A Strong Support for Atheism

[Azunite]

Although I believe(d) in God, I couldn't just stop thinking about the example came to my mind a week ago.


Ages ago, mankind had created a God for everything, and mostly for things he did not understood ( for example Thunder ). As man realized that there were scientific explanations for each, the amount of Gods, well, decreased.

And the next thing we know most of the people still believe in God only because we still can't explain how universe was created: And I am not talking about Big Bang, because after all, something must have triggered it.

And there is still the mysticism part which is also cannot be explained through science: What was before the universe was created, what is soul, etc.

So I said to myself: Eventually, we'll explain how the universe was created, and we won't need a God anymore.

[Austins]

Although I believe(d) in God, I couldn't just stop thinking about the example came to my mind a week ago.


Ages ago, mankind had created a God for everything, and mostly for things he did not understood ( for example Thunder ). As man realized that there were scientific explanations for each, the amount of Gods, well, decreased.

And the next thing we know most of the people still believe in God only because we still can't explain how universe was created: And I am not talking about Big Bang, because after all, something must have triggered it.

And there is still the mysticism part which is also cannot be explained through science: What was before the universe was created, what is soul, etc.

So I said to myself: Eventually, we'll explain how the universe was created, and we won't need a God anymore.


As much as I admire mankind's pursuit of power and evolution I do also believe mankind does need a "god" or a diety to help keep our thirst for power under control, The idea instills a fear into the hearts of the average person. The idea of god and life after death has helped keep many people under control and striving to be a better person. As well it helps mankind put limitations on what is right and what is wrong, I mean what if we knew there was no life after death? what would stop us from going on a rampage and killing the person next to us? And what if we do not place the limitations on growth? Science would become deadlier and deadlier, we might destroy our own planet, or create something that man kind cannot control because of our ignorance killing us all. I do believe we should grow as a species but people will always need and always have a god.
(I respect atheism though and all forms of religion as long as you aren't sacrificing babies and such)

[Cygnus]

If you would have been born in India, you would follow hinduism
If you were born in Cambodia you would be Buddhist
If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be muslim
If you were born in Israel you would be Jewish
If you were both in the americas you would most likely be chirstian

Which religion you follow is not about it being the true one, its about geography and how you were raised.

[Azunite]

If you would have been born in India, you would follow hinduism
If you were born in Cambodia you would be Buddhist
If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be muslim
If you were born in Israel you would be Jewish
If you were both in the americas you would most likely be chirstian

Which religion you follow is not about it being the true one, its about geography and how you were raised.

This has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with what I have said.

[Origami]

Although I believe(d) in God, I couldn't just stop thinking about the example came to my mind a week ago.


Ages ago, mankind had created a God for everything, and mostly for things he did not understood ( for example Thunder ). As man realized that there were scientific explanations for each, the amount of Gods, well, decreased.

And the next thing we know most of the people still believe in God only because we still can't explain how universe was created: And I am not talking about Big Bang, because after all, something must have triggered it.

And there is still the mysticism part which is also cannot be explained through science: What was before the universe was created, what is soul, etc.

So I said to myself: Eventually, we'll explain how the universe was created, and we won't need a God anymore.

I have to admit, I've seen this "prove where the universe began, disprove God" argument quite a lot and I don't get where people draw this assumption. The mysticism alone will keep religion alive. Will finding the beginning impact religion? Maybe. But I doubt it would do anything significant.

[Harry Smith]

As much as I admire mankind's pursuit of power and evolution I do also believe mankind does need a "god" or a diety to help keep our thirst for power under control, The idea instills a fear into the hearts of the average person. The idea of god and life after death has helped keep many people under control and striving to be a better person. As well it helps mankind put limitations on what is right and what is wrong, I mean what if we knew there was no life after death? what would stop us from going on a rampage and killing the person next to us? And what if we do not place the limitations on growth? Science would become deadlier and deadlier, we might destroy our own planet, or create something that man kind cannot control because of our ignorance killing us all. I do believe we should grow as a species but people will always need and always have a god.
(I respect atheism though and all forms of religion as long as you aren't sacrificing babies and such)

Science shouldn't be limited, well not in regards to stem cell research something that many religious groups oppose. I mean I'm sure the religious elite said that Darwin's ideas should of been stopped because they were heresy.

Science will continue to move forward and expand where as religion is rather 'stuck'.

Your theory about god say for example stopping crime is rather debatable, I mean I don't believe in after life yet it doesn't encourage me to pursue crime. Many people have killed in the names of religion, it doesn't effect our morales' in the modern day one bit

[Austins]

Science shouldn't be limited, well not in regards to stem cell research something that many religious groups oppose. I mean I'm sure the religious elite said that Darwin's ideas should of been stopped because they were heresy.

Science will continue to move forward and expand where as religion is rather 'stuck'.

Your theory about god say for example stopping crime is rather debatable, I mean I don't believe in after life yet it doesn't encourage me to pursue crime. Many people have killed in the names of religion, it doesn't effect our morales' in the modern day one bit

I am personally a huge fan of stem cell research, but there is some science we just cannot control. For instance the atomic bomb, physical enhancement. Cloning, But the pursuit of god has also helped science too. For instance Islam used to preach learning in order to become closer to Allah, it is what thrived Arabians to create algebra, and even a huge advance in medical science with the first form of eye surgery that wasn't gouging it out. But you are free to believe what you wish seeing I am not ignorant enough to try and force my opinion on you. It is just my own opinion.

[Azunite]

Also may I remind you that today's religion is tomorrow's mythology?

[Harry Smith]

I am personally a huge fan of stem cell research, but there is some science we just cannot control. For instance the atomic bomb, physical enhancement. Cloning, But the pursuit of god has also helped science too. For instance Islam used to preach learning in order to become closer to Allah, it is what thrived Arabians to create algebra, and even a huge advance in medical science with the first form of eye surgery that wasn't gouging it out. But you are free to believe what you wish seeing I am not ignorant enough to try and force my opinion on you. It is just my own opinion.

The Atomic bomb helped us develop Nuclear power, a very effective form of fuel. I agree with your point about Islam but that's years ago, in the last 400 years religion has opposed nearly everything Science has done because most of it threatened religions power, that's all it is about -power

[saea97]

Scientific history and advancement is a very strong argument in itself (see: the persecution by the Church of the advocates of heliocentrism like Galileo), and I think you're entirely right that science will eventually advance so far that the God of the gaps ceases to function. However, I'd say the most compelling argument for me when losing my religion was the realisation that homo sapiens has been inventing Gods for all of the hundreds of thousands of years our species has existed. The number may very well be uncountable (given the limited span of "recorded history") but there are certainly many tens of thousands of deities that have at some point been worshipped in human history. Why should we even raise an eyebrow at Yahweh or Allah, given our benefit of hindsight? Is there any evidence that singles them out as more relevant than Huitzilopochtli and Tezcatilpoca? Than Zeus and Apollo? Isis and Osirus? etc.

H.L. Mencken, in a piece called "Memorial Service" gave a somewhat long and laboured list of a small fraction of past Gods before concluding thus: "They were all gods of the highest standing and dignity - gods of civilized people - worshipped and believed in by millions. All were theoretically omnipotent, omniscient, and immortal. And all are dead."

