Would you consider you religious belief to be logical and true?

[Anonymous]

So I am talking about everyone even the atheism religion

[nightdrot]

Well, leaving aside that atheism is not a religion - so were I am atheist, I am not quite sure how I would answer that - religion, properly understood, is not without its logical and indeed scientific foundations. It being the argument of the Catholic Church that faith and reason are ultimately compatible and that if man's reason were perfect, it would confirm faith.

As G. K. Chesterton wrote, “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

The paradox is that the atheist is as extreme in his way as is the religious fanatic. Because the atheist sees evil in the world, he jumps to the conclusion that there must therefore be no God.

This presents two problems. First, if there is nothing but the impersonal forces of nature and the laws of physics, then there is no free will. Every thought, every action is predetermined by the intermix of molecular and physical reactions. Nothing can be other than what it is.

The problem then becomes that your belief that God does not exist is then also a simple biochemical molecular reaction. You came to the only conclusion that your physiological structure predetermined you would.

However, if that is true, then your conclusion is no more valid than the opposite conclusion. It was simply the luck of the draw of your brain's electro-chemical reactions and you end up in an intellectual hall of mirrors.

In that connection, atheism tends to premised on a rejection of the idea of God in the absence of proof of His benevolence. This leaves the atheist effectively rejecting only one vision of God - namely the Judeo-Christian version. In truth, there are other conceptions of God. (For example, the ancient Greeks believed that the gods were arbitrary and capricious.)

The second point is that if everything in the universe must have a beginning, then logically something must stand outside the universe to start the universe itself. Chesterton's point stands and is a reflection of Aquinas' view of God as the first cause of all things.

The funny part is that the atheist argues that the universe is more complex than religion. Yet their own explanation is, itself, an oversimplification. Order does not spontaneously come from chaos without something outside itself to impose order. Similarly, if all things existing must start, then something must exist outside of it to start it.

Yet the atheist's problem remains. That the order of existence came from chaos absent something to give it order. It just happened - with the caveat that we don't know how - but it happened within existence because existence is all there is.

That is a presumption - and a problem - for atheism.

[Guffrus]

Nope.

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus A profound and insightful response.

[Shizunk]

Ignoring for a moment the atheist strawman you so vehemently demolished, I find the free will bit interesting. I don't quite understand how you came to the conclusion that nothing matters, just because our brains are biological computers and you could technically predict the results of their internal processes if you had infinite computing power. Yes, we can't accurately perceive our own thinking in real time and you could describe the circumstances that gave rise to any decision. But it is pretty much impossible to be otherwise. No matter what you decide, there will always be a chain of events leading back into the past from that decision, and you could always try to "excuse" someone's action with something outside of their control. As long as we exist in material reality, this will always be the case. In no way does that remove our ability to reason and our responsibility for what we do. Unless you are suggesting that all of our thinking, unaffected by material circumstance, comes from a timeless spaceless dimension and only gets subsequently dropped ready-made into our material minds? Because that does not necessarily have anything to do with a God.

[nightdrot]

@Shizunk The problem of course that leaves you in infinite regress. At some point there must be a first cause. That cause was not an act of will, but a simple molecular reaction which itself must have a first cause.

You write, "No matter what you decide, there will always be a chain of events leading back into the past from that decision, and you could always try to "excuse" someone's action with something outside of their control." However, what you decide is nothing but a molecular reaction of which you have no control but is mere chemical response.

You no more control that then you control that hydrogen and oxygen molecules can form water, given the right conditions. That is not an act of will. Rather, in this formulation, chaos spontaneously creates order.

Not likely absent some intelligence to establish order. Thus are you similarly, absent a first cause, i. e. God, merely an accident in the transmission of the genetic code, and similarly your actions and reactions merely a chain reaction going back to a first cause which itself requires a first cause and so on.

[Guffrus]

Quote: At some point there must be a first cause.

Oh, well then God must have done it then.

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus Well, to have a universe, there must be something intelligent that stands outside that universe. It cannot be part of that which it creates. No more than you created yourself.

God is therefore the logical deduction. We can then begin to debate the nature of that God. However, that is a different question than the debate over the existence of God.

[Shizunk]

How is will not an emergent property of a system? I dont have to care how fare back the chain goes, that's a debate about the beginning of the universe, not about will. Even just a few steps back you have regressed into a pile of goo. The abilities of a brain are a result of the pattern, specific arrangement of. matter. That is a fact. Now the fact that my molecules used to be scattered around before doesn't really change what my brain can or can't do. The fact that it is a result of a predictable biological reaction doesn't change that decisions are being made. You can point out that that is not a perfect free will, which would need to be immaterial and infinitely self aware, but it does still matter to us humans what we do or don't do. If a god isn't there, then nobody else cares other than us, sure. Is that the bit you have a problem with?
I would also like to point out, that having a god as the first mover doesn't solve the problem of free will, it will not produce billions of independent immaterial perfectly self aware wills capable of full realization of consequences and deciding based on that perfect knowledge. It would only give you the same material reality plus an extra entity watching and facepalming.
For that idealized free will you would need to go full. new age, say that we are all together one infinitely self aware immaterial god, who only chose to selectively forget this infinite self awareness for the sake of fun. Or something. Ask them, it's been a while.

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot Quote : Well, to have a universe, there must be something intelligent that stands outside that universe. It cannot be part of that which it creates. No more than you created yourself.

Well, universe is poorly chosen word. We dont know that there is only one verse.

There is no basis for your claim, you do not and cannot have access to that information. None of us know what is or is not outside of the universe.

There is absolutely no reason what so ever to believe that an intelligence was required to create the universe and as the idea of the formation of multiple verses in some other dimension is no more difficult to imagine than watching bubbles appear in your sink when you add washing up liquid there is no reason to believe that there cannot be more than one.

Your position is called the God of the gaps and it has absolutely no merit what so ever.

Your claim to have access to information which is entirely unknowable which makes you both supremely arrogant and dangerously delusional.

I now consider this matter closed, you are wrong, I have made that perfectly clear to even you but we both know that you will continue with your ignorant dogmatic bullshit until the day you die.

With that in mind i would invite you to do the decent thing and go and kill yourself.

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus First of all, I use universe here in the generic sense. Here standing in for the totality of existence and reality.

Second, on this point: "There is absolutely no reason what so ever to believe that an intelligence was required to create the universe and as the idea of the formation of multiple verses in some other dimension is no more difficult to imagine than watching bubbles appear in your sink when you add washing up liquid there is no reason to believe that there cannot be more than one."

Really. We see order in the universe. Planets orbit in a definable pattern. Gravity exists by predictable laws.

There is an order in things, so to speak. Yet we know that order is the product of conscious action. Absent order there is chaos. Nothing is predictable nor can be predicted.

We are then left with the question of what gave birth to that order. Does chaos spontaneously produce order? Would gravity work absent order - or would it work one time and not the next if chaos was all there was.

To repeat then, there must be an intellect to create and impose this order. This then giving the place of God. To repeat the Chesterton quote, “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

Please note "evolutionist" here is an expression connoting the scientist, the biologist, etc. Indeed, a very interesting point was recently made by no less than Dr. Francis Collins, soon to be retiring head of the National Institutes of Health, recently said, "Science explains the how. Religion explains the why."

[Guffrus]

Entropy

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus That does not say very much and explains less.

[devilman666]

"Well, to have a universe, there must be something intelligent that stands outside the universe", please provide evidence that supports this idea. I could just as easily say that Atum exists because "well, to have an earth, there must be something intelligent that stands outside that earth. It cannot be part of that which it creates. No more than you created yourself.". Fyi, Atum is the ancient egyptian God that created the earth from the chaos.

Atum is therefore logical conclusion (not deduction as there is nothing to deduce)."

[devilman666]

Lol we see order? The entire universe is in a state of disorder, giant balls of matter that throw around other balls of matter. We see things we can't explain all the time, that's why we had to come up with dark matter and dark energy, in order to explain all the gravitational energy that seems to be coming from nowhere.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 To the last, they do so consistently. The same conditions generate the same results each time. It is not as if, at one point, two planets collide and explode and the next time two planets collide, they do not.

The law of physics and chemistry and such apply and apply consistently. This is the order to which I refer. In a universe without such order, such consistency would be, by definition, non-existent.

As to the earlier point, MY point was that chaos does not spontaneously create order. Something must impose itself upon the chaos. This then requires an intelligence, but it cannot exist within the universe to create the universe.

If there is no universe to start, then nothing exists within it to create it. Thus there must logically be something outside of it - exempt from its rules and with the power to impose itself and create order.

[devilman666]

"The outcome of the collision depends on how fast the stars are moving relative to each other, rather like a car accident. In star clusters, the stars are moving relatively slowly, and so the “fender bender” results in the two stars merging into one new, more massive star that we call a blue straggler. We can identify these stars fairly easily, since they are hotter and brighter than the other stars in the cluster.

The center of the galaxy is more like the interstate, and the stars are moving very quickly. A collision there is much more destructive, and often the aftermath is just “star bits” (that is, mostly hydrogen gas) spread out all over interstellar space."

astronomy.com/.../what-would-happen-if-two-stars-collided

Stars don't really explode during a collision, but the result depends on the speed. I understand what you're saying though, if all the factors are the same then the result will be the same. If that's what you call order then you've got some low standards, at that point you can call anything orderly.

How do you know that chaos does no spontaneously create order? Natural disasters are chaotic, yet in their aftermath they leave order and regrowth. I see no reason to assume a God simply due to some percieved order in the universe, for all we know, universes can't exist without order. Why does it require intelligence? What if there is a multiverse that is constantly dividing like single-celled organisms? You assume that only a God can create the universe, and further you assume that only YOUR God can create the universe.

