Chrsitianity and supernaturalism

[juliod]

I am an atheist. But I think of atheism as only being a small subset of the tenets of naturalism.

I don't believe in the christian god. But I don't believe in any gods. But beyond that I don't believe in any supernatural beings, powerful or weak. And indeed I don't believe in any supernatural things at all. Not god, not TV psychics, not dowsers, not astrology.

One thing difficult to express to theists is that I consider their beliefs to be the same as belief in psychics or palmistry.

All these things have been shown to be false long long ago. It takes an act of personal will to believe in them. The problem, as I see it, is that theists view that act of will to be a virtue, not as it is, a vice.

DanZ

[chrispalasz]

juilod wrote: That's right. The observation was made that the universe seems to be expanding (based on spectral line shifts). The theory that explains this suggests that the universe started at a finite point and has been expanding thereafter.

The point being that the BB theory came about from empiracal observations. Supernaturalism, by contrast, has never explained anything.

DanZ

Hi. I don't want to inturrupt the discussion, I just wanted to add the interesting fact that our universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Fascinating!

~GL

[scorpia]

You can't even say there is "nothing" outside the universe

Nothing is what is inside the universe, away from the large masses

But as a whole? This universe is definitely filled with stuff.

And even with the nothing considering this universe, the vacuum you are reffering to, it is apparently different to what a quantum physicist would consider as nothingness. I am not a quantum physicist though....... But perhaps you are right, there is 'nothing' outside this universe. But I believe this is a different type of nothingness altogether. I thought it was some sort of 'fluctuating foam', according to one theory.

There is no such place, according to current physical science.

Although it may be possible that there isn't, I don't think physical science has any certainty that there isn't. If there is something which proves that there isn't, please do explain.

If, as is theorized, time began with the big bang, then there could have been no cause. Again, you cannot even say there was "nothing" before the BB. The concept of "before" is another nonsense

Time may not exist if that is theorised. Or maybe simply time as we know it didn't exist.

But our current knowledge says there is no possible way of interacting with any such universe, or even to detect it's existance.

None that anyone has mentioned, at any rate. But hey if there's no way of proving or disproving it's existance, why refute the theory (unless you have more information on refuting it)? When I see some scientist talk about these theories on TV or whatever, although some theories cannot be tested (eg. Superstring theory), it seems most probable that the theory is true. Just because you cannot prove a theory doesn't suddely place it in the 'nonsense' pile.

We could reconsider the problem when someone suggests a possible way of telling whether or not there is something outside the universe. But as of now it is a closed question.

And what would solve all debates in this forum? A possible way of telling whether or not God exists

They have no data to explain. And they can't even think of any way to get any data that might need explaining.

Can you totally, absolutely, disprove God doesn't exist? Can you get any data to explain such, that would not be disproved as evidence against God's existance? Is what you say, 'God doesn't exist' simply sterile musings?

In fact I think what you say is the situation people were in long ago. If you thought lightning and thunder were Thor throwing bolts around, you would not feel the need to explain away the lack of evidence for Thor.

"Did you see that lightning? Of course Thor is real!"

It is now, now that we know what lightning is, that a Thor-ist must come up with a supernatural explanation.

Not really what I'm saying; nature proves God. In one way it does, but that wasn't what I was thinking of. Some people would feel there is enough proof that Jesus did exist ~2000 years ago. Or they may have other forms of proof. Not all Christians are born Christians, despite common belief. It all depends on the person, but things that happen throughout a persons life may lead them to feel that there is enough proof that there really is a God.

(Insert joke here: 'Then they mustn't have been to NY!!" )

[juliod]

But as a whole? This universe is definitely filled with stuff.

The universe has some stuff, but is mostly empty space.

I thought it was some sort of 'fluctuating foam', according to one theory.

Such hypothetical theories are little more that science fiction with actual math. Weeeee! It's not a point we need to consider until someone comes up with a way that we could detect this "foam" or whatever.

Although it may be possible that there isn't, I don't think physical science has any certainty that there isn't. If there is something which proves that there isn't, please do explain.

The point is that there are no observations that might need explaining in terms of other dimensions or places "outside" the universe.

Let's say there were a fourth spacial dimension. And let's assume that dimension had objects in it. We should expect to see these 4D objects intersecting our 3D universe and they would have very peculiar properties. (c.f. Flatland.)

