Atheism is a belief

[Samckeyes]

This is so because of a few things, one science can neither prove or dis-prove Gods existence. But just because someone doesn't believe God exists, doesn't mean atheism isn't a belief and just a dis-belief, affirming the thought that God doesn't exist means that one must believe that statement to be true, which requires a leap of faith.

Agnosticism would require less faith but would still be a belief, one I tend to lean to very often, but I'm also very inclined to religous thinking. To me there is so much that science will never be able to help us with, the existential struggles and so on.

[Samckeyes]

But why should there be a universe at all, why is there something rather then nothing, did matter spring forth out of non-matter?

The problem with those types of questions when considering the possibility of a designer is that they are self-defeating.

If you demand that if something exists and has intelligence then it must have been purposefully created, then this would necessarily also need to apply to any God.

So you end up with a God that needed to be created by a previous God who also needed to be created by an even more primordial God, and so on.

Something had to exist on its own. So why not the universe?

Why create and endless stack of infinite Gods?

And it doesn't solve your dilemma to just have a single God that supposedly created the universe. Because then you have a God who himself violates precisely your original objections. You have a supposedly highly intelligent power creator who can create an entire universe and all the life in it, yet he himself just existed for no reason from nothing and had no creator himself.

So introducing a God to solve this dilemma doesn't work. It doesn't solve anything. All it does is pass the buck to the God.

Well if it sounded to you like I was saying, that because there are intelligent beings there must be a God who created them, I appologize but that isn't at all what I intended, I don't intend to propose any kind of god of the gaps kind of argument or intelligent design.

But I must admit when it comes to the transcending factor of the universe, spirit, being, God call it what you will, but in my opinion it's the only coherent view, that makes anything close to sense of what I see around me, and the rest of the universe for many reasons, I wouldn't try putting them all in one post. I don't think however that people who aren't Christians are going to hell in any way, or that the bible is inherent, I don't believe at all that they are essential to the theology.

For me emotionally and intellectually, I wouldn't say Christian, but mainly Jesus and his mesage. I just wouldnt say I am a Christian, but I practice Christianity, but at the same time I'm a skeptic in many ways, things like defining God especially in a total sense, but I'm also open to other views as well, of someone presented me an argument that made coherent sense in itself and with what we can sense and understand about ourselves and the natural world. I have read and been presented a number of different views before but I'm always still open to give any a fair chance.

I think evolution is most likely true, I am very inclined to think so, I don't see how natural selection and the whole bit of the theory we have now in science, does away with a need for God, these would be laws of nature similar in a sense to the laws of physics and thermodynamics and so on, so would it be said that matter caused these laws or matter gave rise to the laws? I don't think the order and the laws don't exist or we impose them with are minds, I do think that nature has regularities and some of them seem to be intelligible or capable of being understood to some degree.

So I keep an open mind when it comes to the origin of the universe, of course science has described much of the events untill it gets to those first picoseconds, and to me that's the main thing there is, whatever happened first to set it all in motion, I'm ok with a primordial soup type deal but I don't think matter and energy could exist by itself or come from nothing, because nothing is just nothing not a void or a vacuum. And then right after the big bang, you have an extremely ordered system, what was entropy like then or gravity, why not a big crunch?

None of these things prove God exists but I think they are compatible, at least the most compatible that I've seen so far with everything, from science, to emotionally and philosophically.

And I'm not trying to use science to prove God, science calls for its own kind of faith, it's very different then other kinds for sure, but to do science you have to start with assumptions that can't be scientifically verified. I agree theology or even metaphysics, different then science yes, but they do have certain similar features.

The reason why I do have a certain kind of faith in this transcendent, along with this practice or studying, through all different forms of inquiry, is mainly based on my life's experience, the whole scope of it including to many things to list but I'll name some: people in general, relationships family and all the types, things like love that come with those, also the struggles and the darker side of existence, to name a couple.