Well you're making assumptions here. You assume there was no universe before the big bang, that nothing existed before our universe, and that something must exist outside of the universe.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 On your last point, as a matter of science, to assume that there was a universe before the universe is problematic. There is no evidence to support it. That said, I made no claim about what did or did not come before the current universe. Nothing in religion precludes it. Nothing in science proves it.

As to the idea that chaos creates order, it is logically impossible. If all is chaos, then no pattern ever repeats itself. There are no "laws" of physics or chemistry or any of the other things by which we define and may study reality.

Chaos is just that - chaos. There is no possibility of it producing anything of any consistency, least of all a whole universe.

[devilman666]

Uhmmm... "there is no evidence to support it"... so belief in things without evidence is problematic? ... but your religion is exempt from this rule? fucking hypocrite.

I actually do believe there was a universe before our universe. I belief the big bang was a black hole which, for some currently unexplainable reason, collapsed and released all of it's contents. I believe the universe has always existed, in a constant state of change, and it always will. I don't know why the universe exists, and I don't see a reason to guess at it, but from my understanding of the big bang, it seems most likely to me that it was caused by a black hole, which logically leads to me thinking that a black hole must have collapsed. If we are going to say something always existed (and we have to, because something had to have either always existed, or created itself. If you take these questions all the way back, eventually you reach the point where you're asking "what created God?" "Did God create himself?" "Did God always exist?" So instead, I say the universe always existed, because I have evidence that the universe exists. I see no reason to make up a creator that always existed.

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot Quote:
There is no evidence to support it. That said, I made no claim about what did or did not come before the current universe.

Of course you are making claims about what came before, your claim is that God did it.

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus @devilman666 Please note, I said religion does explain it and the evidence for the reality of religion is the order we see in the universe.

Again, in science we speak of the "laws" of physics and such. By laws we mean that we observe the functioning of the universe by certain observably consistent patterns. Such would be impossible in a universe of chaos. Science would be the "science of single instances" - which of course is not science at all.

The existence of God is, in effect, demonstrated by the existence of a universe that runs according to reliable norms and patterns. These that man can discern and call, to repeat, "the laws of physics," or the "law of gravity," etc.

You may believe, @devilman666, that a universe came before this one. However, that is, ironically an act of faith. You were speaking of f*****g hympocrites.

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot

There is absolutely no reason to think that what is going on outside of the universe is any different to what is happening inside it, by that I mean that as we have established that there is no evidence for a God operating inside the universe why would there be one outside it?

It is far more reasonable to conclude that the creation of the universe is simply just another process based on the rules of whatever is going on in that dimension.

But the fact of the matter is that we simply do not know what is going on there.

But even if you assume that there is an intelligence entity in that dimension who created the universe, that entity would have absolutely no relationship what so ever with any of the entities mentioned in the various religions, why? Because it is unknowable, so every claim made by religion MUST be exclusively the creation of man and not anything to do with this entity.

Your thought process is total fucking garbage.

This is not how you go about learning and understanding things, you have no interest in truth, you have started with your conclusion that there is a God and then you twist anything you can to try to support your claim, this is the polar opposite of knowledge.

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus You jump to a lot of conclusions.

On what basis do you assume

1) It is far more reasonable to conclude that the creation of the universe is simply just another process based on the rules of whatever is going on in that dimension. Please provide the science to support that proposition.

2) "Because it is unknowable, so every claim made by religion MUST be exclusively the creation of man and not anything to do with this entity." Why is it unknowable? You just claimed that "the universe is simply just another process based on the rules of whatever is going on in that dimension..."

How do you know that?

Lastly, you write, "Your thought process is total fucking garbage." Now, now. We are having a dispassionate debate - one that dates back thousands of years. I control my emotions. That should not be beyond you.

[devilman666]

(And we have to, because something had to have either always existed, or created itself.)* so what I mean here is that no matter what logic you use, something either came from nothing, or always existed. If you say the universe was created, then what created the creator? Or did he create himself? If the creator can exist forever or create itself, why can't the creation do the same? The whole question of what started the universe seems pointless to me, the answer will always be illogical because the only two answers possible are that something had to either create itself or exist forever.

What created the universe? God
What created God? Super-God
What created Super-God? Mega-God
What created Mega-God? Ultimate-God
What created Ultimate-God? He created himself from nothing. Or: nothing created him, he has always existed outside of time.

Eventually you have to have something that created itself, or always existed. Admittedly you could also say that it was random chance, maybe God/the universe was created from nothing without any cause or reason? Like it just popped into existence randomly. Regardless, the origin of the world is not sensible, as far as I can tell, there is no way for the existence of the universe to make sense.

[devilman666]

"I made no claim about what did or did not come before the current universe"

... really? Read this:

"There must be an intellect to create and impose this order"

"If everything in the universe must have a beginning, then logically something must stans outside the universe to start the universe itself".

I mean... it's pretty obvious that you're implying that God came before the current universe... dishonesty won't help

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 You write, " The whole question of what started the universe seems pointless to me, the answer will always be illogical because the only two answers possible are that something had to either create itself or exist forever."

Then your science is ephemeral. At the very least, recall that religion gave birth to science. By stipulating that God created the universe, it then became incumbent upon man to learn the truth of that universe to get closer to God. This why, for example, Vatican City houses one of the world's most prominent astronomical observatories in the world.

Bottom line, you are left with a science that explains nothing. You are not trying to get to the essence of things but fall back on a crude utilitarianism, at best. It serves no real fundamental purpose.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 MY remarks mean that I do not claim to know what that "pre-universe," for lack of a better term, looked like nor how it functioned. Maybe this universe was all that has ever been, or perhaps there was something there beforehand. I do not know.

What I know, to repeat, is that an ordered universe absent something with the intelligence and power to create that order is a logical impossibility.

[Guffrus]

Ochkams razor is the basis, you dont use a fucking ridiculous and retarded explanation for something when a simple one will do.

That is exactly what you are doing.

I dont have any proof for what is happening outside of the universe, I explictly stated that there cannot be any proof, it is unknowable.

But as there is no evidence for anything going on inside this universe I can say with complete certainity that every fucking claim made by every religion there ever was is just some bullshit made up by a man.

Saying that God created the universe doesn't help anything at all, all it does is move the question from what created the universe to what created God, so we are in exactly the same position as we were before, except that instead of just saying we dont know what created the universe yet and might not ever know, we now have this ridiculous layer of God in this other dimension, which serves no fucking purpose what so ever.

You dont want to look at that next step though, that what created God step, because it doesn't serve your agenda.

[Guffrus]

But as there is no evidence for anything going on inside this universe I can say with complete certainity that every fucking claim made by every religion there ever was is just some bullshit made up by a man.

Should have said:

But as there is no evidence for God doing anything inside this universe I can say with complete certainity that every fucking claim made by every religion there ever was is just some bullshit made up by a man.

[Guffrus]

Quote:

is that an ordered universe absent something with the intelligence and power to create that order is a logical impossibility.

This is just fucking bullshit.

There is no requirement for things to be the way that you want them to be.

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus No, actually, it is very complicated. As indeed the length of this discussion proves.

You offer a science that explains a lot but cannot explain itself. That is problematic at best, and as an historical matter has had some rather unpleasant aspects.

In any case, may I gently offer as you are a man of science that you control your emotions. No need for vulgar language. By contrast, I have treated this as a philosophical and - dare I use the word - scientific discussion. Your vehemence betrays you. Yours, ironically, is an atheism rooted in faith - and you don't take kindly to having your faith challenged.

.

[Guffrus]

I am angry with you because you are dishonest.

If you want me to be reasonable with you then you must be reasonable with me and you refuse to do so.

Your position has been utterly fucking destroyed and yet you persist.

What recourse is left other than just raging at you?

[devilman666]

Please define the phrase "universe in chaos", then describe why it would be impossible to have order in such a universe?

The fact that things are repeatable is not really symbollic of order, rather it just represents itself. I don't know what to tell you here, it's like saying that a universe of chaos wouldn't have gravity. That's just irrelevant and honestly considering it is a bit of a waste of time. We would never be able to exist in such a world, so why bother considering it?

"The existence of God is, in effect, demonstrated by the existence of a universe that runs according to reliable norms and patterns.", this is simply wrong. That's like saying that the existence of the universe demonstrates that unicorns exist, simply because you believe that Unicorns created the universe. Or to put it more simply: how do you know it was God and not something else? You're starting with the answer and moving backwards to the question. Also, why couldn't such a world exist without a God?

[devilman666]

You are correct that it is an act of faith, if you want to use that specific phrasing. It is a belief that I hold without direct evidence because there is no direct evidence on the subject. It's also possible that the singularity behind the big bang was a white hole, or something we have never seen. That's why I specified that this is what I believe, it's not science, it's not supported by evidence, it's my opinion. With that said, the fact that the big bang happened, is supported by evidence, and quite a lot of it, but anything from before the big bang is beyond our current knowledge. If evidence comes forward and proves my belief wrong, then I will change my belief to fit the evidence. However there is definitely reason to believe that a universe existed before the big bang, it's just a question of whether it was this universe or a different one. After all, the singularity that caused the big bang had to have come from somewhere. Now admittedly this is an assumption as well, like you never know, maybe God planted evidence of the big bang in order to confuse us... just like the dinosaurs lmao.

Please define chaos, you seem to believe that chaos is things not repeating. So like, you think chaos does not exist? Why do you think chaos = no laws of physics? Please define what you mean because I am very confused. Do you mean chaos like what happens during a car accident or a terrorist attack? Where everybody is running around panicked and confused? Or is this some universal form of chaos?

[devilman666]

Please prove that religion gave birth to science. I'm done letting you get away with this dishonesty. Fucking prove it.

