Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

OK I'll (reluctantly) bite:  given that a belief in a God is just that and does not rely upon rationality or the scientific method, what is the definition or working parameters of a "good argument"?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote: 80% of what is or "be" on the "Sky" (you mean, space) we don't know what it is... I understand that is called by scientists "black matter" and we don't have a clue what it is, but is there. Now, is not that God inhabbit there, but if you ask "Who creates God?" I can ask you the same, where was this black matter before? and you cannot explain it. Most of your theories are just that and it's not likely that happened. In fact, in the same process of science there's a lot of inferences, scientist said "this could happened" but they are never sure and a 75% chances of being true doesn't mean it IS true, it's just a chance...   Sorry, I haven't heard anything conclusive from those who think and claim that they can be conclusive. At least Theist, we don't want to conclude anything, we just believe and hope we are right... Sorry, but from your post I gather that you expect science to have answers for everything. In fact scientists are the first to admit that we have much to learn. In contrast, religious people claim to know everything they need to know. Most of the scientific advances we have had in known history were made against the strong resistance of - religion! Instead of believing and hoping to be right, I would rather try to find out what's happening. And as far as the afterlife is concerned: There's no way to find out until you're dead. Do you really think that assuming that you'll somehow ascend to heaven as a reward for doing what the book says - do you really think that this improves your life?

jampa17 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote: 80% of what is or "be" on the "Sky" (you mean, space) we don't know what it is... I understand that is called by scientists "black matter" and we don't have a clue what it is, but is there. Now, is not that God inhabbit there, but if you ask "Who creates God?" I can ask you the same, where was this black matter before? and you cannot explain it. Most of your theories are just that and it's not likely that happened. In fact, in the same process of science there's a lot of inferences, scientist said "this could happened" but they are never sure and a 75% chances of being true doesn't mean it IS true, it's just a chance...   Sorry, I haven't heard anything conclusive from those who think and claim that they can be conclusive. At least Theist, we don't want to conclude anything, we just believe and hope we are right... Sorry, but from your post I gather that you expect science to have answers for everything. In fact scientists are the first to admit that we have much to learn. In contrast, religious people claim to know everything they need to know. Most of the scientific advances we have had in known history were made against the strong resistance of - religion! Instead of believing and hoping to be right, I would rather try to find out what's happening. And as far as the afterlife is concerned: There's no way to find out until you're dead. Do you really think that assuming that you'll somehow ascend to heaven as a reward for doing what the book says - do you really think that this improves your life?   I really found some of your statements so incredibly misspointed that I don't really know if to take it seriously or give it away... really...   You are the one who wants proves, not me. You are the one who is appealing to science, not me. But as soon as it gets very clear that you can't reach to the key point of explanation then you take back and said that science can't prove everything. I know that, that is exactly what I'm saying.   Now, what I believe and how I feel believing in it is just a matter of me and myself so it's pointless to discuss about my ownself. Where you read that I will ascend to heaven? do you believe that having somebody watching us is not good for improving my life?

If there's one thing that I've said time and time again then it's that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven. I've never asked you to *prove* anything.

Let me see: There's someone watching us - he sees and hears everything, even our thoughts. If we misbehave, he will torture us for all eternity. No, I don't think that believing that will improve anyone's life.

JLocke wrote: Well, if we are going to look at the whole thing from outside of science anyway, there essentially IS no argument. I think the only difference here is perspective. I am choosing to view this particular debate from a scientific viewpoint almost exclusively, and you are not. If I were coming at it from a more romantic, philosophical angle, I doubt we would have been debating at all.  I have no issue with questioning, theorizing and throwing out thought-provoking alternatives . . . as long as they are hypothetical or academic in nature. However, religious people want to call us non-believers closed-minded and 'wrong'. I simply cannot accept that. If we are going to speak in absolutes, let's allow the folks with the better reason to do so speak out.

^ As far as I'm concerned, the thread is already a success ... I found many posts quite interesting. If it fails to settle the dispute between science and religion, I won't see that as a problem ... I don't think that it will be solved in our lifetime - at least not on a global scale.

BTW: I agree about the confirmation bias - I think that nobody is free of it. But you can always try to take it into account.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ @Padraic: Good question. I think that a good argument would be one that one could verify objectively, and which would support a Theistic claim - something that would tie in with other independent claims rather than contradict them. I guess the main point is that an argument is not really good if there are alternative explanations that are simpler and don't require a supernatural component (Occam's Razor). I can't think of anything that qualifies, but then again I'm obviously biased.

applying Occam's razor to the creation of the universe is a bit keen, since the big bang hypothesis is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, and other scenarios science has come up with so far are not really satisfying at all. whats more: even if a hypothesis was good enough to be named a theory there  would be no evidence whatever for this scenario.
actually astrophysics is not much more than a smokescreen anyway, the reason being is that none of what astrophysicists say can be verified with an experiment. we can't just go and create a star. we don't even know if the basic assumption  (the laws of the universe are the same everywhere) is really true; for one doubt it. I think it is highly probable that physical constants did not have the value they have today all the time. it might for example very well be that the gravitational "constant" depends on the distribution of mass throughput the universe and hence may change. anyway, that basic assumption "the laws of the universe are the same everywhere" is based on absolutely nothing.
so much for "exact science" and the explanation of the origin of the universe. if you are not aware of that, Mike, then you are closing your eyes deliberately