Yes at times and in certain places the world and nature can seem dark or evil, lots of death through at least earths history, that we know of, but in many other ways and views there is beauty and order and complexity, not just humans but all over. Like I said I'm open to discuss anything I always try to look into as many views as I can.

[A Troubled Man]

But I must admit when it comes to the transcending factor of the universe, spirit, being, God call it what you will, but in my opinion it's the only coherent view, that makes anything close to sense of what I see around me, and the rest of the universe for many reasons

Considering that a "transcending factor of the universe, spirit, being, God" has never been shown to exist, how can that make any sense of the world around you? Science attempts to answer those questions, so it would appear that you either have no understanding of what science has found or you reject all scientific discoveries? Which is it?

I think evolution is most likely true, I am very inclined to think so, I don't see how natural selection and the whole bit of the theory we have now in science, does away with a need for God

There is no need for any gods in science. They do little more than add complexity and confusion to simple solutions.

And then right after the big bang, you have an extremely ordered system, what was entropy like then or gravity, why not a big crunch?

Where do you get the notion there was an "extremely ordered system" after the Big Bang?

Entropy and gravity were then just like they are now, they haven't really changed.

None of these things prove God exists but I think they are compatible, at least the most compatible that I've seen so far with everything, from science, to emotionally and philosophically.

Sorry, but you are seeing compatibility where none exists. One could easily substitute a giant sneezing lizard in place of God and your claim is equally valid.

And I'm not trying to use science to prove God, science calls for its own kind of faith

Sorry, but science doesn't work on faith, it works on evidence, theories and observations.

[Samckeyes]

But I must admit when it comes to the transcending factor of the universe, spirit, being, God call it what you will, but in my opinion it's the only coherent view, that makes anything close to sense of what I see around me, and the rest of the universe for many reasons

Considering that a "transcending factor of the universe, spirit, being, God" has never been shown to exist, how can that make any sense of the world around you? Science attempts to answer those questions, so it would appear that you either have no understanding of what science has found or you reject all scientific discoveries? Which is it?

I think evolution is most likely true, I am very inclined to think so, I don't see how natural selection and the whole bit of the theory we have now in science, does away with a need for God

There is no need for any gods in science. They do little more than add complexity and confusion to simple solutions.

And then right after the big bang, you have an extremely ordered system, what was entropy like then or gravity, why not a big crunch?

Where do you get the notion there was an "extremely ordered system" after the Big Bang?

Entropy and gravity were then just like they are now, they haven't really changed.

None of these things prove God exists but I think they are compatible, at least the most compatible that I've seen so far with everything, from science, to emotionally and philosophically.

Sorry, but you are seeing compatibility where none exists. One could easily substitute a giant sneezing lizard in place of God and your claim is equally valid.

And I'm not trying to use science to prove God, science calls for its own kind of faith

Sorry, but science doesn't work on faith, it works on evidence, theories and observations.

Science works on its own faith, in the sense that in order to do science one must make assumptions that can not be proven, but personally I find science extremely useful and filled with knowledge, through one way of looking at the world, just matter and energy, which limits it in good ways so we can do good science.

Well you seem very quick to dismiss the idea because there is no evidence, even of that was the case, it is a fallacy to say that lacking evidence proves it wrong.

But what I meant about the order after the big bang, was not just the part where atoms start to lump together, but even scientist who are naturalist will admit the fine tunning of the constants of nature, obviously most just dismiss further thought, but I don't see how that isn't at least compatible with some kind of transcendence, I don't see any conflict there. and a multiverse just adds to the problem in my opinion, not to say it couldn't exist, but I think your still left with the same problem.

Obviously there is no telling right now if we will ever fully understand the begining of the cosmos, who knows though maybe we will understand more. Either way you still be able to ask why.

Again not using science to prove anything, but I'm still skeptical of science being even possible in a universe of chance and material, that just doesn't make sense to me, not just science either but all human expressions and experiences, and also the biological diversity on earth, lastly the emmensity of space full of galaxies, stars, and who on earth knows what else.