[devilman666]

"What I know, to repeat, is that an ordered universe absent something with the intelligence and power to create that order is a logical impossibility.", Prove it. Show me your logic. Again, I'm tired of the dishonesty, you state things seemingly without evidence and just assume we will go along with it. Please provide some fucking evidence, because I'm tired of trying to prove things to you if you're just going to be like this and pretend that your argument MUST be correct. Prove it with evidence, don't just state it.

[devilman666]

@guffrus at this point, the only thing to do is hold his feet to the flames. Don't say anything else unless it is to that end. Make him explain himself, because at this point he is just making shit up half the time. The only way to argue with pseudo-science is to force the other person to defend and explain their position.

[devilman666]

We tried honest discussion, now we just have to be assholes and force him to prove his position... but I think we both know that he can't prove it, and he won't even try to do so. He will run away, like all Christians do when their feet get held to the fire. He wants to accuse us of not liking our faith challenged, but he has avoided every challenge I have given him. For example, I asked him: "how do you know that chaos does not spontaneously create order?"

His answer: "as to the idea that chaos creates order, it is logically impossible." He goes on to say "if all is chaos, then no pattern ever repeats itself.", which assume a lot that is separate from chaos (he's talking about consistency, not order), and doesn't really add anything to the conversation. First of all, I don't know what that world would look like and I dont think anyone does, it would be a world without cause and effect, as it would have to be. Without patterns, things would have to happen without cause, or else nothing would happen. Gravity is a pattern/constant force, so it couldn't exist in such a world. Time couldn't exist in such a world. I assume matter would pop in and out of existence randomly, mainly because I don't know what would happen in such a world.

[devilman666]

@guffrus Like, what could cause a univere where literally nothing repeats? For example, lets say such a universe exists, and to simplify it, we have it contain only 1 molecule of matter. That molecule can never repeat anything it has ever done. It can't stay stil because that would be consistent/constant. It can't move in circles because it would be consistent. So does it move randomly? Does it pop in and out of existence randomly? What causes it to be so random? It's just nonsensical, and causation couldn't exist in such a world because it would eventually follow a pattern. Water flows downwards because of gravity, in such a world, water would sometimes flow upwards, sometimes downards, sometimes side to side, sometimes it doesn't flow at all, and sometimes is flows in all directions at once.

[Guffrus]

@devilman666 There is no faith to be challenged because there is no dogmatic belief.

The position we take up is, we dont really know anything but the current evidence and understanding suggests X.

Faith is nothing to do with it.

Its just another dishonest trick, the idea of course being to distort the meaning of the word faith, you first use it when you apply it to the atheist / scientist with its meaning defined as 'having confidence in' and then twist it to being 'belief without evidence'.

[devilman666]

Tl;dr when asked to explain himself, he started with the conclusion, and then tried to explain a premise of the conclusion and failed. He defined chaos as "no pattern ever repeats itself", when it is defined as "a state of utter confusion". The word he means is consistent, which is defined as: "acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate.". If he said our world is consistent then I would agree, but this focus on calling it chaos is driving me crazy.

[Guffrus]

@devilman666 The natural state is disorder anyway, thats why all i said in responce to that was the word 'Entropy', what more is required?

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 In answer to your first question, there are several intellectual histories that have been written on the subject. See also the works of the Will Durant.

Also note that the first references to evolution were posited not by Darwin, but by St. Augustine. Also, the argument between the Church and Galileo was one of science. In that case the Church got it wrong - as it later admitted - but it argued that if man was the center of God's creation, then it stood to reason that the Earth would physically be placed at the center of the universe.

This was the argument - not the existence of God - between the RCC and Galileo. It also being added that the Church argues that Faith and Reason are ultimately compatible and that if man's reason were perfect, it would confirm faith.

The bottom line being that the Church did NOT reject science, but argued about the nature of reason. Thus in due course did the Middle Ages give birth to the Age of Reason.

At any rate, you'll forgive me, but I have three children and a dinner that awaits. In any case, I have not accused you of bad faith and have sought to keep my emotions from intruding into this discussion.

You, on the other hand, have resorted to epithets and have accused me of being dishonest. Thus the point of the discussion seems at an end. It being problematic that you can hold a profitable and worthwhile discussion with someone of whom your STARTING premise is that he is a liar.

May I gently suggest that if disagreement with you is evidence of dishonestly, that you are less rational and scientific than you affect to be.

[devilman666]

I don't agree that the natural state is disorder. I believe that our universe is a perfect balance of order and chaos. To the point where they are sometimes hard to tell apart. With that said, there are many definitions for both words, so we really should elaborate further on what we mean by order and chaos.

Here is a quote that I like, I found it on quora from some random guy:
"I often like to use the ubiquitous chaotic traffic situation on the streets of Ho Chi Minh City as an apt illustrative example.

At almost every street intersection in the city during peak hours of any working day, despite the presence of traffic lights, and even traffic policemen, there always seems to be some sort of gridlock at first glance, as multitudes of buses, motor cycles, motor cars, bicycles and tricycles as well as pedestrians coming from all four directions jostle for directional space as they somehow struggle to negotiate their way, and yet in the midst of the convergence, traffic sort of mysteriously seems to flow at their natural pace out of the gridlock, as time passes momentarily.

Chaos, yes, but there is also underlying order too, at the end of it all!"

However, order can also mean peace or tranquility, among many other things. It can honestly mean a lot of things to a lot of people.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 Well, if order is the spontaneous state of things, then why is there chaos and disorder?

It is not logical to assume that order produces chaos. Rather, the human mind - as in the streets of Ho Chi Minh City - produces order. It creates the circumstances and refines conditions in the direction of order.

Man the imperfect being cannot impose perfect order, but just imagine how the city would look if all the traffic laws and their enforcement were removed. Suffice to say, a well ordered city would not result.

[devilman666]

Also, entropy is only present in thermodynamics, right? The second law of thermodynamics basically says that all closed systems are moving towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, where no energy transfer (aka work) can be done.

Edit: after a long google search, it seems as though most people understand entropy as being disorder, and disorder as being entropy. None of this makes sense to me anymore, it kind of feels needlessly confusing.

For example, here is the first paragraph from the wikipedia page on thermodynamics:
The second law of thermodynamics establishes the concept of entropy as a physical property of a thermodynamic system. Entropy predicts the direction of spontaneous processes, and determines whether they are irreversible or impossible, despite obeying the requirement of conservation of energy, which is established in the first law of thermodynamics. The second law may be formulated by the observation that the entropy of isolated systems left to spontaneous evolution cannot decrease, as they always arrive at a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, where the entropy is highest. If all processes in the system are reversible, the entropy is constant.[1] An increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, often referred to in the concept of the arrow of time.[2]

[devilman666]

@nightdrot instead of playing this game, why don't you just give e your definitions of "order", "chaos", and "disorder"?

Technically it is not logical to assume anything, so I agree. So are you saying that order doesn't actually exist? You seem to be saying that order is something that only exists in our minds.

Please prove that our world exists in perfect order, whatever that means.

I disagree, I think that in a city witho raffic laws, a form of order would emerge, like in the streets of Ho Chi Minh, eventually everything would find a way to flow. Imagine, what traffic laws did they have in the 1800s? Crowds almost always find a way to flow in an orderly fashion without pushing and shoving, regardless of rules.

Here is some data on traffic without rules:

www.theguardian.com/.../traffic-videos-chaos-removing-signals-shared-space

Almost a year ago Amsterdam tried turning off traffic lights and removing safety barriers at a notorious junction at Alexanderplein. Instead of the anticipated chaos, the act improved the flow of traffic, and more than half of the road users said it had improved the junction.

The concept was first developed by Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman, who used it in his work as the head of road safety in Friesland in the 1980s. “Shared space” (a phrase coined by Hamilton-Baillie) essentially means that if physical traffic controls are removed, “road users will work it out for themselves in a civilised fashion”, says Prof John Adams of University College London.

[Guffrus]

@devilman666 Its just nonsense, a bullshit construction to try to get to say that only a God could create order.

But it has already been defined.

Order means that there are physical laws to the universe, i. e. physics. Though this is somehow supposed to be attributed to a supernatural being despite there being absolutely no reason what so ever to think this.

Im not sure there is a differentiation between disorder and chaos, at least one of these is defined as a state without a supernatural creator imposing order. Again, just more baseless nonsense.

[devilman666]

@guffrus AH! Thank you! By that definition, I agree that there is order in the universe, however I don't think I would describe it as perfect order. I don't even really know what a perfect order would be. Like perfect in that everything makes sense? Or perfect in the sense that there could never be a superior order to the universe?

[Guffrus]

@devilman666 I suspect that perfect actually means divine. But Im not sure it has been defined.

[Guffrus]

@devilman666 His entire argument is built off the back of this absurd and obviously incorrect claim that you cannot have order without a God and order is defined as physics.

So God exists because physics.

Utter fucking jibberish.

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus Well, since you are both agreed on your own virtue, I don't suppose there is much to add.

The definition of order and chaos is not hard. Order, in this context, as I noted, is a situation in which there are physical, chemical and other conditions that can be reasonably understood and predicted on the basis of their consistency. As man's knowledge is incomplete and imperfect, we do not know ALL the physical laws in their complexity, but we know they exist and can draw reasonable observations and theories from them.

Chaos being a condition where such "laws" do not exist. Where no action will produce the same effects and where the state of existence is randomness.

Suffice to say, chaos cannot conduce to order. Nothing in a chaotic state can endure. Moreover, therefore, nothing in a chaotic state can be predicted as no two similar actions can ever produce the same result.

At any rate, I am not sure what the point of the discussion is at this point. Both of you have descended into obscene language and name calling and the only real conclusion that may be drawn is that you are both supremely self-satisfied.

