Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[Aridas]

"One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much."

"The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work."

Richard Feynman

Yeah...obviously...we know what existence is. NOT!
....you skeptics are so....deluded.

Ugh. This tangent has degenerated far, far too much, on both sides of it, I think, if generalized insults are being tossed around.

To chime in, though, in quick review, Navigator's right, at least partially. As a rule of thumb, science does not and cannot say anything about what are, in effect, untestable and unfalsifiable hypotheses. It certainly can say something about testable and falsifiable hypotheses that are relevant to the slightly different and more philosophical issue of how reasonable it is to hold a particular position in comparison to another. To be more specific for a moment, given that we seem to have no reason to accept that there actually is an afterlife, though, other than claims that rest completely upon completely untrustworthy and consistently failing methods of gathering information about what we can observe about reality, it's no more of an issue when someone claims that there is no afterlife than it is when someone claims that invisible, inaudible, and intangible beings aren't behind you making fun of you right now. Certainly, a person could be completely wrong about either or both claims, but, until an argument more solid than "you could be wrong," which is just pointing out the obvious about all statements and positions that one holds, is presented, arguing about it is likely to not get anyone anywhere and tends to degenerate.

Now, to more directly address the quoted post, a "scientific" definition of existence was asked for. A somewhat reasonable potential one was given. By nature, a scientific definition will be concerned with testable and falsifiable traits, which may or may not be all the traits that something has with a less restricted definition. Your "objection" falters and fails, once one understands that.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I think it is safe to say, that at no point in history have a group of individuals been able to produce a piece of work (as in literature, poetry, etc.) which was constructed solely by oral means, produced without requiring revision, and the finished product was without error. Although option "B" is getting the strike-through treatment for now, I think that we should remain open minded, even be willing to entertain submissions which people may wish to put forward.

E) Can also be removed, since it was really only put there to add a bit of humor.

At this point we have just two options remaining.

Not really, I picked A.

 

[Belz...]

Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

Depends on the atheist.

If the statement "Nothing comes from Nothing" is True?
And the statement "Something comes from Something" is also True?

IF, but we don't know that. Besides, theists often say that God didn't come from anything, so I don't see why they have a problem with instead saying that about the universe itself.

Also, no one is claiming that the universe came from nothing. This has been repeated and clarified so often that I'm surprised anyone on this planet still uses that strawman.

In the Quran

Anything based on a fantasy book has no bearing on reality. The Quran is not a science treatise.

 

[Belz...]

Can something come out of nothing? Actually it happens all the time. The Casimir effect and Hawking radiation are both based on virtual particles and their anti-particle being created out of nothing all the time. And especially the former is extremely well supported experimentally.

So, yes, not only something is created from nothing, but it happens all the time.

For certain values of "nothing", yes.

 

[Daald]

If the statement "Nothing comes from Nothing" is True?
And the statement "Something comes from Something" is also True?

Well let's take the meaning that nothing really means absolutely nothing.

So we take these two things:

1. Nothing comes from nothing.
2. Something comes from something.


We observe that:
A. Something exists since here we are.

Therefore:
"Nothing" state never existed. There was always something because if nothing state ever existed then rule (1) and (2) above would be violated.

If you do not like that logical conclusion then you must relax rules (1) and (2) and say that sometimes something does come from nothing.

 

[Astreja]

Until there's evidence of a so-called "spiritual" parallel to matter/energy, I have to go on the assumption that creation ex nihilo is not possible. Matter/energy itself would have had to exist in order for any creative being to undertake any action, including even thinking of creating anything.

One of the usual sidesteps for this is to claim that a god-like being exists "outside space and time," but that's just handwaving; it's also an unfalsifiable assertion. It does, however, prohibit this hypothetical being from ever interacting in any way with the realms that lie inside space and time. This would also make angelic "messengers" from such a god rather unlikely, IMO.

 

[tsig]

Me.
Just try thinking about what a scientific description of existence would be.

You're citing yourself as an authority?

 

[tsig]

"One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much."

"The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work."

Richard Feynman

Yeah...obviously...we know what existence is. NOT!
....you skeptics are so....deluded.

"One does not, by citing scientists, demonstrate an understanding of anything much."

 

[3point14]

So, what the religiously inclined are saying is that it is a matter of faith that anything that doesn't exist doesn't exist? Each and every time you come across something fantastic and majical, like a god or a prophet or a wizzard or a dragon or a ghost or a loch ness monster or faries or pixies, dryads and nixies, the tooth fairy, the earwax fairy (I just made him up, but now you have to have faith that he doesn't exist), the big blue rock eater, the big red rock eater, the fly (a'la Geoff Goldblum), all of the events in Star-Wars actually happening a long time ago somewhere far away, pandora's box, the golden fleece, the gods of Rome, Athens and the east, the totems of the North American Indians, the mystic men of the subcontinental Indians, and the sign language that fellow ins SA was using, one has to take it on faith that such a thing doesn't exist?

Or, we could just rule out the patently ridiculous, like god.