If your looking for experimental evidence for this, I don't think you will get it, it can't be experimented on, but love can't either, you don't run experiments to find someone to be with. The list goes on and on. But we can't scientifically scrutinize everything in life and yet we still have to think an decide on these things.

I'm just skimming the surface on different ideas here I can go into anything in more detail.

[A Troubled Man]

Science works on its own faith, in the sense that in order to do science one must make assumptions that can not be proven

Again, science doesn't work that way, so it wouldn't make sense for you to comment on something you know little about.

Well you seem very quick to dismiss the idea because there is no evidence, even of that was the case, it is a fallacy to say that lacking evidence proves it wrong.

No one said the lack of evidence proves it wrong, it only proves it irrelevant.

But what I meant about the order after the big bang, was not just the part where atoms start to lump together, but even scientist who are naturalist will admit the fine tunning of the constants of nature, obviously most just dismiss further thought, but I don't see how that isn't at least compatible with some kind of transcendence, I don't see any conflict there.

I might be compatible if indeed there was any evidence for "transcendence" but there isn't any, so that would also be irrelevant.

Obviously there is no telling right now if we will ever fully understand the begining of the cosmos, who knows though maybe we will understand more. Either way you still be able to ask why.

Regardless, to jump to conclusions beyond that is irresponsible and dishonest.

Again not using science to prove anything, but I'm still skeptical of science being even possible in a universe of chance and material, that just doesn't make sense to me, not just science either but all human expressions and experiences, and also the biological diversity on earth, lastly the emmensity of space full of galaxies, stars, and who on earth knows what else.

That would be an argument from incredulity.

If your looking for experimental evidence for this, I don't think you will get it, it can't be experimented on, but love can't either, you don't run experiments to find someone to be with. The list goes on and on. But we can't scientifically scrutinize everything in life and yet we still have to think an decide on these things.

Yes, we can scientifically scrutinize everything, love included.

[Samckeyes]

Science works on its own faith, in the sense that in order to do science one must make assumptions that can not be proven

Again, science doesn't work that way, so it wouldn't make sense for you to comment on something you know little about.

Well you seem very quick to dismiss the idea because there is no evidence, even of that was the case, it is a fallacy to say that lacking evidence proves it wrong.

No one said the lack of evidence proves it wrong, it only proves it irrelevant.

But what I meant about the order after the big bang, was not just the part where atoms start to lump together, but even scientist who are naturalist will admit the fine tunning of the constants of nature, obviously most just dismiss further thought, but I don't see how that isn't at least compatible with some kind of transcendence, I don't see any conflict there.

I might be compatible if indeed there was any evidence for "transcendence" but there isn't any, so that would also be irrelevant.

Obviously there is no telling right now if we will ever fully understand the begining of the cosmos, who knows though maybe we will understand more. Either way you still be able to ask why.

Regardless, to jump to conclusions beyond that is irresponsible and dishonest.

Again not using science to prove anything, but I'm still skeptical of science being even possible in a universe of chance and material, that just doesn't make sense to me, not just science either but all human expressions and experiences, and also the biological diversity on earth, lastly the emmensity of space full of galaxies, stars, and who on earth knows what else.

That would be an argument from incredulity.

If your looking for experimental evidence for this, I don't think you will get it, it can't be experimented on, but love can't either, you don't run experiments to find someone to be with. The list goes on and on. But we can't scientifically scrutinize everything in life and yet we still have to think an decide on these things.

Yes, we can scientifically scrutinize everything, love included.

Ok well it sounds like you are saying science is the only way we can know anything, and sure you can talk about love scientifically, trying to figure out if it's just a chemical reaction, but even if it is proved thats all it is, that wont help you one bit trying to find someone to fall in love with. Science also can say nothing about morals along with many other things like art and history.