The intellectual origins of the discussion we have been having extends all the way back to ancient Greece. You two, on the other hand, have boiled it down to the use of vulgarities like "bulls**t."

Suffice to say, not exactly an example of the rational scientific mind at work.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 Sorry, meant to include you in the message above.

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot Nope.

Why can't you just be honest?

Quote:

What I know, to repeat, is that an ordered universe absent something with the intelligence and power to create that order is a logical impossibility.

So, infact your argument as I summarised is 'God exists because physics'.

There is no requirement for God to have the laws of physics.

There is no logical problem.

There are logic problems frequently when you make posts though, you enjoy invoking arguments from authority, arguments from history etc, THESE ARE LOGICAL FALLACIES.

You are dishonest.

You are wrong.

But if you want a cookie for being more civilised than me because you dont resort to name calling, thats fine with me, here have a cookie.

Unfortunately for you, that doesn't make you right and it doesn't make me wrong.

You have no argument.

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus Sorry, the arguments I make date back to Aquinas, Augustine, Luther and a host of other figures who helped to build Western civilization and who, as I mentioned, inspired science. If that is having no argument, I guess I am guilty.

Oh, as to your second point, why do we have "the laws of physics?" Why does the universe have an order to it? How does chaos spontaneously create - and maintain - order?

You say I have no argument, but the problem is that science as you define it cannot explain itself. You can show that gravity works, that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared and so on. Yet you cannot explain why.

My argument is that these things are the proofs of God. That to have order something must exist to impose it on chaos. To this you have not responded beyond the bald assertion that chaos does not require an intelligence to impose order, but that order simply arises.

Then you assert that I have no argument. Okay, so what is yours for your case?

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot Do you even have the first idea what a logical fallacy is?

What is it that you dont understand about an argument from history being invalid?

It doesn't matter how old or new the argument is, it only matters what the argument is.

You want your argument to mean something because it has been around for a long time, it doesn't work like that.

Oh, as to your second point, why do we have "the laws of physics?" Why does the universe have an order to it? How does chaos spontaneously create - and maintain - order?

Do you think you could ask a question in a straight forward and honest manner? This is so fucking loaded and slippery I dont know where to begin.

Why do humans have laws of physics? Because we are trying to understand reality and these rules fit to some degree and allow us to make progress in other areas as we continue to develop our understanding.

Why does the universe have 'rules' defining how things move around and interact etc? My understanding is somewhat limited here but I think i am right to say that if the universe in which we lived were not stable, i. e. was just complete chaos we wouldn't be around to ask the question. So if you are looking for a reason why it has to be, thats your reason.

If you knew anything about physics you would know that gravity doesn't work, its a problem, it works fine in the scales in which we naturally experience with our unaided senses but it doesn't work on Quantum scales.

[Guffrus]

You seem to be under the impression that science not having answers to all questions is a weakness but the opposite is true, the reason it doesn't have answers for everything is because there are limits to the information we have and we haven't figured everything out yet, it is a work in progress. Religion may claim to have answers for everything but in reality is has answers for nothing at all, because its just a load of bullshit some asshole made up and which retards perpetuate.

There is no requirement for a God to exist, so no, you are not proving any proof of the existance of God, the only thing you are proving is that you are fucking retarded.

Your premise is bullshit, your conclusion does not follow your bullshit premise so no you are not making an argument, that is just some nonsensical shit you are saying, it doesn't mean anything.

There is no substance.

You are so fucking hung up on this idea that there is order and chaos, there is only what there is and it exists whether you fucking like it or not, it doesn't have to be what you want it to be.

As far as the universe goes, if you want order to be the rules which define the movement and interaction of matter and energy etc, there was never any such thing as chaos, it doesn't exist in reality and the only reason it exists in your mind is because you need to so that you can make your stupid fucking claims that God made it right with his uber powers.

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus No, that is not the issue. Science could not possibly have all the answers. Man's knowledge and the tools he uses are finite.

However, what we do know of science, to repeat, tells us that everything must have a cause and that cause must be extrinsic. (For a baby to be conceived, for example, a sperm from one individual must merge with the egg of another. For there to be water, molecules of hydrogen and oxygen must merge, and so on.)

So, you are left with a science that cannot explain itself. It can explain how these things work as they do, but it cannot explain why. Indeed, because the universe cannot create itself, you are left with something that science cannot explain - and never will be able to.

So back again, answer the question in purely scientific terms.

Oh, and of course, dispassionate and unemotional analyst that you are, please try to do so without the outbursts of vulgarity and obscene language. That adds nothing to your credibility.

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot

Religion doesn't have any answer, it just talks bullshit, like you do.

Quote:

However, what we do know of science, to repeat, tells us that everything must have a cause and that cause must be extrinsic.

Sources please?

here's a counter source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3lxnwFVL8o

Quote:

So, you are left with a science that cannot explain itself. It can explain how these things work as they do, but it cannot explain why. Indeed, because the universe cannot create itself, you are left with something that science cannot explain - and never will be able to.

Again, this is just more nonsense, with your usual style, you start with the conclusion you want and then you claw around in the dark trying to find some bullshit to support your argument.

Why has the eye evolved so many times independently? Well because its useful.

Oh dear, I just demonstrated to you that science proves both how and why answers, oops.

So you are wrong, dont ever say that again, to anyone, because its wrong. Ideally dont ever think it again, you should be learning here, I am educating your dumb ass.

You are fucking wrong mate, alright?

Just accept it.

Everything you have said has been defeated, utterly.

You have nothing.

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus You keep saying what I say is nonsense.

So again, what existed before the universe? What caused the "Big Bang?" Why did that chaos result in order as exemplified in the physical laws which make the universe orderly and predictable? Does chaos logically and consistently produce order?

These are the fundamentals of existence. Science is the search for the answers to these questions - but is caught in an intellectual hall of mirrors. It must, to explain the universe, stand outside the universe. Yet nothing - in science - can exist outside or before the universe. If you insist otherwise, then you must produce the scientific evidence for your case.

Go back to the Chesterton quote: “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an ADMITTEDLY UNTHINKABLE (emphasis added) God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

You pursue the latter course and call it science when really it is just faith by another name.

That all said, I find your reaction to be far more interesting than the content of your responses. You espouse science - the application of the rational and dispassionate mind to the analysis of fundamental question - and yet react emotionally with epithets and vulgarities.

As I say, not exactly a testament to your gift for dispassionate analysis and rational argument.

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot What caused the big bang is unknowable.

That means that you do not know, so stop pretending that you do. You either understand that you do not know and lie, or you are supremely arrogant and dangerously delusional for claiming to have access to knowledge you cannot have access to.

There is no chaos, that isn't something which exists outside of your mind.

I dont know why you think i am a scientist, I am not in that line of work.

However when looking for answers I, unlike you, turn to people who make honest attempts to understand and explain whatever it is that they are talking about and which i am interested in.

You do not value truth.

[devilman666]

"You used a bad word and therefore, I win the argument!

Aquinas, Augustine, and Luther did not inspire science, they merely advanced out knowledge of science. Our scientific knowledge goes all the way back to cave men who were making basic spears from flint and sticks tied together, and creating fire by banging stones together together. That is science too.

[devilman666]

We dont have to be able to answer why the world has physics. That would be like us forcing you to prove that aliens aren't real, its ridiculous. To put it simply, I dont know the answer, and I dont need to know it either. The fact that I can't explain how physics could come to exist does not mean God did it lmao. I'll tell you what though, explain to me how God came to exist, and I'll tell you that you're right about it being impossible for natural laws to exist without God.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 As far as Aquinas, Augustine and Luther - sorry, they did inspire science. They - particularly the first two - proposed that the universe was intelligible, because not merely an accident, and therefore capable of being explored and understood. Thus began the road to science.

Have you ever read any intellectual history, by chance?

As to the latter point, if as you write, "We don't have to be able to answer why the world has physics..." (Which is not quite what I said...) then what is the difference between your science and faith? All you are left with is descriptions absent and understanding of causes.

Indeed, Augustine and Aquinas offered proofs of God. All you can say is that the laws of physics exist. Not why.

Suffice to say, that is not science.

[Guffrus]

Quote:

what is the difference between your science and faith?

The difference is that science is based on objective reality and faith is based on what a person wants.

[devilman666]

@nightdrot this is my last response to you. I think it's clear that you are either too ignorant to have a converation, or else you are too dishonest to have a conversation. The oldest of the three men you mentioned was Augustine, born in 354 AD, so if you think sciencr started in 354 AD then you're simply wrong, by that point in time Eratosthenes had already discovered the circumference of the earth, which happened in 240 BC, nearly 600 years prior to the birth of Augustine. So no, science was alive and well by this time.

Somehow you think science is only possible if the universe is intelligent and not an accident? Yeah, well I think Abraham inspired Christianity because he led to it being explored and understood.

I've honestly never read any history at all, I'm just a stoopid athiest!!! (Sarcasm)

The difference between science and faith is that science doesn't assume things. It also explains far more of the universe and far more reliably than any religion does. The fact that it cannot yet explain this one thing, does not mean science is useless. You can get out of here with that dishonest crap.

[devilman666]

Proof for God? Lmfao here, I'll give you a proof against God: "Everything we see in the universe has a natural creator that comes from within the universe, (like all tables were created within the universe) therefore the universe itself must have a natural creator." Or "an all knowing all porwerful God could never create a world where I am allowed to call him a weak little bitch." Or "we observe motion and therefore there is no God".
Lmfao that's so fun and easy, I totally get why 2nd century Christians were so eager to play this game

"That's not science" I'd ask you to define science, but I already know that you can't and won't, and I'm not going to respond anyways so even if you could, it would be a waste of your time.

