve and I've presented information that cannot be refuted. If you could refute my claims you'd do so instead of making absolutely obscure false accusations about me on a personal level.

You haven't even address the issue. All you are doing is make false claims about me. A clear sign that you can't refute the evidence I've given.

[scourge99]

I give a 2 sentence reply and i get a wall of text in response. And you claim your aren't engaging in obscurantism? The evidence just continues to mount against you.

What?

I give you a detailed reply and you accuse me of being obscure?

Clearly you didn't even bother to read the details.

I'm being honest and offering as much information as I can so as to NOT be obscure, and then you throw that back in my face proclaiming that this is evidence that I'm being obscure.

And you didn't even bother to address a single solitary point that I made.


You haven't even address the issue. All you are doing is make false claims about me. A clear sign that you can't refute the evidence I've given.

Ok. lets look at your "detailed reply"....

I disagree.

Here's Wikipedia's definition of obscurantism:

Obscurantism is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known.

I most certainly do not engage in obscurantism neither purposefully, nor subconsciously. I am totally open and willing to answer any questions concerning claims or views that I actually make.

Empty promises and assurances. Nothing of value or discussion worthy here.

What I will not tolerate is what John A. has been doing, and that is to accuse me of being wrong about claims that I never even made.

I don;t care what John A says. I'm not debating him. I'm debating you.

All I'm saying is that modern science to date has in no way proven that reality has to be purely secular and cannot have a mystical or magical foundation.

Strawman and distraction by attempting to erect a false picture of "modern science" and the "secular" as some type of bogeyman against the vague and obscure positions of the "mystical" and "magical".

A perfect example of obscurantism. Nothing of any value or detail is said. Just vague condemnations and disagreement.

And that I will back up scientifically because it's true.

More empty promises. backed up by nothing but assertions.





There! I did a whole paragraph of the word-vomit you call a "detailed reply". And you've got nothing meaningful and specific to say about YOUR POSITION other than that you disagree with other people about certain things.


Try. Try once to say something specific, non-trivial, and precise, about these "mystical" and "magical" beliefs you have but "can't prove". And then explain the justification you have for believing it--preferably in less than 100 pages. I dare you because i doubt you can do it. You'll just throw-up more obscure and vague terms like "the true essence of reality" or "all is one because of quantum mechanics" or smoother me in walls of text that there are so many things wrong with it would take me an eternity to rebut.

[Divine Insight]

And that I will back up scientifically because it's true.

More empty promises. backed up by nothing but assertions.

I back up every assertion I make. That's far more than can be said of you thus far.

There! I did a whole paragraph of the word-vomit you call a "detailed reply". And you've got nothing meaningful and specific to say about YOUR POSITION other than that you disagree with other people about certain things.

And you totally AVOIDED the main issue of the discussion and that is that Krauss starts with Quantum Field Theory.

You totally refuse to confess that I'm right on the topic being discussed.

Try. Try once to say something specific, non-trivial, and precise, about these "mystical" and "magical" beliefs you have but "can't prove".

That isn't the topic of this thread and never was. I'm not arguing for any specific mystical or magical beliefs. Where do you come up with that nonsense?

And then explain the justification you have for believing it--preferably in less than 100 pages. I dare you because i doubt you can do it.

The mystical rituals and practices that I do engage in have practical psychic value. I would engage in them even if I knew with absolute certainty that reality is purely secular. Even in that case they would still have practical physic value and meaning.

But again, this thread isn't about my personal mystical philosophies or beliefs. I'm not arguing for any specific mystical beliefs in this thread. So that's totally off topic. If you want to discuss that we'd have to start a thread for that.

You'll just throw-up more obscure and vague terms like "the true essence of reality" or "all is one because of quantum mechanics" or smoother me in walls of text that there are so many things wrong with it would take me an eternity to rebut.

The mathematical description of the quantum world has been scientifically experimentally verified countless times. Quantum Mechanics has stood the scientific test of time. It still stands tall as a main pillar of modern science. It is so well-accepted that it even serves as an accepted postulate for other theories such as String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity.

In fact, the Holy Grail of science today is to find a Quantum Theory of Gravity because scientists are certain that gravity is going to need to become compatible with Quantum Mechanics and NOT the other way around.

So yes, as a scientist I accept Quantum Theory. I accept both QM and QFT.

And that theory provides plausibility for various mystical philosophies.

For you to claim that it doesn't can only be due to your ignorance of the various mystical philosophies. Or potentially due to your own limits on the creativity of your own imagination.

That's all I can tell you on that. If you think that you can rule out any and all mystical philosophies that could be compatible with quantum phenomena that can only be a statement of your own lack of imagination and creativity.

Why should I accept your limitations being pushed onto me in the name of secular atheism?

How is that any different from religious evangelists trying to push their limited religions onto me?

Science IN NO WAY proves that reality is secular and without mystery. In fact, to even pretend that it even suggests such a thing is truly laughable. There is so much mystery in science yet to be uncovered that no one can predict the long-term future of what may become scientifically plausible down the road.

Anyone who is currently arguing that modern day science supports a CONCLUSION of a purely secular existence should have their head examined.

That is so far from the truth that it's truly laughable.

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Didn't I just give a comment about not making things personal?

Since that was not heeded, closing the thread.

Please, in the future, do not respond to moderator interventions and do not ignore what is stated in the intervention.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.