So either there is no 4th dimension or the universe behaves exactly as if there were no 4th dimension. It comes down to the same thing. We can form a firm conclusion that there is no 4th dimension, and we need not reconsider the issue until someone comes up with a real reason to.

Time may not exist if that is theorised. Or maybe simply time as we know it didn't exist.

It's the same thing again. When someone comes up with a compelling theory (or even better, some data that needs to be explained) then we can reconsider the issue.

Otherwise you are suggestiing that we shuld believe in things that haven't even been described. That's clearly unreasonable.

When I see some scientist talk about these theories on TV or whatever, although some theories cannot be tested (eg. Superstring theory), it seems most probable that the theory is true. Just because you cannot prove a theory doesn't suddely place it in the 'nonsense' pile.

Ah, but it does. Otherwise you descend into some form of solopsism.

Let's say I claim the sky is orange. I say it only appears blue to us, though some mechanism that we don't fully understand. Can you prove that the sky isn't orange? No, but my theory is completely unimportant. It's not necessary to explain any data, not grounded in any actual fact, and has no means of being tested. We can comclude, firmly, that the sky is blue, and only reconsider the issue when there is some compelling improvement in the "orange" theory.

Otherwise you can only say "everything might be wrong", "we can know nothing", "all is an illusion", etc etc.

Can you totally, absolutely, disprove God doesn't exist?

Proof only exists in pure math and abstract philosophy. So, for example, we can prove absolutely that since there is "evil" there is no god that is omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

Other than those trick questions, the issue is one of evidence and reasonableness. Is it reasonable to beleive in god? My answer is no. But I can't stop people doing unreasonable things.

DanZ

[RevJP]

RevJP wrote:
juliod wrote:
It is precisely on concrete empiricle evidence that naturalism is based. For example, the Big Bang. This theory was developed due specifically to concrete empiracle evidence.
Internal contradiction or hypocrisy? You are telling me a theory (and educated guess, an inferrence, an idea) is concrete empirical evidence? Garbage.

A theory is an explanation of events and evidence that fit the parameters of said evidence and scientific method - it is not proof, it is not fact. Even a 7th grade science student understands that.
Right. The Big Bang is an explanation of observational evidences, including things like cosmic background radiation and receding galaxies. That the universe is expanding means that last week it was a little bit smaller, and the week before that smaller still... Lather, rinse, repeat. How big was the universe, say, 715 billion weeks ago? By scientific standards, I'd submit that a Big Bang cosmological model qualifies as a useful, scientific theory. As do germ theory, gravity, special relativity, biological evolution, celestial mechanics, curved spacetime, etc.

Explanation, not fact, not proof... thanks for recognizing the truth of the matter, although I question whether gravity is a theory or a law?

Quote:
When I see some scientist talk about these theories on TV or whatever, although some theories cannot be tested (eg. Superstring theory), it seems most probable that the theory is true. Just because you cannot prove a theory doesn't suddely place it in the 'nonsense' pile.


Ah, but it does. Otherwise you descend into some form of solopsism.

Well, technically, solipsism is the only truth we can philisophically be sure of, however your assertion does not hold. In answer to the idea that: Just because you cannot prove a theory doesn't suddely place it in the 'nonsense' pile, you presented an poor example of an easily disprovable idea as a theory. Red Herring. A theory that cannot be proven empirically does not by default become 'nonsense', a theory which can be disproven, is said nonsense. It comes back to that same idea that lack of proof DOES NOT equal disproof. One proof against can disprove.

Proof only exists in pure math and abstract philosophy. So, for example, we can prove absolutely that since there is "evil" there is no god that is omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

You are completely incorrect. Only given specific definitions of evil, and by ignoring established and accepted tennets of theology and deitical personality can one 'prove' what you claimed. Your claim is false, as it does not consider the whole of the issue.

[juliod]

although I question whether gravity is a theory or a law?

(Laws tend to be simple relationships that stand as parts of a greater theory. For example, Ampere's Law and Coulomb's Law are just parts of the general electromagnetic theory of fields and currents. They show simple relationships between two or three components of the theory. I was going to quote the laws here, but I would need a better character set than in available.)

Gravity is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact, observable by anyone, that objects are attracted to each other in direct proportion to their masses. Ordinarily we experience this in terms of attraction to the earth, since it is large, and we are close to it.

Gravity, as a theory, develops these simple relationships in a formal framework, showing (through experimentation; more facts) that the force of gravity is proportional to the product of the masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. You can also include things like mass changes at reletavistic speeds, etc.