I hope that one day, you will either learn how to be honest, because until you honestly evaluated the science and history, you will always be ignorant.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 Have you ever read Augustine or Aquinas? Just curious.

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot Dude, you cannot possibly believe that religion has been a benefit to science.

That is perhaps the most ridiculous claim you have made so far.

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus Actually, if you familiar with intellectual history - I have a degree in Philosophy - you would understand how that worked. (Hint: I outlined it in one or two of the countless replies above.)

No matter, you seem unable to answer the most basic existential questions - and as I noted, you seem unable to do so even as you respond with emotional vehemence and vulgarities. My sense is that I am not dealing with a dispassionate intellectual. Rather, an emotional - and not especially well read - partisan.

[devilman666]

@nightdrot yes.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 Really? Then outline Augustine's proofs of God for me.

[devilman666]

@nightdrot you don't have a degree in philosophy or intellectual history (they are not the same thing), nice try.

[devilman666]

@nightdrot why dont you outline it for me? I'm done wasting my time with you.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 Didn't say I had a degree in intellectual history. My degree - actually a dual degree - is Philosophy and Communications.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 Nope. You claim to have read them. So prove it. I have been arguing my case based in part on their arguments.

So let us see your summary of what you have read.

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot Alright, perhaps you would care to explain why the Arab world was at one time a world leader in science and what caused its sudden decline from which it has never recovered and what the dark ages were?

Spoiler alert: This is what happens when you replace science with religious dogma.

[devilman666]

@nightdrot I don't believe you are an honest person, so I don't believe that you are telling the truth on that. Seems more likely to me that you just want to prevent people from arguing with you by pretending to be an expert.

Assuming you have such a degree, how and why is it relevant to the converation?

[devilman666]

@nightdrot ahahahahaha prove it? You lost the right to that kind of honest discussion. I'm done proving shit to someone who is dishonest.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 Yes, I know. Ad hominems are your preferred tactic. However, as you seem unable to answer a very basic question - summarize the principle argument of an author you claim to have read - I kinda think that your veracity is the one open to question.

C'mon out little kitty.

[devilman666]

Though I will say this just so I can have one more laugh as I walk out: AUGUSTINE NEVER WROTE A PROOF FOR GOD YOU FUCKING DISHONEST MORONIC PIECE OF GRABAGE, HE WROTE A THEODICY THAT WAS MEANT TO SHOW OTHER BELIEVERS HOW GOD EXISTS IN EVERYTHING, IT WAS NEVER A PROOF FOR GOD AND IF YOU ACTUALLY RESEARCHED IT THEN YOU WOULD FUCKING KNOW THIS, YOU DISHONEST, DUMBASS, MOTHERFUCKER!!! DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A GOD DAMNED THEODICY IS? NO, YOU FUCKING DON'T, NOW GO FUCK YOURSELF!

Wikipedia:
Theodicy means vindication of God. It is to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil, thus resolving the issue of the problem of evil. Some theodicies also address the evidential problem of evil by attempting "to make the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good or omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of evil or suffering in the world".[1] Unlike a defense, which tries to demonstrate that God's existence is logically possible in the light of evil, a theodicy attempts to provide a framework wherein God's existence is also plausible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot You are trying to demonstrate that religion is of benefit to science, so before getting bogged down in minor details why dont you just address the 2 most significant factors instead?

Is it because those things would annihilate your argument?

I rather think that it is.

What is the point in trying to grasp hold of a tiny twig when you are facing a forest of redwoods?

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus Here - try this work by a noted Physicist - theconversation.com/religion-isnt-the-enemy-of-science-its-been-inspiring-scientists-for-centuries-90190

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot Not reading, could not care less what is in that article because i already know that there is no justification for the dark ages etc to be found there.

Stop avoiding the obvious truth.

Your position is absurd.

[devilman666]

I hope garbage like you gets turned into something useful. Maybe your molecules can get turned into something that can actually help people, cause you seem useless. The fact that you tried to be condescending when you dont even know what you're talking about pisses me off to a ridiculous extent. You keep thinking and pretending as if you're the one in my shoes, but you aren't, because I know what Augustine said, and you are merely pretending to know because you are grasping at straws, pointing to anything you think might be able to save you. The only thing I want you to know, is that you are a dishonest, ignorant, dumbass and probably irredeemably so. That's no a hominem, it's just the hard truth.

[devilman666]

Ad hominem*

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus The prosecution rests.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 Suggest you read the article I provided above and send your comments to the author. As to the rest, insults, epithets. You are plainly unserious.

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot You really are delusional.

How many times must you be driven into the ground like a fucking tent peg before it starts to occur to you that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong?

Do you ever question your positions?

I do, all the time, thats how i know what i am talking about most of the time now.

Grow some balls and try it.

[devilman666]

Come on little kitty, you got scared by a couple of bad words?

Ahahahaha you wanna talk unserious? You're a fucking joke. As you said to Guffrus, the prosecution rests. Now enjoy your block, I gave you a final chance to respond, but you're not worth my time and you don't even deserve to respond. If your friend decides to respond here as you asked him to, then I'll send him your regards and tell him you're busy studying the works of St. Augustine.

[nightdrot]

@Guffrus Absolutely. Do you ever question your positions? Physician, heal thyself.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 Sir, c'mon. You are plainly unserious. You have resorted to foot stomping. Cussing. When I have posted questions to you, they are evaded.

Far from being the dispassionate man of science that you pretend to be. You are little more that a tantrum throwing partisan.

Read the article I provided above and and answer the questions I have posed to you. As it is, I don't even thing a self-respecting intellectual atheist would want to be associated with your hyperbole and heavy breathing.

[Guffrus]

Quote :

I do, all the time, thats how i know what i am talking about most of the time now.

Thanks for demonstrating that you dont even listen never mind give these ideas any thought.

I think we will call that game, set and match.

[devilman666]

@nightdrot you're suffering from brainrot. I answered your question, Augustine never wrote even a single proof for God. Now if you think I am wrong then you are free to show me that I am wrong, by explaining Augustine's proof (s) for God.

The problem is, with Augustine, like with this article, you're just pointing to random things you fins/hear and hoping it saves you. You read the headline of an article and then post it without reading anything more. I guarantee I could find a problem with the article and then you wouldn't even acknowledge it, you would move forward to pointing at the next thing that you think can save your religion. It's a never ending cycle, because you will point at anything and everything as a proof for God.

Please define the word hyperbole, I dont think you know what it means.

What questions have you posed that I haven't answered?

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 Here ya go:

www.123helpme.com/.../Analysis-of-St-Agustines-View-on-the-381710

Also from Aquinas:

web.mnstate.edu/.../...veways_argumentanalysis.htm

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot The first mover being called God here is now called the big bang.

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot As it has already been explained to you, you can call the initator the big bang God if you want to, but it doesn't mean anything to do that.

The cause of the big bang is unknowable, at least at this time so you cannot make any claims about this unknowable thing. Even if you call it God, there is still no relationship what so ever between that thing you are calling God and the God that is then written about in religious text.

Giving it the same name doesn't mean anything, there is no substance there.

[devilman666]

Nah fam you dont get to be so lazy after I actually answered you. I want you to explain, because I already called you out on this bullshit.

"I guarantee I could find a prolem with the article and then you wouldn't even acknowledge it, you would move forward to pointing at the next this that you think can save your religion."

Also, I can't even fully read that 123helpme sample essay because I don't have an account, with that said, you understand that that is just a sample essay written by a freelance writer, right? With that aside, go ahead and show me whay Aquinas' proofs for God were, because I can't find them in the sample text that you have shared.

So from the other link you gave earlier, it says this is the foundation for all philosophy and maybe all science too:

"Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea?… Where is the way to the abode of light?… From whose womb comes the ice?… Do you know the laws of the heavens? And can you apply them to the earth?"

It's a verse from the book of job, and it's literally God having a tantrum because Job questioned him after he allowed Satan to tortured Job. Why did God do this? Because... "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY ACTIONS YOU LITTLE SHIT?", that is actually the reason he gives to Job.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 Well, in that, you are not all that different from God, are you?

Cheers!

[devilman666]

@nightdrot oh yeah, because I get mad at people questioning me, not people accusing me of having no idea what I talk about when they can't provide any evidence to support themselves. Whatever, I'm glad you're done wasting everyone elses time, did you run out of things for me to disprove or are you just tired of me always being right? Either way, you should do some research, maybe try fully reading the bible? Maybe do some research into the history of the bible and the church? You could learn a lot, if you do enough research then maybe one day you will actually be worth my time.

[nightdrot]

@devilman666 Who started with the cuss words and epithets? Who told who that they did not know what they were talking about? You may wish to review the record.

No matter, to paraphrase an infamous line: It is not impossible to debate you. It is pointless.

Cheers!

[Guffrus]

@nightdrot I did and i was right to, because you are a total fucking moron.

Stop acting like you are winning something, you have been utterly defeated.

So just shut up and fuck off now.

You have nothing.

[devilman666]

Oh damn, I did start with cuss word, I guess that makes me wrong because... oh wait, it fucking doesn't. My use of cuss words are irrelevant to the quality of my argument. But I guess if you agree that it is godlike to throw tantrums then I guess my actions today were godlike. Have a great day!

[Diodoro]

Logical, Yes. Absolutely certain to be true, I can't say yes.. I believe it is, but it's faith based..

Being truly dispassionate and looking at it. It's impossible to KNOW one way or the other. As far as Theories I find religious ones more believable if you don't get hung up on the "how".

Even if you prescribe to the big bang theory there's nothing to suggest that an omnipotent power didn't cause an eruption of energy through the universe in the process of his creating it.