 

[Belz...]

Well let's take the meaning that nothing really means absolutely nothing.

So we take these two things:

1. Nothing comes from nothing.
2. Something comes from something.


We observe that:
A. Something exists since here we are.

Therefore:
"Nothing" state never existed. There was always something because if nothing state ever existed then rule (1) and (2) above would be violated.

If you do not like that logical conclusion then you must relax rules (1) and (2) and say that sometimes something does come from nothing.

That's the way I see it: "nothing" is logically impossible, either because it just _is_ impossible, or simply by the fact that something currently exists. That's, of course, assuming that the first law of thermodynamics is actually true in all contexts.

 

[Navigator]

Ugh. This tangent has degenerated far, far too much, on both sides of it, I think, if generalized insults are being tossed around.

To chime in, though, in quick review, Navigator's right, at least partially. As a rule of thumb, science does not and cannot say anything about what are, in effect, untestable and unfalsifiable hypotheses. It certainly can say something about testable and falsifiable hypotheses that are relevant to the slightly different and more philosophical issue of how reasonable it is to hold a particular position in comparison to another. To be more specific for a moment, given that we seem to have no reason to accept that there actually is an afterlife, though, other than claims that rest completely upon completely untrustworthy and consistently failing methods of gathering information about what we can observe about reality, it's no more of an issue when someone claims that there is no afterlife than it is when someone claims that invisible, inaudible, and intangible beings aren't behind you making fun of you right now. Certainly, a person could be completely wrong about either or both claims, but, until an argument more solid than "you could be wrong," which is just pointing out the obvious about all statements and positions that one holds, is presented, arguing about it is likely to not get anyone anywhere and tends to degenerate.

Now, to more directly address the quoted post, a "scientific" definition of existence was asked for. A somewhat reasonable potential one was given. By nature, a scientific definition will be concerned with testable and falsifiable traits, which may or may not be all the traits that something has with a less restricted definition. Your "objection" falters and fails, once one understands that.

This is correct. What it gets down to is that there is no practical point in arguing the non provable, any more than there is in arguing against the proven.
There do seem to be some absolutes.

Evidence which suggests, is simply that. In the constraints of the physical universe we only have the physical in which to observe, measure, dissect, emulate etc.

Consciousness has the ability to imagine/consider the possibility of things existing outside as well as inside the physical universe, and there is nothing particularly unhealthy about doing so from the perspective of the physical. The problems arising from this process are linked to beliefs, and counter beliefs. Argument...and historically the evolution of argumentative process culminates/manifests into warfare.

Even such a seemingly harmless expression as name-calling (general insults) stems from unhealthy attitude which has the potential to cause harm - indeed it is a outward reflection of an inner unhealthiness, often trivialized against other forms of abusiveness and thus not easily observed as harmful, and just as often retaliated against with similar needless expression.

 

[Navigator]

That's the way I see it: "nothing" is logically impossible, either because it just _is_ impossible, or simply by the fact that something currently exists. That's, of course, assuming that the first law of thermodynamics is actually true in all contexts.

The way the word is used is to denote no thing. No thing is the absence of any thing. Generally a 'thing' is regarded as physical in nature, but thoughts can also be regarded as things, and they are not physical but are a process of physical. Ideas, consciousness etc are also not physical but are expressed physically.

The thing about 'nothing' ( ) is that it is usually associated with emptiness or invisible 'things'. As a concept is denotes 'that which is not' but I am hard pressed to come up with any 'thing' which can be truly called 'no thing' - which allows me to wonder if indeed, the only thing that does not exist, is no thing.



In relation to something, given that we understand the concept of beginnings, we understand that as such - all things which have a beginning are products of something which existed prior to those things which began.

'its turtles all the way down' as the expression goes, but logically those 'turtles' (beginnings) began because something begat them and thus - it does not matter if there are a trillion trillion beginnings between this physical universe which had a beginning and whatever started the whole process, that which started the whole process must never have had a beginning.

The hard part about understanding the logic of this conclusion is that we find it exceptionally difficult to comprehend something which has no beginning because we ourselves have experienced a beginning, we are in a universe which also had a beginning and everything we observe in that universe also had a beginning and it is from that perspective we are hard pressed to remove ourselves from the assumption that everything therefore must have had a beginning.

But logically, something must exist which never had a beginning or else everything else which has had a beginning (and as yet hasn't had a beginning but will) would not even exist (or potentially exist).

 

[bruto]

So, what the religiously inclined are saying is that it is a matter of faith that anything that doesn't exist doesn't exist? Each and every time you come across something fantastic and majical, like a god or a prophet or a wizzard or a dragon or a ghost or a loch ness monster or faries or pixies, dryads and nixies, the tooth fairy, the earwax fairy (I just made him up, but now you have to have faith that he doesn't exist), the big blue rock eater, the big red rock eater, the fly (a'la Geoff Goldblum), all of the events in Star-Wars actually happening a long time ago somewhere far away, pandora's box, the golden fleece, the gods of Rome, Athens and the east, the totems of the North American Indians, the mystic men of the subcontinental Indians, and the sign language that fellow ins SA was using, one has to take it on faith that such a thing doesn't exist?