A theory that cannot be proven empirically does not by default become 'nonsense', a theory which can be disproven, is said nonsense.

No no no!

A theory that is disproven is merely wrong, not nonsense. Most real scientific theories that are falsified are perfectly reasonable. The usually explain some facts, but fail. For example, there was the theory of the "ether". Since sound waves and ocean waves travel in a medium, it was theorized that electromagnetic waves also travel in a medium. That's emminently reasonable. That medium was called "ether". But eventually, by very careful, clever, experiments it was shown to not exist. That doesn't make the theory nonsense.

I would say that a theory which cannot be tested, even in principle, is nonsense. Or very likely to be nonsense.

Only given specific definitions of evil, and by ignoring established and accepted tennets of theology and deitical personality can one 'prove' what you claimed.

In other words, by employing supernaturalism. Thank you for exactly proving my point. When you come up with an iron-clad god-doesn't-exist argument, the theists (supernaturalists) begin to invent new and unsupportable claims about the universe, "god", "evil", and a half-dozen other nonsensical terms.

DanZ

[RevJP]

I would say that a theory which cannot be tested, even in principle, is nonsense. Or very likely to be nonsense.

that is simply an opinion, not a scientifc observation.

You speak science but continue to try and blend science with philosophy, and then rail against the use of theology.

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:40 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
although I question whether gravity is a theory or a law?


(Laws tend to be simple relationships that stand as parts of a greater theory. For example, Ampere's Law and Coulomb's Law are just parts of the general electromagnetic theory of fields and currents. They show simple relationships between two or three components of the theory. I was going to quote the laws here, but I would need a better character set than in available.)

Gravity is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact, observable by anyone, that objects are attracted to each other in direct proportion to their masses. Ordinarily we experience this in terms of attraction to the earth, since it is large, and we are close to it.

Gravity, as a theory, develops these simple relationships in a formal framework, showing (through experimentation; more facts) that the force of gravity is proportional to the product of the masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. You can also include things like mass changes at reletavistic speeds, etc.

Quote:
A theory that cannot be proven empirically does not by default become 'nonsense', a theory which can be disproven, is said nonsense.


No no no!

A theory that is disproven is merely wrong, not nonsense. Most real scientific theories that are falsified are perfectly reasonable. The usually explain some facts, but fail. For example, there was the theory of the "ether". Since sound waves and ocean waves travel in a medium, it was theorized that electromagnetic waves also travel in a medium. That's emminently reasonable. That medium was called "ether". But eventually, by very careful, clever, experiments it was shown to not exist. That doesn't make the theory nonsense.

I would say that a theory which cannot be tested, even in principle, is nonsense. Or very likely to be nonsense.

Quote:
Only given specific definitions of evil, and by ignoring established and accepted tennets of theology and deitical personality can one 'prove' what you claimed.

In other words, by employing supernaturalism. Thank you for exactly proving my point. When you come up with an iron-clad god-doesn't-exist argument, the theists (supernaturalists) begin to invent new and unsupportable claims about the universe, "god", "evil", and a half-dozen other nonsensical terms.

Excuse me. Did you not offer:

Proof only exists in pure math and abstract philosophy. So, for example, we can prove absolutely that since there is "evil" there is no god that is omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

How can you prove there is evil without philosophy and theology? You cannot. There is no empiricle science which proves the existence of evil. So you fall on philosophy and theology to prove evil and then whine when someone uses philosophy and theology to debunk your claims? Does that make sense to anyone?

[scorpia]

Such hypothetical theories are little more that science fiction with actual math. Weeeee! It's not a point we need to consider until someone comes up with a way that we could detect this "foam" or whatever.

Welllllllll, some of these theories do come from some observations of this universe. I think this one if from analysing this universe on as small a scale as possible, although the book I got this from would be out of date by the look of it. There are also other observations about molecules popping out of nowhere then instantaneously being destroyed. If you could believe that, such observations can bring up many theories. Like you mentioned before, lightning doesn't mean Thor is up there throwing bolts, but there has to be some explanation for it, and hell, the more the merrier. I don't see what's wrong with any math though.

So either there is no 4th dimension or the universe behaves exactly as if there were no 4th dimension. It comes down to the same thing. We can form a firm conclusion that there is no 4th dimension, and we need not reconsider the issue until someone comes up with a real reason to.