To me it's odd to look at how everything is made up of the same building blocks in an ever moving and ever changing universe, while emphatically saying it just came into existence with no precursor. When every phenomenon in our universe has and we seek to find that origin in thousands of theories.

Religion in my opinion is simply a natural outgrowth of that seeking of truth. The how the why. We're always looking for evidence for something.

The most scientific way to "prove" anything is really seeking to honestly disprove it. If you can't then that lends more credence to that theory at this point in time with current knowledge.

Just like every theory. Saying a God created it all is a functional story/theory that does not currently have credible proof to show it's not the case. Whether it's a particular religions God is another story.

[Diodoro]

Thank ya sir

[tatianamay]

The beliefs a religious person has are illogical, considering that people believe religions based on faith. Faith is not logical from an objective perspective. My family follows Hinduism, and my mom has the utmost faith in God, but I'm the polar opposite of her. I'm not a believer. All religions are human made. I, once read a poem where the poet requests to treat humans with respect, if we treat others with respect, we'll get it back. Just be a decent human being and you will be peaceful. Why did people form religions? I'm guessing it was to make people follow certain rules and regulations that would prevent them from hurting another person intentionally. Why do you need religion to be a decent human being? I never understood why people have religious faiths, and equate religion to God. But hey, to each their own. As long as they make their own informed decisions and don't blame everything on God, and follow everything blind, everything's cool

[Paul09]

All facts! But you are being too nice. Except I find religion dangerous. They caused wars, hate, racism.

[Nomina]

I think so. I'm not the best catholic, I do many many things that are not okay with catholic teachings.
Sometimes, I have a hard time with it, understanding it, accepting it because it would mean changing my ways, lifestyle, it would require a lot self-control and self-imposed restrictions that I don't want to do. Plus, it kinda bums me out that I'm not a better person, through that lens. That lens is a lot more demanding than other spiritual/religious beliefs I've looked into.

In spite all that, it does make sense. It speaks a lot more of the importance of self-sacrifice, in almost every aspect of life. And I see that it is true. For your own sake, that of others, your work, your responsibilities, your self-improvement, you need to sacrifice a lot of yourself. I see a parallel with Stoicism (the practical, hands on philosophy).

[AlexanderAnttila]

I'll be as concise as possible with my fundamental thought process: My faith in Christ and God the Father is deeply logical. Ever since I was a child I did not understand the logic in the assumption that nothing has ever been eternal, like a personal God, and that at some unspecified point without reason or agency, nothing exploded into everything. That is what I'd certainly call nonsense. We look at planes and are able to deduce intelligent design. A book neither does drop down fully written and cohesive of its own accord, and a car hasn't just exploded into being. Yet when we look at the majestic nature all around us, everything co-existing and co-depending with each other in tandem, our ecosystems, fauna and flora all expertly and intricately woven down to the last molecule to function, we suddenly refuse to think intelligent design is behind it. Accidents do not engender harmony. As simple as that.

Why specifically Jesus Christ? I can witness to the countless prayers that have been answered, supernatural provision from God, how He's delivered me from dangers. But a logically based argument is that in no other religion to ever have existed now or before, has the supreme divinity sacrificed Himself to save His creations because He loves them. There is only one story like that, one only, and that is the story of Jesus Christ. That itself is witness to there being something different with Christianity.

Neither can we explain where our shared sense of morality comes from, if not from a moral-giver. A contemporary argument popular among evolutionists is that natural law has developed morality, whatever has been perceived as "naturally" warranting of a reaction like reacting poorly to murder has developed our sense of right and wrong. But that fails to explain where that reaction comes from. If all standards of right and wrong have developed from opinion, then there is no right and wrong, only opinions. Meaning that Hitler had an opinion, America has an opinion, Russia has an opinion. But nothing is really right or wrong. Those who argue from any premise that something is objectively moral, must acknowledge a higher power that has decreed it is moral. Else they are reasoning from a hypocritical standpoint.

[Gravit1]

There is no reason without a reason. Reason implies purpose, purpose implies design, design implies designer, and designer implies reason.

Logically all religions (beliefs) cannot be right. There are fundamental rules of nature and existence and the truth can only line up with them. A religion is a system of shared beliefs, in that notion atheism is a religion though very disorganized outside of a college campuses. Though true atheism does not exist in practice as many of its claimants believe evolution which deifies nature and time. Logically atheism runs into a problem. A true atheist believes in nothing, but when pressed they claim to not believe in god or rather believe believe God. Atheism requires active disbelief of God, because ignoring reality is a conscious process. You are only left with two possibilities with religion one religion is right or none are right. Bringing back the definition of religion being a system of shared beliefs, then the possibility that none are right would suggest no belief is right. Understanding the systematic nature would make it seemingly a third possibility that no system has it right, but that falls under the assumption no religion is right. The possibility of one religion being right leads us to another philosophical quandary how do we determine right or wrong. Without a clear guideline through moral framework or systematic verification one cannot answer that question. For the scientific observable and replicable results. Ultimately one must accept absolute authority to accept absolute truth. The Bible gives a moral framework and makes systematic statements about reality and human nature. Christianity is verifiable in the life of the believer and to the observer. Christianity sets itself apart from other belief systems in that it describes what God did for humanity. In all other belief systems one is instructed on what humanity must do for god (s). So in that sense Christianity is the antithesis to all world religions. Christianity is also uniformly persecuted against by all other belief systems. So you are left with a question is Christianity right? The Bible gives verifiable facts from names, dates, locations, and human nature. Ultimately with any belief or system you can either accept of deny, that is based on personal conviction. May you experience God's conviction.

Romans 1: 18 - 20
18, The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20, For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[Shizunk]

Atheism is not a belief. It is the default position in case of lack of belief. As such, it is not logical in nature.
A good example I use to think about this is: "Wildfires in the amazon forest are usually started by dragons breathing fire."
Is it logical to believe this? No. Your default position should be "I am not aware of the existence of dragons, and neither a link between them and wildfires. I am open to seeing evidence, until then, I do not believe this is the case."
There is really not much more to it than that. The number of people who believe in a certain thing does not have influence on this. In case of dragons in the amazon, the number is likely 0. In case of a monotheistic all knowing god, it may be many millions. In both cases, you do not need to think logically to dismiss them. You can point out the lack of evidence and retreat to the default position.
Once people start to put forward their positive claims about all sorts of things, ridiculous or not, then logic is required to dismiss them.
So atheism is neither logical, nor a belief, my conclusion that the evidence in favor of actual belief systems does not hold water is the result of a logical process.

[Shizunk]

As to the truth of my position, I dont know, obviously. Neither do other people, which is the whole point. I wish I knew, but so far I see no mechanism able to reliably confirm either way. And I don't see that changing in the future.

[CountessSarah]

Well, atheism isn't a religion, nor is it a belief.
But my rejection of theist claims is logical, sure. They haven't met their burden of proof for an extraordinary claim, so I don't believe it. The same way any given theist reading this doesn't accept the claims of other religions.

[NewgodX]

I belive that question comes second
The first question is there a God?
Always coming to your question
No coz I belive there is no God and when there is no God all the teaching and all automatically becomes teaching of men and then men are selfish

Very selfish
Very Very selfish

[SenseiSeptred]

You just haven't tuned into the right planar frequency to do so.

[NewgodX]

@SenseiSeptred your statement seems to pass the judgment without hearing the whole story and arguments but that js what religion teaches in the first place faith without question

[SenseiSeptred]

That is not what I am saying at all. When you connect to certain frequencies, questions happen quite regularly by the frequency achiever. It is acting at first as if you are talking to a fragmented version of yourself in certain context, and getting results around you as if your question is one and the same as a prayer that you get some form of an answer quickly or very slowly depending on where you are at, and how you asked the question.

[NewgodX]

@SenseiSeptred the whole concept of religion is based on believing on a entity that may not exist, so basically you are believing something that cannot reply back to your questions, so who gives the answers? That is an interesting question

[ToriAka]

I wouldn't say that it's really that "logical". I'm a christian, and I think that some things in the bible don't really make sense. My favourite example is sexuality:
A lot of christians say that homosexuality is a sin. But god is love, god is acceptance. So why would he not allow two people of the same gender to love eachother?

I will keep believing in god and in heaven, always. I just think that christianity itself, the bible, the church and all those things make up quite a few things that just aren't right or don't make sense. I believe in god, I just don't think that "this" is the way he intended christianity to be like.

[zeitgeist057]

hahah I suppose everyone might think this, but my belief is really the only logical one: to admit you don't actually know, and you can't know.

Most religions (including atheism) are based on presuming to know the unknowable. Accepting that the unknowable is, in fact, unknowable, is the closest I believe anyone can come to "truth".

[TheSpaceGnome]

Atheism isn't a religion, it's the absense of religion.

I don't "believe" no gods exist, I know they don't.

I refute the entire idea that the creation/begining of the universe, and omnipotence, are even possible, because logically speaking, they aren't, and I see no point in calling something a god if its not omnipotent and didn't create the universe.

Logic dictates that both infinity, and opposites exist, so a god can't exist.

[jshm2]

You're confused.

A belief can only be true to the person who holds it - (else they wouldn't hold it as a belief). Also, logic plays a part in everything, but not everything is or can be logical as logic is narrow and easily flawed and paradoxed.

For example, as per the Zeno paradox, logically motion is not possible and nothing moves. But we know this is not true.

Hence trying to square the circle with belief and logic is a waste of time.

[Shizunk]

You are saying belief is true only to the person holding it. That would only apply if they didn't say it out loud and thought their reality is different than everyone else's. Truth as a concept is not subjective. You can believe something is true regardless of evidence, but you are making a universal statement about an objective fact, saying you know it and it is binding to everyone's reality. There is no such thing as "my truth". Belief then would be making a statement of fact based on limited evidence, with full or limited confidence, but even if speculating, nobody is claiming what they believe only exists for them. So they are literally saying something is true, for everyone and always. And will be judged based on that.