Or, we could just rule out the patently ridiculous, like god.

That's what I keep seeing and what Navigator keeps saying I'm not seeing. apparently if you can't define something it's all right to disregard it unless it's undefinable, in which case you can't. Or maybe it's the other way around.

 

[Navigator]

So, what the religiously inclined are saying is that it is a matter of faith that anything that doesn't exist doesn't exist? Each and every time you come across something fantastic and majical, like a god or a prophet or a wizzard or a dragon or a ghost or a loch ness monster or faries or pixies, dryads and nixies, the tooth fairy, the earwax fairy (I just made him up, but now you have to have faith that he doesn't exist), the big blue rock eater, the big red rock eater, the fly (a'la Geoff Goldblum), all of the events in Star-Wars actually happening a long time ago somewhere far away, pandora's box, the golden fleece, the gods of Rome, Athens and the east, the totems of the North American Indians, the mystic men of the subcontinental Indians, and the sign language that fellow ins SA was using, one has to take it on faith that such a thing doesn't exist?

Or, we could just rule out the patently ridiculous, like god.

That's what I keep seeing and what Navigator keeps saying I'm not seeing. apparently if you can't define something it's all right to disregard it unless it's undefinable, in which case you can't. Or maybe it's the other way around.

Defining anything (even a thing which is not seen to exist) means that it can be defined.

If something cannot be defined, then it cannot potentially exist. (it hasn't been defined) Something which does exist but hasn't been defined is something which hasn't been discovered to exist. << it has been loosely defined (as undiscovered) as possibly existing but has not been defined as something.

If something can be defined (even things which are not seen to exist) then potentially they can exist.

But what 'Navigator keeps saying' is that belief (which can be defined) is illogical. It is one thing to define things which cannot be seen to exist. It is something else altogether to believe the things defined actually exist, or as ideas (like god) exist as they are defined, or to argue against them actually existing, however they are defined.

The invisible pile of gold in my backyard which gentlehorse defines might exist, doesn't exist because gold is by nature, not invisible. The definition cancels out its existence.

It might be redefined as a special type of gold normally only found on planet XYZ in universe ZYX, which is invisible and undetectable in any way because it is in my backyard in this universe in which case I have no argument, which is the point. I have no need to argue. I have no need to believe one way or the other.

It is not as if the special gold is going to get in the way of me doing the gardening...

 

[mikeb768]

Not really, I picked A.

It’s possible Muhammad truly believed an angel spoke to him. It’s thought he was epileptic and there’s an established association between temporal lobe epilepsy and intense spiritual experiences – and many such epileptics are hyper-religious. Also Paul's spiritual conversion on the road to Damascus has the hallmarks of a similar seizure, notably the bright light, falling down and temporary blindness often associated with a temporal lobe seizure. It’s an interesting thought that the two biggest religions in the world were initially based merely on the neurological pathology of their founders.

So you believe that Muhammad who was considered to be a rather honest but otherwise ordinary guy before his 40th birthday, had a seizure which caused him to become (what many would consider and based on the examples which I have provided) a literary #, and mathematical # genius?

Option "A" is even less plausible than option "B", I think most would agree, but suit yourself.

 

[Dissolution]

I'm sorry Navigator, but you're clearly being ridiculous.
Whether you need to believe or not is irrelevant. It's obvious that you don't.

I don't believe in an afterlife because I have reasons to believe that there isn't one and no good reasons to believe that there is one.
That's not faith, it's where the evidence leads.

 

[Dissolution]

So you believe that Muhammad who was considered to be a rather honest but otherwise ordinary guy before his 40th birthday, had a seizure which caused him to become (what many would consider and based on the examples which I have provided) a literary #, and mathematical # genius?

Mohammed didn't write the Quran and we have no way of knowing how many edits were made prior to it's formal compilation after his death, nor of any embellishments made in the endless retelling by the various people involved.

Your other claim has already been disputed heavily on other threads, where the ridiculous numerology that you're using has been utterly debunked.
"It's not numerology cos God", isn't a defence, by the way.

 

[RayG]

At this point we have just two options remaining.

Yet you've presented no evidence why either of those two options should be our logical conclusions.

RayG

 

[Navigator]

I'm sorry Navigator, but you're clearly being ridiculous.
Whether you need to believe or not is irrelevant. It's obvious that you don't.

I don't believe in an afterlife because I have reasons to believe that there isn't one and no good reasons to believe that there is one.
That's not faith, it's where the evidence leads.

There is no reason to believe.

It is unreasonable to believe.

Your belief is illogical...ridiculous even.

ETA 'The evidence' does not lead anywhere which requires belief.

 

[tsig]

There is no reason to believe.

It is unreasonable to believe.

Your belief is illogical...ridiculous even.

ETA 'The evidence' does not lead anywhere which requires belief.

When you have evidence there's no need for belief.