[Jasperf]

This has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with what I have said.

hahahhahahahahah

The Atomic bomb helped us develop Nuclear power, a very effective form of fuel.

it may be effective but its not a 'good' form of power! i dont agree with neuclear power at all.


and on topic (: scientist have done experiments to see if there is a soal :) they actually were positive, though they couldnt prove that the results were because of your soal, though its kinda obvious haha.

[Mushin]

And the next thing we know most of the people still believe in God only because we still can't explain how universe was created: And I am not talking about Big Bang, because after all, something must have triggered it.

And there is still the mysticism part which is also cannot be explained through science: What was before the universe was created, what is soul, etc.

So I said to myself: Eventually, we'll explain how the universe was created, and we won't need a God anymore.

There's actually a lot of science backing up the big bang theory now, such as quantum tunneling and dimensional planes. If you searched for some research articles conducted by university students you can find some really compelling evidence supporting the theories. The American Institute of Physics Journal is great for this. You'll have to do some digging, but I'm sure you'll find what you're looking for.

I think the reasoning for people not entirely dismissing the notion of a deity is due to how influential some religious groups have been. When you use the example of deities being dismissed once a more plausible explanation is found for an anomaly (rather than the wrath of an angry god), you're using examples from mythology. If you think about it, no religious deity has really ever been dismissed once a scientific explanation was found for something that was once unexplainable, except for deities pertaining to mythology.

Souls, pre-universe, and any other mysticizing phenomena is just that, mysticizing phenomena. Obviously some things have been dismissed as myth simply because there's no hard evidence to base any scientific research off of. Therefore I don't think science will ever come up with an explanation for some of this phenomena. It's unnecessary and damn near impossible without any observations to base an experiment off of.

Religions have been too influential for them to be dismissed at the present time. Society isn't ready to entirely let go of it's grasp on the possibility of a higher power. I think if religion was cast from modern society we would quickly fall into some kind of post-apocalyptic chaos. People who have based all of their lives on religion will suddenly have nothing to live for, and that would not be good. Although for me personally deity-based religion isn't important in my life, to others it is everything they have. We should stop trying to define the hard evidence of religion, and allow people to enjoy their own beliefs however they'd like, regardless of our own. :yes:

[Gigablue]

And the next thing we know most of the people still believe in God only because we still can't explain how universe was created: And I am not talking about Big Bang, because after all, something must have triggered it.

I don’t think thats the reason most people believe in a god. I think the main reason is that their parents believed, and so did their grandparents, etc. If people are raised with religion, they tend to be religious.

Also, I take exception to the claim that something must have caused the big bang. If you want more details look at the thread on the big bang. I think the problem is that people can’t accept the science, which shows that the big bang was uncaused. The problem is with people, not the science.

And there is still the mysticism part which is also cannot be explained through science: What was before the universe was created, what is soul, etc.

There wasn’t a before the universe, spacetime didn’t exist. Without time, you can’t have a before. Once again, the problem is that most people don’t try to understand that idea, and instead attribute it to a god.

Also, the problem of a soul is a nonexistent one. There is no reason to think a soul exists. Religion invented the idea of the soul. This isn’t a problem with science. Science can’t address the nonexistent.

So I said to myself: Eventually, we'll explain how the universe was created, and we won't need a God anymore.

People will always have some sort of religion. Science right now is sufficient to make a god unnecessary, yet people are still religious. As a said before, the issue is with human nature, not science.

As much as I admire mankind's pursuit of power and evolution I do also believe mankind does need a "god" or a diety to help keep our thirst for power under control, The idea instills a fear into the hearts of the average person. The idea of god and life after death has helped keep many people under control and striving to be a better person. As well it helps mankind put limitations on what is right and what is wrong, I mean what if we knew there was no life after death? what would stop us from going on a rampage and killing the person next to us?

Despite not believing in any sort of as afterlife, I have no desire to kill people. If anything, the lack of an afterlife makes our lives even more precious, and makes killing even more wrong. If people lived on after death, death wouldn't be so bad. Since we only get a short time to live, to cut it short would be cruel.

Also, religion is not the source of our ethics. Ethics based on religion don’t work very well. They tend to be a set of fixed rules, while to be truly ethical, one needs to deal with the nuances or life.

And what if we do not place the limitations on growth? Science would become deadlier and deadlier, we might destroy our own planet, or create something that man kind cannot control because of our ignorance killing us all. I do believe we should grow as a species but people will always need and always have a god.

Trying to control science with religion is dangerous and unnecessary. We do need to be careful as our science progresses, but we need to use evidence and logic to make our decisions. Religion ignores evidence and dismisses logic. Why should we let it control anything as important as the future of science.

and on topic (: scientist have done experiments to see if there is a soal :) they actually were positive, though they couldnt prove that the results were because of your soal, though its kinda obvious haha.

What experiments? A claim like that needs a source.

Also, you say they proved a soul, and then you say that they didn’t. Did they or didn’t they? Science doesn’t assume anything as obvious. Things that seem obvious are often wrong.

[Jasperf]

What experiments? A claim like that needs a source.

Also, you say they proved a soul, and then you say that they didn’t. Did they or didn’t they? Science doesn’t assume anything as obvious. Things that seem obvious are often wrong.

If your going to quote someone do it correctly. I never said they did or didn't 'prove' anything
Many scientis have done experiments on the body atempting to show the existance of soal. one such experiments was done byDr Dunkin Macdogal, this is the experiment I spoke of earlier, where they weighed the body as it died, as the human died, weight left the body, this is thought to be 'soal', though cannot be proven.

[Gigablue]

If your going to quote someone do it correctly. I never said they did or didn't 'prove' anything
Many scientis have done experiments on the body atempting to show the existance of soal. one such experiments was done byDr Dunkin Macdogal, this is the experiment I spoke of earlier, where they weighed the body as it died, as the human died, weight left the body, this is thought to be 'soal', though cannot be proven.

What exactly are you claiming? Are you saying the experiment proved a soul or not?

Also, I looked up the experiment and it had many flaws. Here (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/05/13/1105956.htm) is a link which shows some of the flaws. The worst of them are the small sample size (six patients) and the difficulty in determining the exact moment of death. We can't pinpoint the exact moment of death even now, how could he have done it so accurately so many years ago.

[LouBerry]

I think that there will always be religion. Even if someone discovers how the world came to be, there are always going to be people like me. I believe in science. I just believe that there is a God, and that He made the laws of science. I think that whatever happened to create everything, it was by God's hand.

[Southside]

I believe religion will be around for long to come, people just like the promise of being able to see dead relatives and live in paradise after death. I dont care if your Atheist, Islamic, Christian or whatever, if you had the chance to spend time with a dead relative or friend I'm pretty sure you wouldnt pass it up.

I may not be a perfect Christian, praying and reading the Bible everyday, but I do believe its a God somewhere up there.

[Origami]

We should stop trying to define the hard evidence of religion, and allow people to enjoy their own beliefs however they'd like, regardless of our own.

This. This is probably the best thing posted in this whole damned thread.

[IVIodern]

I think that whatever happened to create everything, it was by God's hand.

To me that is a reasonable logic. I don't necessarily 'believe' in a 'god' - although I do think there is something bigger than him that we cant understand just yet.

[LouBerry]

To me that is a reasonable logic. I don't necessarily 'believe' in a 'god' - although I do think there is something bigger than him that we cant understand just yet.

Anything's possible.

[Gigablue]

Anything's possible.

No. Not everything is possible. One of the reasons we have science is to separate the possible from the impossible.