[Rachelspiks]

No religious belief is logical and true. Religious beliefs are based upon emotions, an inability to accept the finality of death, and the incredibly conceited belief that we actually matter in this universe.

[SaoirseS]

If you’re going to discuss religion, why not have the testicular fortitude to ask with your username instead of going anonymous? If you feel that passionate about it, own it.

[Nachowedgie]

Damn fuckin right

[Kaneki05]

Atheism is not a religion. That would be like saying, a person who knows Unicorns don't exist is part of religion for thinking that.
It's only the ones who believe in Unicorns existing without proof that are religious.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure of anything anymore. I do see things for myself and what I see tells me a lot about the world. My life is small so the experience and exposure will be as well. The universe is huge and I am a dust particle in it. I know what I feel in my heart is true. I hope for an afterlife that I can spend with the people I love. But I really don't know anymore.

[MrJMM]

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism has no creeds, rituals, holy book, absolute moral code, origin myth, sacred spaces or shrines. It has no sin, divine judgement, forbidden words, prayer, worship, prophecy, group privileges, or anointed 'holy' leaders. Atheists don't believe in a transcendent world or supernatural afterlife.

[15_Debo]

Will I don't believe in religions at all... My belief is 'we work hard we earn'
and I think everyone can see that it has logic...
And then there is Karma, in which I believe 'whatever you give you get'
Which definitely has a logic...

[Anonymous]

Atheism isn't a religion, as it doesn't have a strict set of beliefs or doctrine. Some atheists believe there is no god which is just as faith based as any religion. Some do not have a belief in any God (which is different than believing there is no God), which tends to be due to a perceived lack of logical or empirical evidence for a God.

Religion is based on belief and faith in something that can't be proven or tested, so it can't be logical.

[karaspara]

Logical no True? I'll let you know in the afterlife 😂

[VDrago14]

Logical, probably not. I don't think any religion can be viewed for the most part as logical, however true? Well as far as I'm concerned it's my truth and in the end that's all that matters for me

[Asker]

Of course it is your truth but is it subject truth.

[VDrago14]

Doubtful, is any religion true, after all it's the essence of faith

[Anonymous]

Atheism isn't a religion, no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.

[YAhallo]

I don't like any religion but so many people really need a religion because they are so dumb ignorent stupid and have mantel issues that can't be considered normal religion is nothing more than self satisfaction

[slatyb]

I don’t have any religious us beliefs becausevtheres no evidence to support any of them.

[Asker]

How about this do you believe that there's a creater

[slatyb]

I believe that question is unanswerable because such a creator, if it existed, would be beyond observation. Besides, the answer is not useful. Data is useful only if it can be used to guide a decision. So the universe was somehow created by an outside entity. What can I do with that? The only thing we do know is that prayer works exactly as well as doing nothing.

[Shizunk]

I agree we don't know. But I am not sure why a hypothetical creator would have to be unobservable. There may or may not be a way to detect them that we haven't discovered yet. There is no currently known evidence as far as I can tell. But knowing an entity capable of great magic doesn't seem to be a contradiction in terms.

[NamerOfStars]

True, yes; logical, no. That's why it's a matter of belief, rather than of fact. Faith and knowledge aren't the same thing.

[Jlegacy]

Logic can be an imperfect scale to judge beliefs. Most times beliefs are built on illogical infrastructures.

[okeydoke]

Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s a lack of belief in anything at all.
Anyway, I do not think there is logic nor truth in any organized religion.

[Archerer]

No religious beliefs are logical or true, pretty much by definition. The only logical thing to do is reject all religions, and I do.

[Not_a_baddie]

I'm close to atheism, still not sure. But I have long departed away from my religion

[Asker]

Ok that what most people are that the don't know but they don't believe in there previous religion because it doesn't make sense.

[Not_a_baddie]

I used to be a hindu. It has so many barbaric practices, contradictions, incest and staggering logic. But whatever I don't force my opinion on others but it's not my cuppa tea

[Guardian45]

I think all religions are oral fables passed down and told through generations. All of them have stretched reality and credulity, but it does tranquilize or fanatacize the masses!

[Anonymous]

I’m agnostic, I believe there is a god out. But I don’t what he is. I mean humans become so intelligent and you look at the world around us, but I need to see proof of a god. God might just something that created us and moved on.

[genericname85]

Atheism isn't a religion. It is the rejection of faith based assumptions, which inherently is more logical than accepting faith based ideas as personal reality.

[Asker]

No sorry to say this but most of the atheist believe in someone that said something so it is a religion

[genericname85]

Agreeing with what someone else said doesn't make your opinion a religion...

[Asker]

Ok then give the evidence that a creater doesn't exist

[genericname85]

Thats exactly opposite of how the burden of evidence works. If i say x exists, i have to provide evidence for x. I can't say x exists, now you go and proof that it does. That's nonsensical.

I say unicorns exist. Now you go proof that they don't or I'm right... See how dumb that is? Also: The non existence of things generally can't be proven, cause you can always make the claim that things exist outside of our perception. So therefore we do not assume things to exist unless we can proof that they do exist. That's what you do with everything else. Why not do that with god like atheists do? Not real untill proven otherwise.

[genericname85]

Besides there's countless evidence for stuff existing without there being a creator. You weren't created were you?

[genericname85]

Atheism is not "the claim that god doesn't exist". Atheism is the "denial of the claim that god exists for lack of evidence." Just fyi.

[Asker]

Atheism say that God do not exist so it made the claim so it has to providing evidence otherwise it should be agnostic that you don't know if god exist or not did get that

[genericname85]

Christians claimed God exists without evidence. What has been claimed without evidence, can be discussed without evidence. That's what Athesism does. Atheism doesn't say god can not exist. It says the evidence for the god claim is not sufficient. Rejecting a claim is not a claim. J know christians are trying to reverse the burden of evidence and you know why? Cause they have none. They have been failing to provide evidence for over 2000 years. If there was evidence, atheism couldn't exist. But then there w lol would also be no need for faith. So the very fact that it's faith ja proof that there is no evidence. Making atheism justified in rejecting the god claim.

[genericname85]

Dismissed** not discussed

[genericname85]

If we stay with the unicorn example: i claim unicorns exist. You say:"no they don't". Do you now have the obligation to proof they don't exist?

[genericname85]

Look we can simply this discussion a lot. Just tell me: what are the qualifying standards for existence. Tell me. Then we can simply check if we have the same standards and whether or not good exists by those standards.

[genericname85]

Simplify*

[Guffrus]

@genericname85 I hope you dont mind me weighing in here, you dont need the help you are absolutely smashing it but I just wanted to add that it doesn't matter whether or not there was a creator or if things began through some currently not understood process.

Because there currently is no evidence for a God or Gods, so what that means is that even if we were to later on find an entity which had supernatural or suitably impressive abilities and that entity had the initiator / creator, that would still not lend ANY support for any religious idea which preceeded it, none what so ever. All religious claims and ideas are constructions of humans, to claim you know the unknowable, that you have access to the mind of a so far undiscovered entity is not just supremely arrogant, its dangerously delusional.

[Guffrus]

had been the creator*

[genericname85]

@Guffrus i feel like this skips one or 2 classes on ontology that christians or general theists intentionally skip on, cause they have to preserve ignorance to defend their faith.

that's why i don't correct people when they call me an "atheist", cause i'm actually an ignostic secular humanist. meaning whether or god exists or not ultimately doesn't even have any quantifyable consequences on our life either way, so we should derive our values and standards from or own minds capacity. but to even understand that point of view, i assume one has to understand "how things can be known" first.

[Guffrus]

@genericname85 Knowing what knowing things means is certainly a massive problem.

Though I can certainly understand why most people dont start at the beginning, as a person who skimmed some and skipped other parts myself.

It does get quite mind bending when you realise that can't begin to start thinking about anything else until you have demonstrated to yourself that you even exist to ask the question in the first place.

[genericname85]

@Guffrus the ego to me is merely like a usefull software that runs on a computer. it's an "idea", a "process" or a "concept", not a sort of "thing" that physically manifests like a rock or something. i think it's way more interesting to dealth with the "id" (the meaning that Freud uses) cause that has more of a "thing" than the "ego" and we can actively experience that state of being, even though we mostly don't. god in the way people talk about that concept to me is just the superego combined with the false assumption that this concept is somehow an entity thatt "connects us all" making it something external to the human mind or "god like" when it's nothing but the fact that the human experience is so similar across different specimen that it seems like there's a sort of connection, when in reality there's none.

[Guffrus]

Somewhere I have heard this idea that humans are naturally predesposed to religious belief. Presumably not just humans actually, as there is that thing with the pigeons, where you feed them randomly and they start developing superstitions about how to get more food to appear.

It seems to me that we all can 'feel' and understand why a person would be religious, we have all had seemingly profound experiences which a theist might call a miracle or a sign from God. I think at least some religious people incorrectly think that they are fortunate to have had these experiences and would pity atheists, incorrectly believing that they (atheists) were not able to access this 'connection to God', presumably perceived as made manifest by their (theist) faith and or good conduct etc.

From my own experience i would associate this sort of experience as being more to do with the ego than the super ego or knowledge, it is simply a feeling, I am at one with this moment in awe of its profound revelation, the explanations come after as i try to make sense of what i am feeling.

