Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well because nothing can be destroyed or created - I also have trouble with the idea that something can ''disappear into nothingness''. Nothingness is absence of space, time and mass, so for particles to disappear into nothingness they'd have to literately seas to exist.
My point is there's nothing inherently hard to believe about either of those things.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well that's much better explanation and more likely outcome.Well because nothing can be destroyed or created - I also have trouble with the idea that something can ''disappear into nothingness''. Nothingness is absence of space, time and mass, so for particles to disappear into nothingness they'd have to literately seas to exist, which kind of contradicts nothing can be created or destroyed, no?
I LOL'd.
Nothingness could actually be something. I remember someone posting a video of lawrence krauss lecturing about a universe teeming with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence and that the majority of the mass of the universe (nothingness basically) is these virtual particles.
Atheists generally discredit religion by citing what they interpret as a lack of evidence, then they cite that very lack of evidence as reason that no god exists. The lack of evidence has never constituted evidence.
According to what we already know, or what is generally accepted as "logic" by humans, which may be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things anyway, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. Atheists and Religious followers are synonomous in the aspect that they are taking a leap of faith by concluding the answer to something that they can apparently know nothing about.
Originally posted by namorsubby
Atheists generally discredit religion by citing what they interpret as a lack of evidence, then they cite that very lack of evidence as reason that no god exists. The lack of evidence has never constituted evidence.According to what we already know, or what is generally accepted as "logic" by humans, which may be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things anyway, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. Atheists and Religious followers are synonomous in the aspect that they are taking a leap of faith by concluding the answer to something that they can apparently know nothing about.
That is incorrect though. It is perfectly reasonable to not believe something exists, because there is no evidence for it. And most religious people would agree, too for example when it comes to orbiting teapots, invisible unicorns and Zeus.
The fact that you can't 100% disprove a god to exist, doesn't mean that there's a 50/50 chance that it/he/she does.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That is incorrect though. It is perfectly reasonable to not believe something exists, because there is no evidence for it. And most religious people would agree, too for example when it comes to orbiting teapots, invisible unicorns and Zeus.The fact that you can't 100% disprove a god to exist, doesn't mean that there's a 50/50 chance that it/he/she does.
"reasonable" according to what is generally accepted. Sure, why not.
No one can disprove the existence of god to any degree. What evidence could any present that it doesn't exist that would matter to anyone but us as human beings with our own made up definition of logic? Same goes for proving the existence of God. Atheism and Religion are virtually equal and synonomous with one another.
Originally posted by namorsubby
"reasonable" according to what is generally accepted. Sure, why not.No one can disprove the existence of god to any degree. What evidence could any present that it doesn't exist that would matter to anyone but us as human beings with our own made up definition of logic? Same goes for proving the existence of God. Atheism and Religion are virtually equal and synonomous with one another.
You are right that our ways of identifying what is "real" is limited in some ways. One can make up outlandish claims which are not provable in our current state or even ever using our methods. However you as well must see that this lack of conclusive proof is by no means a justification for believing any claim. As I said, you likely would not deem the possibility of an ethereal unicorn, or a pantheon of very human behaving Gods, likely, even though they have the very same validity the Christian God has. And when it comes to interactions of a God, as claimed in the Bible, we can potentially prove certain things not to have occurred. The fact that our language has evolved to include a phrase "...and not provable by science" does not lend any credence to claims incorporating it.
Additionally you are just talking about a very narrow definition of atheism, one that rejects the very possibility of any god without any modifiers. That is at best a very tiny group within atheists though, even Dawkins makes room for the possibility of something supernatural, and if you take that into account, atheism is very different from many theistic views.
Some form of weak or agnostic atheism, is in general the most reasonable thing to believe. Belief in something without evidence is blind, disbelief in the same thing is cautious.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You are right that our ways of identifying what is "real" is limited in some ways. One can make up outlandish claims which are not provable in our current state or even ever using our methods. However you as well must see that this lack of conclusive proof is by no means a justification for believing any claim. As I said, you likely would not deem the possibility of an ethereal unicorn, or a pantheon of very human behaving Gods, likely, even though they have the very same validity the Christian God has. And when it comes to interactions of a God, as claimed in the Bible, we can potentially prove certain things not to have occurred. The fact that our language has evolved to include a phrase "...and not provable by science" does not lend any credence to claims incorporating it.Additionally you are just talking about a very narrow definition of atheism, one that rejects the very possibility of any god without any modifiers. That is at best a very tiny group within atheists though, even Dawkins makes room for the possibility of something supernatural, and if you take that into account, atheism is very different from many theistic views.