Edited by BaldJean - July 06 2010 at 15:07

BaldJean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ @Padraic: Good question. I think that a good argument would be one that one could verify objectively, and which would support a Theistic claim - something that would tie in with other independent claims rather than contradict them. I guess the main point is that an argument is not really good if there are alternative explanations that are simpler and don't require a supernatural component (Occam's Razor). I can't think of anything that qualifies, but then again I'm obviously biased. applying Occam's razor to the creation of the universe is a bit keen, since the big bang hypothesis is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, and other scenarios science has come up with so far are not really satisfying at all. whats more: even if a hypothesis was good enough to be named a theory there  would be no evidence whatever for this scenario. actually astrophysics is not much more than a smokescreen anyway, the reason being is that none of what astrophysicists say can be verified with an experiment. we can't just go and create a star. we don't even know if the basic assumption  (the laws of the universe are the same everywhere) is really true; for one doubt it. I think it is highly probable that physical constants did not have the value they have today all the time. it might for example very well be that the gravitational "constant" depends on the distribution of mass throughput the universe and hence may change. anyway, that basic assumption "the laws of the universe are the same everywhere" is based on absolutely nothing. so much for "exact science" and the explanation of the origin of the universe. if you are not aware of that, Mike, then you are closing your eyes deliberately

None of that has anything to do with me applying Occam's Razor. I don't care how the universe was created, or whether science can prove all the claims. Some are mere speculations and those who make them don't claim to have any proof. Others - like the big bang - can indeed be verified by experiments (e.g. background radiation, large hadron collider). Science is all about making claims and verifying them. Quantum Theory is crazy and counter-intuitive, yet its claims can be verified.

Sorry, but this is an old straw man argument that religious people often make ("science claims to know everything"). No matter what science knows, religion knows less.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote: 80% of what is or "be" on the "Sky" (you mean, space) we don't know what it is... I understand that is called by scientists "black matter" and we don't have a clue what it is, but is there. Now, is not that God inhabbit there, but if you ask "Who creates God?" I can ask you the same, where was this black matter before? and you cannot explain it. Most of your theories are just that and it's not likely that happened. In fact, in the same process of science there's a lot of inferences, scientist said "this could happened" but they are never sure and a 75% chances of being true doesn't mean it IS true, it's just a chance...   Sorry, I haven't heard anything conclusive from those who think and claim that they can be conclusive. At least Theist, we don't want to conclude anything, we just believe and hope we are right... Sorry, but from your post I gather that you expect science to have answers for everything. In fact scientists are the first to admit that we have much to learn. In contrast, religious people claim to know everything they need to know. Most of the scientific advances we have had in known history were made against the strong resistance of - religion! Instead of believing and hoping to be right, I would rather try to find out what's happening. And as far as the afterlife is concerned: There's no way to find out until you're dead. Do you really think that assuming that you'll somehow ascend to heaven as a reward for doing what the book says - do you really think that this improves your life?   I really found some of your statements so incredibly misspointed that I don't really know if to take it seriously or give it away... really...   You are the one who wants proves, not me. You are the one who is appealing to science, not me. But as soon as it gets very clear that you can't reach to the key point of explanation then you take back and said that science can't prove everything. I know that, that is exactly what I'm saying.   Now, what I believe and how I feel believing in it is just a matter of me and myself so it's pointless to discuss about my ownself. Where you read that I will ascend to heaven? do you believe that having somebody watching us is not good for improving my life? If there's one thing that I've said time and time again then it's that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven. I've never asked you to *prove* anything. Let me see: There's someone watching us - he sees and hears everything, even our thoughts. If we misbehave, he will torture us for all eternity. No, I don't think that believing that will improve anyone's life.

jampa17 wrote:   If people think like that simplistic way, you even imagine that god would have some believers. No, you missed the point intentionally and I don't really care man.

stonebeard wrote: Preliminary statement: Who the balls cares? If you want to take everyone in the universe and make them atheist (oops--convince them to choose willingly for the more rational belief system---OOPS! OOPS! ... lack of belief system) Then the world would be soooooooooooooo much more boring. As a damn atheist I sure as hell don't want a bunch of us traveling around the world preaching the lack of good news. Maybe it's not a good idea to have militant religious people killing others. Tell them to tone it down, but smacking them upside the face (metaphorically, one hopes) with The God Delusion is not going to solve anything, nor should religion be a thing to solve or fix anyway. Militant, violent religion, sure. Try your best if you care. Folks just want to live and believe what they want. A lot of them do it peacefully. Who the hell is any one of us to try to convert them away from their hopes, revelations, and Gods?

Edited by JLocke - July 06 2010 at 16:01