[genericname85]

@Guffrus i wish i'd find the quote but there's actually a genetic component to it. like some people aren't prone to addiction, some aren't prone to entertain delusional thoughts. so there seems to be a genetic concept to faith. i also think it "might" have something to do with intelligence levels, cause higher levels of intelligence seems to correlate with a lower likelyhood of following some sort of religious doctrin, though of course other social factors play a major role in that too. it's definitely a multivariate problem.

i mean some people choose to intoxicate their senses with substances that make them feel like in some sort of parralel/alternate/"enhanced" reality. i don't. i think it has to do with choosing the red or the blue pill if you follow the matrix movie logic. some people prefer the prettty delusion over the ugly truth. some people prefer truth over everything no matter how harsh that will turn out to be.

[Guffrus]

My best guess for the source would be Daniel Dennitt, seems like his area.

[genericname85]

@Guffrus nono it wasn't some philosophical thing. it was "actual science" xD (not trying to bash philosophy but philosophy isn't exactly scientific). i found it. it was actually a meta study with cold hard numbers published in the "the Personality and Social Psychology Review" journal and pubmed.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313497266

[Guffrus]

I dont consider philosophy and science to be particularly different, they are both honest attempts to find truth and have a significant overlap.

[genericname85]

@Guffrus as far as i know, philosophy provides ways of thinking. like algorythms for the brain. it doesn't "generate knowledge" or any verifiable evidence that can be used to verify or falsify theories with as far as i know. i consider it a tool for science. not science. i mean i know that the very conceptional foundation for most sciences is layed out through philosophy. but the process of gathering evidence and articulating and testing theories is not what i'd associate philopsophy with. maybe you know more about that than me.

[genericname85]

i'm not saying philosophy isn't valuable. i'm just saying, you can't use philosophy to gather data and make correlations from it xD

[Guffrus]

Its all just a tool box isn't it?

As you say science is born out of philosophy, philosophy is the thought process, the defined desire for truth and understanding and science is the method which generates data which provides the foundation from which thoughts can be built.

Philosophy allows you to attempt to explore ideas for which no data can be generated, acting as a tether to try to keep you connected to reality.

Im not sure there are any examples of science acting without philosophy, though that is perhaps a semantic issue of how you define these things.

Is a hypothesis philosophy?

[genericname85]

@Guffrus well a producer of hammers won't build houses. but those that build houses can use hammers to do so. same relation between philosphy and science in my opinion. providing the tool is not the same as doing the job that employs the tool.

a hypothesis is not philosphy at all xD a hypothesis alone is worthless without a methodology to test it. god for example is such a hypothesis.

[genericname85]

@Guffrus though it can be a bit confusing if you employ the informal use of the word "philosophy" XD

[Guffrus]

I dont think i can agree with Quote: a hypothesis alone is worthless without a methodology to test it.

It is frustrating certainly and you can't prove anything but assigning it a zero value i think is a mistake.

The danger being that you close off your mind to the idea and then the idea does not reoccur to you later when data is available.

Knowing what you dont know is as important as knowing what you do know.

What does a theorectical physist do? Is that science or philosophy?

If a hypthoesis is not philosophy, what is the difference between philosophy and a thought experiement? Assuming a thought experiment is scientific, maybe it isn't?

As i said to begin with i suspect this is all just semantic.

[genericname85]

@Guffrus well if you use informal definitions, it all becomes a wash. i will concede however that my choice of the word "worthless" was not wise. i should have chosen "useless", cause that's what it is. there is a certain worth in it as you said, however you're wrong in asserting that a hypothesis offers the value of "knowing what you don't know". it doesn't. cause knowing what you don't know precedes the articulation of a hypothesis.

i mean i don't know how familiar you are with scientific work but usually the a paper doesn't start with the hypothesis. it starts with a question. then the current state of the scientifical findings considerin the question are reflected and only at that point do you start articulating your hypothesis. you shouldn't conflate "taking an educated guess" or "just a guess" with "articulating a hypothesis", as those things have different qualities.

what's the difference between talking out of your ass, making an educated guess or formulating a scientifical hypothesis? it's the research you put in to articulate the hypothesis.

next step in science typically is introducing a methodology with which you will try to answer the question that you had. and of course from there it's open ended. you may or may not find the answer using your methodology.

some methods of philosophy may or may not be employed for the articulation of the hypothesis. manly informal logic but you're not discussing or trying to reinvent the very foundation of how kowledge can be gathered in the first place, hence a hypothesis isn't philosophy.

it can be philosophical. sure. but only if the question it's trying to answer is philosophical in nature.

[Guffrus]

I dont believe that i asserted that a hypothesis offered the value of knowing what you dont know. The idea i was attempting to convey was simply that one should keep an open mind and not necessarily immediately abandon and ignore an idea just because you can't resolve it at the present time. New data or testing methods may become available or the idea could evolve into something else perhaps. So even with your adjustment to 'useless' i still dont quite agree. I am advocating devaluation over zerovaluation.

Quote:
i mean i don't know how familiar you are with scientific work but usually the a paper doesn't start with the hypothesis. it starts with a question.

doesn't philosophy also start with a question?

Regarding the rest of you post, I take this to mean that you feel that the difference between philosophy and what you would call a scientific thought experiment is the quantity and quality of the associated data?

Though you make no attempt to draw a line.

Maybe there are formal definitions and lines drawn, I did a very small amount of poking around but i didn't find an simple distinction.

What i did find was this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

Quote: Scientists also use thought experiments when particular physical experiments are impossible to conduct (Carl Gustav Hempel labeled these sorts of experiment "theoretical experiments-in-imagination"), such as Einstein's thought experiment of chasing a light beam, leading to special relativity. This is a unique use of a scientific thought experiment, in that it was never carried out, but led to a successful theory, proven by other empirical means.

I dont know a lot about it and i didn't look into it but this sounds to me as though Einstein used philosophy, not science to develop the idea of special relativity, science was then used later on to prove the idea was correct.

[genericname85]

@Guffrus "one should keep an open mind and not necessarily immediately abandon and ignore an idea" well that's a normative thing but scientifically speaking, a hypothesis with no methodology of finding an asnwer to that hypothesis can not lead to a theory and is therefore useless.

those are all methods to come up with a theory but they aren't scientific. they only become scientific if embeddet and contextualized within current scientific status quo in a field and they only become usefull, if it's falsifiable and if you have a method of testing the hypothesis.

anyway. from a linguistic perspective, there's distinctions between words, cause they have different meanings. surely there can be some overlap but if there are no distinguishing factors, then having 2 words is pointless. so i'd be very carefull with calling a hypothesis "philosphy" or calling science "philosophy". you might have a vin diagram between those but those aren't the same and shouldn't be used undifferentiated.

[Guffrus]

Im not sure if i am doing a bad job of making myself understood or if you are going out of your way to misunderstand me but it is increasingly feeling like the latter.

[OddBeMe]

Logically, the supernatural is unproven. So my atheism (unbelief) is true.

[marish01]

What you claim is that your belief that God isn't real is true because his exiestence is not proven

[marish01]

Logical * (not true)

[OddBeMe]

@marish01 unbelief isn’t belief god doesn’t exist. It’s just unconvinced.

[Shizunk]

@marish01 there is a difference between saying you know a god does not exist and not believing in one based on not being offered any reason to do so. It's not maybe, it a "no, until proven otherwise" it is not a "no, never, under any circumstance. Saying god is positively false would require you to claim that god is a contradiction by definition, an impossibility. That is not what atheism is about.

[marish01]

@Shizunk people define atheism differently.

[Shizunk]

@marish01 people define atheism wrong. Pretty often at that. We atheists agree quite exactly what it means and we care about the distinction...

[OddBeMe]

Yeah people define all words differently. I’d argue people define Christianity differently.

But atypical, asexual, atheism. Not typical, not sexual, not theist. It’s not “I believe no theism.”

[marish01]

Guys from 1 to 10 how much do you think God's existence is possible?

[Shizunk]

@marish01 possible? 9. Probable? 1 and that's generous. That could change quickly with new discoveries though.

[OddBeMe]

@marish01 I’d actually say -10. I’m 99% certain there is no god. Can’t be 100% on anything in my opinion.

[marish01]

@OddBeMe It doesn't sound you have unbelief. You do have belief. Your belief is that God is not real.

[OddBeMe]

@marish01 true! But that’s not atheism. I’ve heard it called “hard atheism” or “anti-theism” on Reddit. But the general idea of atheism is just uncovinced.

I do believe (to the valid extent one can believe) there is no god. Which is a claim I need to back up.

[marish01]

You said
"I’d actually say -10. I’m 99% certain there is no god."
So you give 1% to God's existence which is not (-10). It would be 0,1 out of 10

[OddBeMe]

@marish01 well I’m not a mathematician. I just know 100% can’t ever be proven. So I’m 99.9% sure.

[marish01]

How are you sure if you don't have evidence?

[OddBeMe]

@marish01 my evidence is the absence of evidence.

[marish01]

Lol. That proves God is not real?

[OddBeMe]

@marish01 if I said I had a hundred dollar bill in my wallet and you look in it and don’t find it…proves it.

[marish01]

It is something that can easily be proven or disproven

[OddBeMe]

honestly so is god.

[marish01]

You have a very primitive way of thinking. Your example proved it

[OddBeMe]

@marish01 as I said, can’t be 100%. But based on everyday logic, God doesn’t exist.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

100% logical and 100% true. I believe literally everything written in the Bible.

[JohnO45]

There is no objective logic or truth. I believe in religion for community and comfort

[ThisDudeHere]

Atheism isn't a religion though.

[Anonymous]

Atheism isn't a religion.

[devilman666]

What is my "religious belief" as an athiest?

[JosyJosy]

It's one's truth against the other's

[najekim]

Mine is. I know all man-made religions are false.

[Fuentes]

I believe in God im not sure whose 100% right

[Nachowedgie]

Atheism isn't a religion

[ChiPaPa]

None.

[Caramelpie]

100% sure it is.