But you say later;

A theory that is disproven is merely wrong, not nonsense. Most real scientific theories that are falsified are perfectly reasonable.

What about theories that cannot be so easily proven (or disproven)? Wouldn't some of these theories be reasonable? What of religion, wouldn't that be reasonable too?

Is it reasonable to beleive in god?

I believe so. Besides, if you say it cannot be proven so it must be wrong, atheism must also be wrong too.

Otherwise you can only say "everything might be wrong", "we can know nothing", "all is an illusion", etc etc

What's wrong with that? Why not consider everything to have a possibility of being disproven?

So, for example, we can prove absolutely that since there is "evil" there is no god that is omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

Well if you want to go there...... this is assuming that an omnibenevolent being cannot allow evil to be a choice. But if he can't, then good wouldn't be a choice either, and in taking away that choice, he wouldn't be so omnibenevolent. You could say that he probably shouldn't have created everything, but then there is a greater good that comes after what happens now that's worth the compromise.

[juliod]

that is simply an opinion, not a scientifc observation.

I'm a scientist. Therefore it is automatically a scientific observation.

You speak science but continue to try and blend science with philosophy, and then rail against the use of theology.

A scientist gets a degree called Doctor of Philosophy.

There is no empiricle science which proves the existence of evil.

No matter how you define "evil" everyone agrees that it exists, and no one needs any complex argument to show that it exists. I don't know why you got on this kick that no one can talk about "evil" unless there is empirical scientific evidence.

DanZ

[juliod]

If you could believe that, such observations can bring up many theories.

Yes. What theoretical physicists often do is say "if the universe where like this then the math to explain it would be like that." Perfectly valid math may follow. And it may even be interesting. But if their initial assumptions are something we can't even test, then it is merely a sterile excercise in math.

It's like the old joke: How many physicists does it take to change a lightbulb? Two, one to change the bulb and one to assume the ladder.

What about theories that cannot be so easily proven (or disproven)? Wouldn't some of these theories be reasonable?

There's a key difference between theories that are hard to prove and those which we cannot prove, even in principle. There are (no doubt) current theories for which we aren't yet capable of building the apparatus to test them. But as long as there is an understanding of some underlying principle on which is could be tested, there is no problem.

But things like "outside the universe" are different. We have no way of testing it, and don't even have any idea how we might test it. In this case, where the theory does not explain anything, it is the same as just making up random nonsensical things. It's exactly the same as saying "Under every rock is a pixie called Gerald who is invisible, silent, and has no mass."

What of religion, wouldn't that be reasonable too?

Yes, if someone were to propose a plausible god-concept. Obviously, as a strong atheist, I beleive that there are no existing plausible god-concepts.

What's wrong with that? Why not consider everything to have a possibility of being disproven?

Everything could be disproven, in principle. But many things are well known. To disbeleive things that are supported by comprehensive evidence is unreasonable. To hold everything in equal doubt is unreasonable.

The best thing about naturalism is that you don not have to make permanent judgements about facts and theories. When your beliefs are determined by facts, new facts can cause you to reevaluate your beliefs. This is a freedom that theists don't have. They must adhere to their supernaturalist beliefs, even in the face of new and/or comprehensive evidence. Theism is a prison.

DanZ

[scorpia]

It's like the old joke: How many physicists does it take to change a lightbulb? Two, one to change the bulb and one to assume the ladder.

Yeah, but you need to assume the ladder to screw the lightbulb. Otherwise you'd be stuck in the dark forever.

There's a key difference between theories that are hard to prove and those which we cannot prove, even in principle. There are (no doubt) current theories for which we aren't yet capable of building the apparatus to test them.

Yes.....

But things like "outside the universe" are different. We have no way of testing it, and don't even have any idea how we might test it. In this case, where the theory does not explain anything, it is the same as just making up random nonsensical things. It's exactly the same as saying "Under every rock is a pixie called Gerald who is invisible, silent, and has no mass."

But then who's to say that there isn't some possible was of detecting it in the future?

Obviously, as a strong atheist, I beleive that there are no existing plausible god-concepts.

Only because you are an atheist.

Everything could be disproven, in principle.

Good, that's what I wanted to say

But many things are well known. To disbeleive things that are supported by comprehensive evidence is unreasonable

And if there was some evidence for religion?

I'm a scientist. Therefore it is automatically a scientific observation

Not all honest observations made by a scientists are scientific observations