We should stop trying to define the hard evidence of religion, and allow people to enjoy their own beliefs however they'd like, regardless of our own. :yes:

I disagree. Religion makes a claim which is either true or false. Science can examine that claim and determine its accuracy. If the claims of religion are false, then religion is irrational.

If people didn't apply religion in other areas of life, I wouldn't care, even though science can show it is irrational. Unfortunately, religion infiltrates many areas of public life, and is used to guide many decisions.

[LouBerry]

No. Not everything is possible. One of the reasons we have science is to separate the possible from the impossible.


Well, that depends on your point of view, and how you see things. I mean, I do believe that any thing can happen.

[Adam17]

No. Not everything is possible. One of the reasons we have science is to separate the possible from the impossible.



I disagree. Religion makes a claim which is either true or false. Science can examine that claim and determine its accuracy. If the claims of religion are false, then religion is irrational.

If people didn't apply religion in other areas of life, I wouldn't care, even though science can show it is irrational. Unfortunately, religion infiltrates many areas of public life, and is used to guide many decisions.

Do you know that almost all scientists will say that nothing is impossible. All scientific theories about the start of the universe are just that, theories. I'm not saying that the big bang or what ever other theories there are never happened im just pointing out the fact that a scientific test cant prove or disprove god. Im a Christian but im not going to force my beliefs on anyone but rejecting the idea that the universe couldn't have been created by a supernatural entity is close minded. Even Stephen Hawking said that it would be absurd to think that there is no chance that there could be a god.

[Jasperf]

What exactly are you claiming? Are you saying the experiment proved a soul or not?

Also, I looked up the experiment and it had many flaws. Here (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/05/13/1105956.htm) is a link which shows some of the flaws. The worst of them are the small sample size (six patients) and the difficulty in determining the exact moment of death. We can't pinpoint the exact moment of death even now, how could he have done it so accurately so many years ago.

Once again, I haven't used the word proved. there are on going experiements, and as i have said earlier, this is one of many experiments alteady done. t's like proving whether there's a god or not. Even if science proved that any of the hundreds of diedies, there would still be many people who refuse to believe it. Just like as said above if science totally proved that there is no gods, people would still believe.

[Browny]

I'm gonna start off by saying I respect all of the different religions that are out there but Iam also against them. Religion and God have, are and will be a form of control. That is their main purpose, but it is not their only purpose, they can be used to help people solve their problems as well. But at the same time they limit ones own ability to manipulate and take control of their life. Religion is a form of personal oppression but this does not apply to all of them. There are flaws that make them hard to believe or follow in my opinion.

[Stronk Serb]

The problem is, religion is a simple explanation on everything. In almost all cases, it is not true, but is easier to understand, that's why people choose religious answers over those that were scientifically explained, because it is easier to understand. Most of those answers are that it is God's will why he did it.

[Gigablue]

Well, that depends on your point of view, and how you see things. I mean, I do believe that any thing can happen.

What about defying the laws of physics? I would say that's impossible.

Do you know that almost all scientists will say that nothing is impossible. All scientific theories about the start of the universe are just that, theories. I'm not saying that the big bang or what ever other theories there are never happened im just pointing out the fact that a scientific test cant prove or disprove god. Im a Christian but im not going to force my beliefs on anyone but rejecting the idea that the universe couldn't have been created by a supernatural entity is close minded. Even Stephen Hawking said that it would be absurd to think that there is no chance that there could be a god.

I never said the universe couldn't have been created. All I said was that there is a very plausible way it would have come into existence without a creator. Since we have two different hypotheses that can explain the universe, but one makes the extra assumption of a deity, we can apply Occam's razor.

I'm gonna start off by saying I respect all of the different religions that are out there but Iam also against them. Religion and God have, are and will be a form of control. That is their main purpose, but it is not their only purpose, they can be used to help people solve their problems as well. But at the same time they limit ones own ability to manipulate and take control of their life. Religion is a form of personal oppression but this does not apply to all of them. There are flaws that make them hard to believe or follow in my opinion.

Just a question. Why do you respect religions? You call it a force of oppression, but you also say you respect it.

Personally, I don't respect religion. I respect religious people, but not religion as a set of ideas.

[Mushin]

I disagree. Religion makes a claim which is either true or false. Science can examine that claim and determine its accuracy. If the claims of religion are false, then religion is irrational.

If people didn't apply religion in other areas of life, I wouldn't care, even though science can show it is irrational. Unfortunately, religion infiltrates many areas of public life, and is used to guide many decisions.

Well now you're touching on an entirely different topic: the use of religion as a basis for law. In which case I do not believe religion should have anything to do with guiding government or public decisions that would affect large groups of people who may not all share the same religious beliefs. Laws should be made based on fact and logic alone. But this thread isn't about that, so..

In the event that religion has absolutely no influence on public affairs then we should leave people to their own beliefs. There is no harm in that.

[Browny]

Personally, I don't respect religion. I respect religious people, but not religion as a set of ideas.

That's what I meant

[Lovelife090994]

While I respect a person's wishes to refrain from religion, for me I cannot. Like many I feel and know that Christ is my savior and that I believe in him, yes it is a choice because Christianity is left up to the people to believe in or not. However while science advances I feel all religions will still exist as well, besides, some people need the reassurance of a god or heaven or hell. Some find it silly, but all it different.

[Offmynoodle]

David, I partly agree with what you're saying. Religion is partly how you were raised and partly what your mind believes is true. Religion is not about geography, though. There are plenty of Christians in Israel and Jews in the U.S. Sure, many countries have a religion that the majority of people believe in. Some even force everyone to practice a given religion. But your true religion is not what people or social stigma force you to be. Your true religion is what you know is true for you in your mind and heart.

This is an interesting discussion. When I was in second grade, I was an Atheist myself. The idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful god was beyond my comprehension. Then I was enlightened. God isn't an old man in the sky who says, "Let there be light!" and makes decisions. God is your conscience, that voice in your head that tells you you've done something wrong, or that you need to fix a problem. Everyone imagines a different god, and the god you believe in is correct for you. Keep your mind open.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Human]

Like other people have said, I believe that if your parents are religious then you most likely will be too.
My parents are secular, I didn't know their beliefs until recently and they're pretty much agnostic and I'm really happy with the way they raised me so I could come to my own conclusions. At one point a couple of years ago I asked for a bible to read the stories, purely out of interest but I'm atheist by my own choice.

[Camazotz]

God is your conscience, that voice in your head that tells you you've done something wrong, or that you need to fix a problem. Everyone imagines a different god, and the god you believe in is correct for you. Keep your mind open.

Just because you can personify your conscience, that doesn't make the idea of a god realistic or logical; that makes it your imagination. God isn't supposed to be your conscience, your conscience is supposed to be your conscience.

[ethanf93]

I disagree. Religion makes a claim which is either true or false. Science can examine that claim and determine its accuracy. If the claims of religion are false, then religion is irrational.

I think the OP also mentioned something to the effect of, "eventually science will solve metaphysics." This is incorrect. Science cannot evaluate metaphysical claims.

I could, for example, make a claim that free will exists or does not exist (or any claim that deals with things outside what we would consider to be reality e.g. the universe.) Science simply cannot evaluate these claims: since they do not have any measurable effect on reality, there is no experiment that could falsify them. Similarly, because of their lack of any effect, no useful scientific conclusions could be drawn from them per se.