Do you simply dismiss anything that isn't verified through science? I don't see how doing that can help us with much at all, when sciene is used how it's supposed to, restricted to the natural word, it works best and discovers the most. But do you think that philosophy, history, math, art, and so on are all just worthless??

[A Troubled Man]

Ok well it sounds like you are saying science is the only way we can know anything

If it concerns our physical world, yes.

...and sure you can talk about love scientifically, trying to figure out if it's just a chemical reaction, but even if it is proved thats all it is, that wont help you one bit trying to find someone to fall in love with.

Actually, those who would study the science of love may very well know more about getting people to fall in love than you or I. They would know.

Science also can say nothing about morals along with many other things like art and history.

Not true, science can say a tremendous amount about morals, art and history.

The fact that science can help us understand the world around us doesn't mean there aren't other possible ways. We can have a philosophical understanding as well as a physical understanding, all that matters is how valid they are and whether or not they have the capacity to be falsified.

Do you simply dismiss anything that isn't verified through science?

That would be the best way to verify something. The focus of the question however, is more of what action is taken towards claims that present no evidence or cannot be verified. The claim can stand for as long as it wants, but it won't get acknowledgement without something to support it. So, it's not really just dismissing the claim, but instead, placing it upon a shelf until further evidence is found.

But do you think that philosophy, history, math, art, and so on are all just worthless??

Of course not, science doesn't dismiss philosophy, history, math or art, it would only serve to support them with verification and validation or falsify them, which is exactly what we would seek in determining the truth.

[Samckeyes]

Ok well it sounds like you are saying science is the only way we can know anything

If it concerns our physical world, yes.

...and sure you can talk about love scientifically, trying to figure out if it's just a chemical reaction, but even if it is proved thats all it is, that wont help you one bit trying to find someone to fall in love with.

Actually, those who would study the science of love may very well know more about getting people to fall in love than you or I. They would know.

Science also can say nothing about morals along with many other things like art and history.

Not true, science can say a tremendous amount about morals, art and history.

The fact that science can help us understand the world around us doesn't mean there aren't other possible ways. We can have a philosophical understanding as well as a physical understanding, all that matters is how valid they are and whether or not they have the capacity to be falsified.

Do you simply dismiss anything that isn't verified through science?

That would be the best way to verify something. The focus of the question however, is more of what action is taken towards claims that present no evidence or cannot be verified. The claim can stand for as long as it wants, but it won't get acknowledgement without something to support it. So, it's not really just dismissing the claim, but instead, placing it upon a shelf until further evidence is found.

But do you think that philosophy, history, math, art, and so on are all just worthless??

Of course not, science doesn't dismiss philosophy, history, math or art, it would only serve to support them with verification and validation or falsify them, which is exactly what we would seek in determining the truth.

I mean I don't know I might be wrong but would you agree with logical positivism? Just so I can better understand where your coming from, but I agree in a sense that science is very fruitful and helpful in many ways to us, but we are subjective individuals, so I'm a little weary of the use of verification.

Sciene can't define itself, so there is the philosophy of science, and ten almost all of scientific inquiry, has its birth in a philosophical question, so the two are deeply connected, as well as science with mathematics and logic. I feel that pretty much all of the different subjects are all interconnected.

With art and literature and the likes, you have the possibillity of a person looking at a painting or reading a novel, and this can speak to people and move them in some way, sometimes seeing things or something differently after. Sometimes it could be a truth gained and sometimes not, but science works the same way, truth isn't found within all science, different sciences have different probabilities of truth obviously as well.

Science also has paradigm shifts, and of course any theory is always open for testing, but there are theories that have proven to be far more useful and helpful then others, but even many of these helpful kind have lost credibility before. I'm not proposing that there is no so thing as truth, but we have to consider the meaning of truth, and how we have come about the term.

I just don't see how it's possible for us to claim superiority of any one subject, maybe scince the dawn of modern science it has been seemingly more helpful to us, but you have to consider how science looks to philosophy for interpretation, and also I think the nature of observation should be considered.