Some form of weak or agnostic atheism, is in general the most reasonable thing to believe. Belief in something without evidence is blind, disbelief in the same thing is cautious.
Belief without evidence and disbelief without evidence are equal. Stating God doesn't or does exist is an action of faith on anyone's behalf. Whether it be faith based upon our ever-changing, unstable interpretation of things, or something else like feelings, which are deemed "illogical" is irrelevant. Discussion and thoughts on things we can't comprehend will always stop "making sense" at some point, remaining unfinished, due to the simple fact that we don't understand. You can dabble in the affairs of the universe, and they will own you every single time, mindf*cking you into a state of apathy until the next time you begin to wonder. No exceptions.
The "smartest" and "most reasonable" thing any one human being could do is say "I don't know", and leave it at that.
Originally posted by Bardock42The fact that you can't 100% disprove a god to exist, doesn't mean that there's a 50/50 chance that it/he/she does.
Don't know about 50% but its plausible. Obvoulsy if somebody makes sure that the defintion for supernatural is it can't be explained by science then there will never be proof.
Originally posted by namorsubby
Belief without evidence and disbelief without evidence are equal. Stating God doesn't or does exist is an action of faith on anyone's behalf. Whether it be faith based upon our ever-changing, unstable interpretation of things, or something else like feelings, which are deemed "illogical" is irrelevant. Discussion and thoughts on things we can't comprehend will always stop "making sense" at some point, remaining unfinished, due to the simple fact that we don't understand. You can dabble in the affairs of the universe, and they will own you every single time, mindf*cking you into a state of apathy until the next time you begin to wonder. No exceptions.The "smartest" and "most reasonable" thing any one human being could do is say "I don't know", and leave it at that.
They are not equal though. Not believing something is the default state. To believe something you need a reason to believe it. The truth is most people also agree with that, but because they hold a certain unfounded belief very dear they try to make exceptions for it.
I agree. The most reasonable thing to say is "I don't know", and since you don't know you obviously wouldn't randomly belief it. Which is incorporated in atheism. You have to make an active choice to be a theist.
Originally posted by Deadline
Don't know about 50% but its plausible. Obvoulsy if somebody makes sure that the defintion for supernatural is it can't be explained by science then there will never be proof.
Yes, that's my point, you can just say things don't fall under the dominion of science and then argue your belief from there, but it's somewhat silly to do so.
The Christian God is as plausible as the Norse Gods (that I think you believe in, no?), who are as plausible as the Indian Gods, which are as plausible as the Buddhists' beliefs, which are as plausible as the Roman Gods, which are as plausible as Scientology's beliefs, which are as plausible as belief in Unicorns, which is as plausible as a belief in a transcendent teapot orbiting Saturn, which is as plausible as belief in the flying Spaghetti Monster, which is as plausible as a belief in Tolkien's writings, which is as plausible as a belief in the Force.
Once again, not believing something is the default state, you don't need any reason to not believe something.
Originally posted by Bardock42Yes, that's my point, you can just say things don't fall under the dominion of science and then argue your belief from there, but it's somewhat silly to do so.
I think I would agree.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The Christian God is as plausible as the Norse Gods (that I think you believe in, no?), who are as plausible as the Indian Gods, which are as plausible as the Buddhists' beliefs, which are as plausible as the Roman Gods, which are as plausible as Scientology's beliefs, which are as plausible as belief in Unicorns, which is as plausible as a belief in a transcendent teapot orbiting Saturn, which is as plausible as belief in the flying Spaghetti Monster, which is as plausible as a belief in Tolkien's writings, which is as plausible as a belief in the Force.
My point was belief in extremely powerful beings that interact with the human world is alot more plausible than what you listed. If you go into specifics like God has a grey beard etc then thats a problem. Gods can simply be extremely powerful aliens and thats scientifically plausible.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Once again, not believing something is the default state, you don't need any reason to not believe something.
Not sure if I disagree with that statement.
Originally posted by Deadline
My point was belief in extremely powerful beings that interact with the human world is alot more plausible than what you listed. If you go into specifics like God has a grey beard etc then thats a problem. Gods can simply be extremely powerful aliens and thats scientifically plausible.
How do you figure that the belief in powerful beings, is for some reason more likely than what I listed?
Originally posted by Deadline
We probably had this discussion before. Ants and humans exist, thats why people belive in aliens we exist.