[ids_happening]

Catholicism, with the crusades, made Europe great. With the knowledge from the Arabs, Christians took it and made Europe (and the US, and all other European colonies for that matter) the great continent it is today. It also had some morals, and with the decline of Christianity in the west, there is an increase in a lot of things like transgenders and things that wouldn't be allowed under Christianity.

[Harry Smith]

Catholicism, with the crusades, made Europe great. With the knowledge from the Arabs, Christians took it and made Europe (and the US, and all other European colonies for that matter) the great continent it is today. It also had some morals, and with the decline of Christianity in the west, there is an increase in a lot of things like transgenders and things that wouldn't be allowed under Christianity.

The Crusaders really didn't do much for us apart from bankrupt most of Europe for about 40 years, the crusaders were in the 13th century, the US wasn't settled in till the 16th.

[saea97]

with the decline of Christianity in the west, there is an increase in a lot of things like transgenders and things that wouldn't be allowed under Christianity.

So? :rolleyes:

[SaxyHaloBeast]

Aren't scientists supposed to encourage open-mindedness, broadening our horizons, and increasing our understanding of the universe? Then why would they just tear down any idea of there being a God? The existence of a God is one possible explanation of how this universe came to be. Scientists should not just disregard it and say it is impossible. A real scientist doesn't assume something is impossible. They search and try to find ways of how it is possible.

[saea97]

Aren't scientists supposed to encourage open-mindedness, broadening our horizons, and increasing our understanding of the universe?

There's nothing open-minded or horizon-broadening about a belief in a God. Faith of such a kind is inherently closed-minded in that it obstinately ignores scientific knowledge.

Then why would they just tear down any idea of there being a God?

Scientists don't specifically endeavour to "tear down" the possibility of there being a God. In strictly scientific terms, the deistic God many people are proponents of these days is unfalsifiable. However, the mark of a good hypothesis is that the one proposing it knows what it would take to disprove it, but there is no way to falsify the concept of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial God, therefore scientists don't give the hypothesis any time. There is a much higher percentage of atheist scientists than the percentage of atheists among the population for this reason. Scientists aren't "out to disprove" God, but there is no evidence that points to his existence.

The existence of a God is one possible explanation of how this universe came to be.

Not really. All that the God hypothesis presents is an infinite regress (who designed the designer, etc.) whereas scientific theories are now being advanced that truly explain creation "ex nihilo" without either a God or an infinite regress.

Scientists should not just disregard it and say it is impossible. A real scientist doesn't assume something is impossible. They search and try to find ways of how it is possible.

It's not up to the scientists to prove or disprove the claims people make about God. The ones advancing the positive claim are the ones with the burden of proof, not those rejecting the claim. If I were to propose a theory that there's a sentient teapot orbiting Jupiter which is too small for telescopes to see, I would be laughed out of town by scientists. It would be entirely up to me to substantiate my ridiculous claim. Just like it's entirely up to the religious to substantiate their ridiculous claim. Until then, the null hypothesis is true.

Finally, I dispute that scientists should "try to find ways of how it is possible". Occam's Razor dictates that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be upheld. If the universe can be explained without a God (which is what science is beginning to arive at) then why invoke one? To invoke one would be to blunt Occam's Razor.

[Jean Poutine]

So I said to myself: Eventually, we'll explain how the universe was created, and we won't need a God anymore.


And what if by finding the beginning, we find a higher power?

A lot of leading scientists are actually believers, you know. Some say that the Universe is just too perfect to have been created by pure chance. Add tiny amounts to some numbers and suddenly stars go supernova almost instantly or never form at all.

There's nothing open-minded or horizon-broadening about a belief in a God. Faith of such a kind is inherently closed-minded in that it obstinately ignores scientific knowledge.


There's nothing open-minded about disbelief in a God. If anything, some atheists have sleep masks over their eyes tighter on than a lot of religious people.

We don't know and we can't know (yet). That is the truth. Anything else is dogma.

Finally, I dispute that scientists should "try to find ways of how it is possible". Occam's Razor dictates that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be upheld. If the universe can be explained without a God (which is what science is beginning to arive at) then why invoke one? To invoke one would be to blunt Occam's Razor.

Occam's razor is a nice buzzword, but it often leads to false assumptions. If I hear another Occam argument I'm going to shoot myself. It's not failproof.

[saea97]

There's nothing open-minded about disbelief in a God.

That wasn't an implication I wanted to make, because I agree that there are people who are too invested in atheism to ever renounce it, regardless of evidence presented. I was simply pointing out that the other poster labelling belief as inherently open-minded is false. Open-mindedness is following the evidence to where it leads. There is no evidence that any of the gods proposed by world religions exists, so the closest that following the evidence will get you to any form of god is vague deism that simply takes advantage of the lack of scientific knowledge in certain fields (aka god-of-the-gaps). And even then, you'll arrive at deism probably through an a priori desire to believe in God. Following the evidence leads many scientists to atheism because there is no evidence for any supernaturality in the Universe.

Most scientists who are atheists are so incidentally because they have found no evidence, they aren't wearing "sleep-masks" through a particular desire. If conclusive evidence arose for a god, such scientists would acknowledge it's existence. That's the nature of open-mindedness, not obstinate belief or disbelief either way. It's just that currently, it's difficult to be open-minded about theism because of the lack of evidence.



Occam's razor is a nice buzzword, but it often leads to false assumptions. If I hear another Occam argument I'm going to shoot myself. It's not failproof.

Sure, Occam's Razor doesn't deal in absolutes, but it's useful to illustrate the degree of trust a hypothesis should be given. I'd rather trust a hypothesis where fewer assumptions are made or entities invoked.

[Gigablue]

And what if by finding the beginning, we find a higher power?

Then a rational person would believe in the higher power. However, we haven't found one.

A lot of leading scientists are actually believers, you know. Some say that the Universe is just too perfect to have been created by pure chance. Add tiny amounts to some numbers and suddenly stars go supernova almost instantly or never form at all.

So. The popularity of a belief says nothing about its accuracy.

As for why the universe seems fine tuned for life, consider if it weren't. We wouldn't be here to talk about it. There is a huge selection bias. Only universes that can accommodate life have intelligent life that can marvel about how perfect the universe is.

There's nothing open-minded about disbelief in a God. If anything, some atheists have sleep masks over their eyes tighter on than a lot of religious people.

Some atheists are closed minded, but many aren't. Personally, I could tell you what would change my mind, thus making me open minded. Most theists say that nothing would change their mind, thus making them maximally closed minded.

We don't know and we can't know (yet). That is the truth. Anything else is dogma.

There are few, if any, things that we know with certainty. However, seeing as science has progressed very far without needing a supernatural explanation, and seeing as science has more explanatory and predictive power than religion, I find the assumption of a higher power absurd. If the evidence were to change, it may become rational, but it isn't currently.

Occam's razor is a nice buzzword, but it often leads to false assumptions. If I hear another Occam argument I'm going to shoot myself. It's not failproof.

Is there a better alternative? Occam's razor is a useful rule of thumb. I think that other arguments are often more persuasive, but when people posit a completely untestable, in falsifiable god, Occam's razor is a valid argument.

[Jean Poutine]

So. The popularity of a belief says nothing about its accuracy.

As for why the universe seems fine tuned for life, consider if it weren't. We wouldn't be here to talk about it. There is a huge selection bias. Only universes that can accommodate life have intelligent life that can marvel about how perfect the universe is.

Never said it did.