The position to me, seems to be leaving out as well the importance of how we learn through relationships and other things like conversation. If on reduces regular conversation with people in their life to a science, first I don't see the purpose or positives in doing so, but I don't see how that would produce good fruitful conversation.

I'm going to stop here and end with a link, to some pages out of a Pearson scientific text, it is mainly on what is science. I think it is a good summary, and it shows how the doubts on logical positivism have risen, in science and philosophy, it seems to try and argue for some ground in the middle. I find it a pretty fair look at both and shows each sides positives and negatives, I think he is definitely not for any kind of science being the only or best way, but I look forward to discussing this all with you further.

[A Troubled Man]

Sciene can't define itself

Science is a process for understanding the world around us, it doesn't need to define itself.

truth isn't found within all science, different sciences have different probabilities of truth obviously as well.

Since science is a process for understanding the world around us, it will only produce the truth.

Science also has paradigm shifts

No, it doesn't.

If on reduces regular conversation with people in their life to a science, first I don't see the purpose or positives in doing so, but I don't see how that would produce good fruitful conversation.

[McCulloch]

This is so because of a few things, one science can neither prove or dis-prove Gods existence. But just because someone doesn't believe God exists, doesn't mean atheism isn't a belief and just a dis-belief, affirming the thought that God doesn't exist means that one must believe that statement to be true, which requires a leap of faith.

Agnosticism would require less faith but would still be a belief, one I tend to lean to very often, but I'm also very inclined to religous thinking. To me there is so much that science will never be able to help us with, the existential struggles and so on.

To me atheism, agnosticism and theism all take too much for granted. When they all talk about the existence of God, I don't even know what they are talking about. I am ignostic. I don't know the meaning of the word God. Actually, I hold to a strong form of ignosticism, theological noncognitivism.

The sentence [font=Comic Sans MS]X is a four-sided triangle that exists outside of space and time, cannot be seen or measured and it actively hates blue spheres [/font]is an example of an unthinkable proposition. Although some may say that the sentence expresses an idea, that idea is incoherent and so cannot be entertained in thought. It is unthinkable and unverifiable. Similarly, [font=Comic Sans MS]Y is what it is[/font] does not express a meaningful proposition except in a familiar conversational context. In this sense to claim to believe in X or Y is a meaningless assertion in the same way as I believe that [font=Comic Sans MS]colorless green ideas sleep furiously[/font] is grammatically correct but without meaning.

Some theological noncognitivists assert that to be a strong atheist is to give credence to the concept of God because it assumes that there actually is something understandable to not believe in. This can be confusing because of the widespread belief in God and the common use of the series of letters G-o-d as if it is already understood that it has some cognitively understandable meaning. From this view strong atheists have made the assumption that the concept of God actually contains an expressible or thinkable proposition. However this depends on the specific definition of God being used. However, most theological noncognitivists do not believe that any of the definitions used by modern day theists are coherent.

As with ignosticism, the consistent theological noncognitivist awaits a coherent definition of the word God (or of any other metaphysical utterance purported to be discussable) before being able to engage in arguments for or against God's existence.

[Samckeyes]

Sciene can't define itself

Science is a process for understanding the world around us, it doesn't need to define itself.

truth isn't found within all science, different sciences have different probabilities of truth obviously as well.

Since science is a process for understanding the world around us, it will only produce the truth.

Science also has paradigm shifts

No, it doesn't.

If on reduces regular conversation with people in their life to a science, first I don't see the purpose or positives in doing so, but I don't see how that would produce good fruitful conversation.

First, no it isn't that science needs to define itself, the point is that science can not define itself through scientific inquiry, and this isn't the only place where science has to look to philosophy.

Maybe defining science doesn't seem like a need as much today, but I think it's still there, but it played an enormous role in science becoming what it is.

What is your view of objectivity? Do you think it's a human construct or do you think science finds objective facts of nature that are universal through all of space time?

One more question, do you feel that scientist are, or can be completely objective observers or no?