Oh, but to go from Aliens, to immensely powerful beings shaping our lives and the universe is another step.
Although I think there is way too many unknown variables, to give a scientific estimation of whether Aliens exist or not. We don't know how unlikely we are.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, but to go from Aliens, to immensely powerful beings shaping our lives and the universe is another step.
Not at all. People believe in aliens because we exist, one can believe in immensely powerful aliens because ants and humans exist. The logic is the same I look at reality and I see whats present, since a certain organism exists thats makes it plausible for something like it to exist somewhere else.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Although I think there is way too many unknown variables, to give a scientific estimation of whether Aliens exist or not. We don't know how unlikely we are.
Thats fine but the idea that aliens exist is scientifically plausible (to some people) and isn't comparable to a flying teapot.
Originally posted by Deadline
Not at all. People believe in aliens because we exist, one can believe in immensely powerful aliens because ants and humans exist. The logic is the same I look at reality and I see whats present, since a certain organism exists thats makes it plausible for something like it to exist somewhere else.
This is where I said the likelihood comes into. If we knew how likely we were to exist (and it is definitely somewhat unlikely, a lot of very specific things have to happen for life as we know it to evolve) we could estimate whether there should be Aliens similar to us out there. However estimates of our likelihood vary immensely. However immensely powerful aliens would still be bound within the realities of our universe. Additionally you'd have to take other things into account when discussing potential power of aliens.
Additionally I wouldn't at all say that we are vastly superior to ants. We have certain traits that make us very good for the environments we encounter and same goes for ants.
Originally posted by Deadline
Thats fine but the idea that aliens exist is scientifically plausible (to some people) and isn't comparable to a flying teapot.
I'd have to think about it more, but gut-feeling-y I might agree. Definitely when we talk about Gods and unicorns.
Originally posted by Bardock42
This is where I said the likelihood comes into. If we knew how likely we were to exist (and it is definitely somewhat unlikely, a lot of very specific things have to happen for life as we know it to evolve) we could estimate whether there should be Aliens similar to us out there. However estimates of our likelihood vary immensely. However immensely powerful aliens would still be bound within the realities of our universe. Additionally you'd have to take other things into account when discussing potential power of aliens.
Depends on what you mean by similar. Anything sentient and intelligent (and thats another subject) counts. Hell they could be jellyfish or even energy.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd have to think about it more, but gut-feeling-y I might agree. Definitely when we talk about Gods and unicorns.
Cheers I guess.
Originally posted by namorsubbyNot all acts of faith are equal. In the absence of evidence, stating God doesn't exist is more reasonable than stating He does.
Belief without evidence and disbelief without evidence are equal. Stating God doesn't or does exist is an action of faith on anyone's behalf...
The "smartest" and "most reasonable" thing any one human being could do is say "I don't know", and leave it at that.I would say IDK is the most honest conclusion. As for leaving it at that...it depends. The empirical map does leave wiggle room, and one is free to speculate, devising (IMO) compelling (though hardly convincing) arguments to keep God in the picture. At the very least, think of it as playing devil's advocate with the intent to jostle empiricist complacency.
Originally posted by Deadline
Depends on what you mean by similar. Anything sentient and intelligent (and thats another subject) counts. Hell they could be jellyfish or even energy.
I think this concept of "energy" is a thoroughly science fiction one, with little bearing in the real world.
Them being "similar" is essential though. Since we are concluding based on our existence, we can only talk about similar beings. Carbon based, I suppose, and some other traits, I am not well versed in either biology or chemistry.
And again, if the likelihood of us existing is say 1 in 500 universes of the size of ours, then the chance of Aliens existing is very slim (1 in 500 actually) but if it is 500 in 1 universe, then there's a good chance we are not alone.
That's of course very removed from actual considerations, it's more to illustrate the point. I think most of these estimates, go about estimating planets which are similar to earth in the universe. But then there would have to be further considerations. Not every planet like earth needs to necessarily have life on it. Going further in your claim, the existence of single celled organisms is more likely than of beings such as us. Evolving our brains as we did, needs some very specific circumstances to make it evolutionarily worth. Being far more "powerful" (whatever that is defined as) would likely need much more time and even more unlikely and specific circumstances.
Really though, I have at best a fleeting and conceptual understanding of this. If you'd like a more specific discussion of it perhaps Digi or inimalist or Symmetric Chaos might be better suited. I'm more of a mathematician (and not a particularly good one at that...)