That's assuming multiple universes exist. Do not confuse scientific proof with scientific theories. Ironically, were I of that bend, I could also invoke Occam's razor on that one.

Some atheists are closed minded, but many aren't. Personally, I could tell you what would change my mind, thus making me open minded. Most theists say that nothing would change their mind, thus making them maximally closed minded.

What I meant to say is that there are closed-minded people everywhere. More and more, people do renounce religion, and over here, they aren't a minority as the term "most" implies.

There are few, if any, things that we know with certainty. However, seeing as science has progressed very far without needing a supernatural explanation, and seeing as science has more explanatory and predictive power than religion, I find the assumption of a higher power absurd. If the evidence were to change, it may become rational, but it isn't currently.

The assumption on both sides of the fence is absurd to me. I think the more rational answer is "I don't know". To my eyes, believing that a higher power exists or does not exist relies on the same mechanic : faith.

I'm okay with living in the grey on that one.

Is there a better alternative? Occam's razor is a useful rule of thumb. I think that other arguments are often more persuasive, but when people posit a completely untestable, in falsifiable god, Occam's razor is a valid argument.

All it is though is a rule of thumb. I've seen too many "arguments" assuming the razor is foolproof. It is not convincing enough for me to abandon my nice perch right on the fence.

As the cliché goes, truth is often comprised of more than meets the eye. You learn to put not much credence in the razor as a law student, as opting for the simpler, less ambiguous hypothesis often leads you right to an F.

[CharlieHorse]

I think we're all in a computer like the matrix :p

[Gigablue]

That's assuming multiple universes exist. Do not confuse scientific proof with scientific theories. Ironically, were I of that bend, I could also invoke Occam's razor on that one.

Firstly, don't state that I confuse fact with theory, then confuse terminology yourself. A theory in science is a highly repeatable, well tested explanation for a phenomenon that has been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. It is a fact. What you mean to say is hypothesis.

Secondly, the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics, which posits infinitely many universes, has gained acceptance in the scientific community. It is capable of explaining the experiments of quantum mechanics. Also, it doesn't really fall on the theory-hypothesis continuum, since it is an interpretation of a larger theory.

In short, we have fairly good reason to assume multiple universes exist.

The assumption on both sides of the fence is absurd to me. I think the more rational answer is "I don't know". To my eyes, believing that a higher power exists or does not exist relies on the same mechanic : faith.

I'm okay with living in the grey on that one.

My position is not that no higher power exists, but rather that I find there is insufficient evidence supporting their existence. To say that one is certain no higher power exists would be a position of faith, but to let the evidence inform beliefs is not.

While you could say I'm also in the grey, given the current evidence, it seems more rational to live as if no higher power exists. I'll give the following example: I can't say with absolute certainty that unicorns don't exist, but I find it highly improbable given the evidence. As such, I don't live assuming they exist. While the example seems trivial, it illustrates how I feel about a higher power.

All it is though is a rule of thumb. I've seen too many "arguments" assuming the razor is foolproof. It is not convincing enough for me to abandon my nice perch right on the fence.

As the cliché goes, truth is often comprised of more than meets the eye. You learn to put not much credence in the razor as a law student, as opting for the simpler, less ambiguous hypothesis often leads you right to an F.

The basic question is very simple. A higher power either exists or doesn't exist. Both hypotheses can explain the world we have today. We have no evidence for a higher power, therefore the null hypothesis is more likely.

[Jean Poutine]

Firstly, don't state that I confuse fact with theory, then confuse terminology yourself. A theory in science is a highly repeatable, well tested explanation for a phenomenon that has been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. It is a fact. What you mean to say is hypothesis.

Geez, I'm sorry, did my French offend you?

Secondly, the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics, which posits infinitely many universes, has gained acceptance in the scientific community. It is capable of explaining the experiments of quantum mechanics. Also, it doesn't really fall on the theory-hypothesis continuum, since it is an interpretation of a larger theory.

Don't you think that assuming there are infinite universes to explain things in "this" one kinds of thins the sauce?

My position is not that no higher power exists, but rather that I find there is insufficient evidence supporting their existence. To say that one is certain no higher power exists would be a position of faith, but to let the evidence inform beliefs is not.

Fair. My position is that one can find the existence of a God very probable, probable, improbable or very improbable. I don't think any other answer is logical.

My own is that it is probable, but I don't pretend to know "what" that higher power is.

While you could say I'm also in the grey, given the current evidence, it seems more rational to live as if no higher power exists. I'll give the following example: I can't say with absolute certainty that unicorns don't exist, but I find it highly improbable given the evidence. As such, I don't live assuming they exist. While the example seems trivial, it illustrates how I feel about a higher power.

But one could say that it is more rational to live a religious life using Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_gambit).

The basic question is very simple. A higher power either exists or doesn't exist. Both hypotheses can explain the world we have today. We have no evidence for a higher power, therefore the null hypothesis is more likely.

I would not say that there's exactly "no evidence", but there are hints here and there that we might understand better one day.

[saea97]

But one could say that it is more rational to live a religious life using Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_gambit).



Pascal's Wager is a disservice to the omniscient God that world religions teach the existence of. It implies that God either:

a) won't be able to tell that you're fake-believing with an ulterior motive. Then how is he omniscient?
b) cares only for belief (even if fake) and is unwilling to allow, say, moral atheists into heaven. Ascribing such petty (and notably very human) characteristics to the creator of the universe doesn't make any sense.

[Gigablue]

Don't you think that assuming there are infinite universes to explain things in "this" one kinds of thins the sauce?

Not really, since the science supports the idea of infinite universes.

Fair. My position is that one can find the existence of a God very probable, probable, improbable or very improbable. I don't think any other answer is logical.

My own is that it is probable, but I don't pretend to know "what" that higher power is.

I don't understand how all of the aforementioned positions are logical. I would argue that given the lack of evidence, finding a god probable or very probable is irrational. It could only come from a having bad data, or using bad logic. Everyone has the same data, everyone logical should come to the same conclusion.

But one could say that it is more rational to live a religious life using Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_gambit).

They would be wrong. Since there is no evidence for a higher power, we can't even begin to speculate about the motivations of a higher power. There could just as likely be a higher power who hates people for believing in it. You don't know enough to be able to use Pascal's wager.

I would not say that there's exactly "no evidence", but there are hints here and there that we might understand better one day.

What evidence? I have seen some supposed evidence, but it all falls apart when investigated more rigorously.

[Jean Poutine]

a) won't be able to tell that you're fake-believing with an ulterior motive. Then how is he omniscient?

Who said anything about false belief?

I find it useful to reinforce a pre-existing belief.

b) cares only for belief (even if fake) and is unwilling to allow, say, moral atheists into heaven. Ascribing such petty (and notably very human) characteristics to the creator of the universe doesn't make any sense.

Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't. However, given the dogma around the world's most popular religions, a degree of belief seems necessary.

I like to interpret the wager as a game of chance as it should be, not absolutes. Say God is willing to accept nonbelievers. You gain everything and I gain everything. If he isn't though, I gain everything and you stay dead put (I don't believe in Hell). If God doesn't accept that I believe in something higher, not necessarily, say, the Christian god, then I lose too. However, even if there is but a 1% difference in the outcomes then the wager's done its job.

Not really, since the science supports the idea of infinite universes.

How does one even test the existence of multiple universes, in practice?

I don't understand how all of the aforementioned positions are logical. I would argue that given the lack of evidence, finding a god probable or very probable is irrational. It could only come from a having bad data, or using bad logic. Everyone has the same data, everyone logical should come to the same conclusion.

Take a court's decision for example. Oftentimes numerous alternative opinions are attached to the majority decision, and oftentimes, were you to ask "which is correct", the answer is simply "all of them", as in they are legally and logically sound. The divergences in opinion comes from somewhere else than the raw data. Same thing with numbers and statistics.

No one will call somebody a bad jurist for finding desirable that one of the minority opinions should have been chosen instead. I don't see how one could be called irrational for wanting to believe in a higher power. The scientific data regarding the creation, order and upkeep of the Universe such as it is is not conclusive. It can still go either way.

They would be wrong. Since there is no evidence for a higher power, we can't even begin to speculate about the motivations of a higher power. There could just as likely be a higher power who hates people for believing in it. You don't know enough to be able to use Pascal's wager.

Motivation is unnecessary. Pascal's wager is not a game of absolutes. In almost every major religion around the world that accepts the concept of a creator, he is described as omniscient, omnipotent and perfect. Such a being would be endowed with logic and reason. Do you often kill off people who love you?

On the chance he does, what if he doesn't? As I said, even if the difference in probability is very slight, the wager did its job.

What evidence? I have seen some supposed evidence, but it all falls apart when investigated more rigorously.

I think that the regularity and order of our universe is not natural. Every constant, every number is just right to allow life to develop.

If you're watching a game of snooker and some guy pockets every ball on his first round, say, 20 times in a row, do you say "that is mere chance" or "he's really good"? It could very well be chance, but the more you put into the balance, the fainter that chance gets.

[teen.jpg]

I agree 100%

[CharlieHorse]

Anyone watch Atheist Experience on youtube? go check it out.

Anything's possible.

False. values 1 + 1 can never equal 3. :D


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Avatia]

Although I believe(d) in God, I couldn't just stop thinking about the example came to my mind a week ago.


Ages ago, mankind had created a God for everything, and mostly for things he did not understood ( for example Thunder ). As man realized that there were scientific explanations for each, the amount of Gods, well, decreased.

And the next thing we know most of the people still believe in God only because we still can't explain how universe was created: And I am not talking about Big Bang, because after all, something must have triggered it.

And there is still the mysticism part which is also cannot be explained through science: What was before the universe was created, what is soul, etc.

Wouldn't it be a bit presumptuous of you to assume that the principles of cause and effect were in place before The Big Bang, considering we have only had experience of the world after that state of affairs took place.

It wouldn't exactly be justifiable to say that there was certainly cause and effect before, well, we can verify that there is, yeah?

So I said to myself: Eventually, we'll explain how the universe was created, and we won't need a God anymore.

How would we be certain that we have the explanation of how the Universe was created and that we aren't merely at a misapprehension, because the limits of our experience and measurement are to the extent of the Universe?

What I mean is: if I can only measure and experience that which is in the fish bowl, then how would I be certain that when I find something and claim it to be the origin of the fish bowl, that I'm not just mistaken and grasping at the limit of what I could get, and calling that the origin because I can't consider anything more?


Finally, I dispute that scientists should "try to find ways of how it is possible". Occam's Razor dictates that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be upheld. If the universe can be explained without a God (which is what science is beginning to arive at) then why invoke one? To invoke one would be to blunt Occam's Razor.

Incorrect. Science is arriving nowhere close to such an explanation. Science works in the realm of the physical and God is strictly a metaphysical phenomena, if one exists at all. It is naive to try and say that, because we explain physical phenomena - we have justification to say that a metaphysical phenomena does not exist.

Furthermore, even if we were to grant instead, that deities were physical phenomena, then we would still have no reason to believe that simply because we can explain x, y, z in terms of other physical phenomena, that there is no necessary tie in to the deity within those other physical phenomena. You yourself are importing unnecessary assumptions, violating Ockham's Razor, while trying to apply it speciously.

Occam's razor is a nice buzzword, but it often leads to false assumptions. If I hear another Occam argument I'm going to shoot myself. It's not failproof.

Ockham's Razor is known as a simplifying principle in analytic philosophy, hence, that statement is incorrect. Not only does it not do this often, it does not ever do this, by necessity of what it is.

The principle does not lead to the introduction of any sort of assumption, because it does not lead to anything. If used correctly, then it leaves us with only the theses that have the fewest superfluous requirements. There is no possible manner that by Ockham's Razor, you get more assumptions. If you do get more assumptions, you're simply doing it wrong and obviously misunderstand the concept. It's a principle involving removal of propositional hypotheses, not the addition of them.

[saea97]

Incorrect. Science is arriving nowhere close to such an explanation.

Both our viewpoints are subjective with regard to exactly "how close" science is to making God entirely obsolete. Science is beginning to explain how the Universe arose from "nothing" due to quantum instability. This kills off the theologian's cosmological argument by invalidating one of the key principles (ex nihilo, nihil fit). That's a step forward for science and a step back for God.

It is naive to try and say that, because we explain physical phenomena - we have justification to say that a metaphysical phenomena does not exist.

Why? It's naive to assume that metaphysical phenomena can exist when there's no indication that we should think they can.

Furthermore, even if we were to grant instead, that deities were physical phenomena, then we would still have no reason to believe that simply because we can explain x, y, z in terms of other physical phenomena, that there is no necessary tie in to the deity within those other physical phenomena. You yourself are importing unnecessary assumptions, violating Ockham's Razor, while trying to apply it speciously.

Again, why? Consider Darwinism. Darwinism demonstrates the redundancy of the idea of a creator-designer in biology. Why should one hold both to be true? If people believed that flowers were coloured the way they were because fairies painted them secretly, then we learned of the natural processes by which flowers became coloured, it would be redundant to claim the fairies were still involved. It's a far greater violation of the Razor to assume that there is a God involved in naturally explicable processes than to assume that there isn't (simply because they are naturally explicable and so God is redundant).

[Avatia]

Both our viewpoints are subjective with regard to exactly "how close" science is to making God entirely obsolete. Science is beginning to explain how the Universe arose from "nothing" due to quantum instability. This kills off the theologian's cosmological argument by invalidating one of the key principles (ex nihilo, nihil fit). That's a step forward for science and a step back for God.

Not quite, because again, that's a physical phenomena, not a metaphysical one. This is analogous to saying that because we can explain how America got here, that we have explained how the Earth got here, as well. You're going far too broad with your conclusions. Too anxious to conclude things that simply aren't given to you by the case presented.

Why? It's naive to assume that metaphysical phenomena can exist when there's no indication that we should think they can.

It is, and it's equivalent in naivete to do as you do, and assume anything about what we have shown indicates that they even might not exist. Nothing I said is asserting that there are any metaphysical phenomena, but we also cannot rule them out based on what we observe of non-metaphysical phenomena.

Again, why? Consider Darwinism. Darwinism demonstrates the redundancy of the idea of a creator-designer in biology. Why should one hold both to be true? If people believed that flowers were coloured the way they were because fairies painted them secretly, then we learned of the natural processes by which flowers became coloured, it would be redundant to claim the fairies were still involved. It's a far greater violation of the Razor to assume that there is a God involved in naturally explicable processes than to assume that there isn't (simply because they are naturally explicable and so God is redundant).

We have yet to explain the wherefore of that process by which flowers became colored. We only explained that flowers became colored for 'x' reason. We have not explained why the 'x' reason is the case, and so, we cannot rule out the possibility that the fairies could be antecedent to this 'x'.

[Seth.]

I think people these days maybe want god because they want to feel that there's a higher power. Because the like the traditions of their religion. They like to study it and practice it. They like having something to belong to.

[saea97]

Not quite, because again, that's a physical phenomena, not a metaphysical one. This is analogous to saying that because we can explain how America got here, that we have explained how the Earth got here, as well. You're going far too broad with your conclusions. Too anxious to conclude things that simply aren't given to you by the case presented.

How are we ever to proceed if we allow for every single possibility just because it hasn't yet been ruled out? The best compromise is to use the null hypothesis until any evidence is provided that a metaphysical phenomenon is even worth talking about.


It is, and it's equivalent in naivete to do as you do, and assume anything about what we have shown indicates that they even might not exist. Nothing I said is asserting that there are any metaphysical phenomena, but we also cannot rule them out based on what we observe of non-metaphysical phenomena.

This sounds like a shifting of the burden of proof. The fact that we don't observe any metaphysical phenomena is evidence of their absence, until evidence of their presence is provided. Again, it's the null hypothesis. And if the metaphysical dimension exists but is outside the realms of scientific observation (i.e the deistic "spaceless, timeless, immaterial God") then it may as well not exist.

We have yet to explain the wherefore of that process by which flowers became colored. We only explained that flowers became colored for 'x' reason. We have not explained why the 'x' reason is the case, and so, we cannot rule out the possibility that the fairies could be antecedent to this 'x'.

Why does there have to be a wherefore? There are a potentially infinite number of possible antecedents to every natural phenomenon if you assume that "why" (with regard to explicit purpose) is always a legitimate question.

[Avatia]

How are we ever to proceed if we allow for every single possibility just because it hasn't yet been ruled out? The best compromise is to use the null hypothesis until any evidence is provided that a metaphysical phenomenon is even worth talking about.

If we are to be irrational, then that is the best compromise. However, if we're to be well-reasoned, we would consider that there are these many possibilities.

This sounds like a shifting of the burden of proof. The fact that we don't observe any metaphysical phenomena is evidence of their absence, until evidence of their presence is provided. Again, it's the null hypothesis. And if the metaphysical dimension exists but is outside the realms of scientific observation (i.e the deistic "spaceless, timeless, immaterial God") then it may as well not exist.

Oh, my. Where have you been learning your reasoning from?

Simply because you don't observe something is not evidence of it being absent. That state of affairs would entail a contradiction ⇒ proof by contradiction ⇒ that state of affairs is false.

If you can't see that contradiction, I'll explain it. Just let me know. I thought it'd be obvious, though.

Why does there have to be a wherefore? There are a potentially infinite number of possible antecedents to every natural phenomenon if you assume that "why" (with regard to explicit purpose) is always a legitimate question.

Principle of sufficient reason. If there is a case, there is a reason as to why that case is as such. If we are to be rational people, we cannot simply exclude possibilities where they exist, as ridiculous as any of those possibilities may seem to us or as much as we may disagree with them.

However, there is of course an option available for irrationality if it's decided that the rigor of reason is too much.

[saea97]

Simply because you don't observe something is not evidence of it being absent. That state of affairs would entail a contradiction ⇒ proof by contradiction ⇒ that state of affairs is false.

I don't observe fairies, leprechauns, giants, flying pigs (or spaghetti monsters), or Gods. I see no effect that requires any of the above to exist as causes. I see no logical argument presented that indicates their existence is necessary. Therefore, weighing the probabilities, I operate under the assumption that they do not exist. Could I observe the above in the future? Yes, and then I'll change my mind. I'm not anti-reason, as much as you're trying to paint me so with your ever-so-subtle ad hominems.

Postulating that billions of possible "x" causes exist simply because we haven't proved they don't is in no way conducive. But hey, you can go through that haystack with a toothcomb and call it reasonable if you want.




Principle of sufficient reason. If there is a case, there is a reason as to why that case is as such. If we are to be rational people, we cannot simply exclude possibilities where they exist, as ridiculous as any of those possibilities may seem to us or as much as we may disagree with them.

However, there is of course an option available for irrationality if it's decided that the rigor of reason is too much.

A reason, perhaps, but not an explicit purpose, as I stated before. In that sense, the question "why are flowers colourful?" is really "how did flowers come to be colourful?" and you can trace the answer back to the mechanisms of evolution by natural selection. "Why are flowers colourful?" implies an explicit purpose assigned from a higher power.

How is it a rational position to say "fairies might be giving the flowers their colours through evolution, because you can't prove they don't"? It's a shifting of the burden of proof and a redundancy fallacy all in one.

[Avatia]

I don't observe fairies, leprechauns, giants, flying pigs (or spaghetti monsters), or Gods. I see no effect that requires any of the above to exist as causes. I see no logical argument presented that indicates their existence is necessary. Therefore, weighing the probabilities, I operate under the assumption that they do not exist.

The probabilities that you've made up, here.
In order to speak of probabilities for them, you'd also need to invoke all the possibilities that exist, since, probability is the number of ways the selected event could occur / the number of possible ways any event in the circumstance could occur. If you're to speak of existence of something, you'd need to not only know how everything could exist, you'd need to know how that something that you pose doesn't exist, could exist. Do you know these things? Do you possess omniscience?

At least you admit you're making an assumption, albeit neglecting that it's an unjustifiable one.


Could I observe the above in the future? Yes, and then I'll change my mind. I'm not anti-reason, as much as you're trying to paint me so with your ever-so-subtle ad hominems.

You may not want to be, but each of the statements you've given that I've commented on are far beyond the line where reason and rationality are able to tread. Further, there is nothing inherently wrong with being irrational, and so, it's not an ad hominem. You'd also need to demonstrate that I'm doing it in place of an argument for it to be ad hominem, which, has not been the case, even if it were personal insult.

Postulating that billions of possible "x" causes exist simply because we haven't proved they don't is in no way conducive. But hey, you can go through that haystack with a toothcomb and call it reasonable if you want.

I am not postulating that billions of possible x causes exist. I am postulating that we are unreasonable to say that they don't exist simply because we may disagree with them or judge them ridiculous, which is the truth, as, that is in direct contradiction of reason.

A reason, perhaps, but not an explicit purpose, as I stated before. In that sense, the question "why are flowers colourful?" is really "how did flowers come to be colourful?" and you can trace the answer back to the mechanisms of evolution by natural selection. "Why are flowers colourful?" implies an explicit purpose assigned from a higher power.

Why is there an explicit purpose implied to a higher power in that? It only implies that there is an answer to such a question.

How is it a rational position to say "fairies might be giving the flowers their colours through evolution, because you can't prove they don't"? It's a shifting of the burden of proof and a redundancy fallacy all in one.

This is not the rational position. You're twisting what's said above.

The rational position is to say, "It may or may not be the case that fairies are giving flowers their colors, until proven that this is not the case. It may of course be many things giving flowers their color, but this case of fairies has yet to be excluded by evidence, and so, it is irrational to exclude it prior to such evidence."

[blue.lips]

Religion is filled with hypocrisy and goes against science. I do not tolerate ignorance well and that's what religion does to people.
If you believe that the planet is only 6000 years old and that humans used to live with the dinosaurs just because that's what the bible told you, even though it has been scientificly proven that those are false, you are being held back from an entirew world of amazingness. that's just unfourtunate to me. I do not respect religion.

[Seth.]

Religion is filled with hypocrisy and goes against science. I do not tolerate ignorance well and that's what religion does to people.
If you believe that the planet is only 6000 years old and that humans used to live with the dinosaurs just because that's what the bible told you, even though it has been scientificly proven that those are false, you are being held back from an entirew world of amazingness. that's just unfourtunate to me. I do not respect religion.

What about the gap theory that God recreated the Earth 6000 years ago after the great cataclysm that killed the dinosaurs?

[Korashk]

What about the gap theory that God recreated the Earth 6000 years ago after the great cataclysm that killed the dinosaurs?
That's no less idiotic of a belief.

[CharlieHorse]

I'm a strong atheist. Religion in this day and age is mostly bs.

[blue.lips]

What about the gap theory that God recreated the Earth 6000 years ago after the great cataclysm that killed the dinosaurs?

I've never heard of this theory until now and that's just a ridiculous theory with little to no evidence other than the Bible.

[Seth.]

I've never heard of this theory until now and that's just a ridiculous theory with little to no evidence other than the Bible.

I don't know anything about it either.

[Bobbybobby99]

Okay, I am getting rather upset reading this (rather long) thread. The thing that bugs me about it is that It is pretending that all religion is Abrahamic or at least very mainstream. But while you are calling religion detrimental and illogical, I feel that my Paganism is both quite benificial to me and the people around me and logical. Tell me, would you believe in magic if the following was true in a simple experiment you conducted? For a month, during spring, I flipped a coin every day, and would then attempt to use magic to match the weather that day to the coin flip. Tails would have me make it cloudy or rainy, Heads would have me make it sunny or cloud-free. Rather than something around 50% accuracy that you could expect if magic had no effect, it had 90% accuracy. Even if the coin was simply predicting the weather for the day, that still shows to me that it would be illogical to assume that magic did not exist. You do not have to believe in my experiment, but I, personally, know that I conducted that experiment perfectly, so it is quite logical for me to believe in magic. My belief in the Greek gods is simply fueled by personal, non-scientific experience, so it is perhaps less logical, but that leads me to my next point. I am a better person because I am a Pagan. It gives me interest in the furthering of environmental protection, makes me less afraid of getting mugged and murdered, gives me the grounding of threefold return (Which I take as 1/3 return, but that's irrelevant) to prevent me from being a verifiable violent donkey, gives me a purpose in life, and makes me genuinely useful. Not to mention the fact that Paganism does literally nothing to make any bodies life worse, we aren't bigoted towards anybody, and the only bad thing about being Pagan is disgrimigaton against us by abrahamics and perhaps a few bigoted atheists."An it harm none, do what ye will" Aka "so long as it doesn't seriously hurt anybody, do whatever the Tartarus you want" isn't exactly very restricting on my life, either.

[Jean Poutine]

Ockham's Razor is known as a simplifying principle in analytic philosophy, hence, that statement is incorrect. Not only does it not do this often, it does not ever do this, by necessity of what it is.

The principle does not lead to the introduction of any sort of assumption, because it does not lead to anything. If used correctly, then it leaves us with only the theses that have the fewest superfluous requirements. There is no possible manner that by Ockham's Razor, you get more assumptions. If you do get more assumptions, you're simply doing it wrong and obviously misunderstand the concept. It's a principle involving removal of propositional hypotheses, not the addition of them.

*sigh*

as·sump·tion (-smpshn)
n.
1. The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
2. The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
5. Presumption; arrogance.
6. Logic A minor premise.
7. Assumption
a. Christianity The taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven in body and soul after her death.
b. A feast celebrating this event.
c. August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.

If you take a given postulate as valid simply because of Occam's razor, then yes it is an assumption. The razor is not proof, in legal parlance it is a commencement de preuve that must be strengthened with additional, valid proof. In other words, it's a guide, a landmark, and it is not correct 100% of the time, which was the point. If you were to say to say "God doesn't exist because Occam's razor makes his involvement in creation unnecessary" then it is an assumption in the strictest sense of the word.

I am growing beyond tired of people nitpicking on my words to find contradictions that simply aren't there. I'm not going to write this shit with a dictionary next to me. Next time I might as well say go French or get out - it'd save me lots of grief and afford me as much amusement.

[Avatia]

*sigh*

as·sump·tion (-smpshn)
n.
1. The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
2. The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
5. Presumption; arrogance.
6. Logic A minor premise.
7. Assumption
a. Christianity The taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven in body and soul after her death.
b. A feast celebrating this event.
c. August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.

If you take a given postulate as valid simply because of Occam's razor, then yes it is an assumption. The razor is not proof, in legal parlance it is a commencement de preuve that must be strengthened with additional, valid proof. In other words, it's a guide, a landmark, and it is not correct 100% of the time, which was the point. If you were to say to say "God doesn't exist because Occam's razor makes his involvement in creation unnecessary" then it is an assumption in the strictest sense of the word.

I am growing beyond tired of people nitpicking on my words to find contradictions that simply aren't there. I'm not going to write this shit with a dictionary next to me. Next time I might as well say go French or get out - it'd save me lots of grief and afford me as much amusement.

A 'postulate' is not rendered valid by Ockham's Razor.
Ockham's Razor - the only purpose for it, the only use of it, is rendering 'postulates' as unnecessary. Anything about your conclusions regarding the validity of some thesis is not correlated to Ockham's Razor. The only thing Ockham's Razor does for someone is to remove those premises that have unnecessary assumptions in them. Anyone who concludes that God or anything else doesn't exist because of Ockham's Razor is irrational, because this is not something it provides them with. The Razor doesn't give anyone a sort of permission to mark a thesis as false. It only emphasizes that where assumptions aren't needed, get rid of them.

In the case of a God, it would be irrational in the first place to state that God's intervention or existence is an unnecessary assumption, because we would be assuming that there is no God to begin with, in order to make that conjecture - it would be circular reasoning.

We couldn't say that, "Well, since I don't see a God being necessary, there must not be one." Because, if there was a God, then certainly it is absolutely necessary, and so it would require us to already believe that one doesn't exist, and therefore isn't necessary, in order to use Ockham's Razor to say that there isn't one because it isn't necessary.

Just a big case of begging the question, to apply Ockham's Razor without knowing whether or not the assumptions are necessary.

Ockham's Razor on its own is an excellently-reasoned principle. It's when it's used incorrectly is when a problem comes in - as it is used incorrectly very often with respect to existence of God(s).

[chrisf55]

I don't see how this is a support for Atheism at all, let alone a strong one.

[CharlieHorse]

I see no evidence for a god therefore I do not believe in one.

[Avatia]

I don't see how this is a support for Atheism at all, let alone a strong one.

You don't see it because it certainly isn't.

I see no evidence for a god therefore I do not believe in one.

In order for this to be justifiable in reasoning, we'd need to first describe what we would consider evidence for a god to be. Would you provide us an example or several?

[CharlieHorse]

In order for this to be justifiable in reasoning, we'd need to first describe what we would consider evidence for a god to be. Would you provide us an example or several?

Why would you need an example of what would be evidence? If no evidence is recognized, then that's that.
In your case, isn't that obvious? How about this: "God" comes down from wherever the hay he is and solves all the world's problems with a snap of his fingers. Would that be good evidence?

Yes obviously.

Go watch some Atheist Experience on youtube.