Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[annnnoid]

This is just nonsense. If philosophers take it seriously, then they are no longer engaged in the pursuit of knowledge, and are just jabbering surreal poetry of no consequence.

A baby is nothing but perception. All it knows is sensation. You are claiming that because of that first experience, we can never know objective reality. I call that bs. Your faulty logic is a consequence of your entertaining this academic bs.

All is explained!

Actually…it is your statement that is patent nonsense. The simple fact is…that the only ontology’s that have anything remotely close to absolute status are perception and the abstract mind. Do you know what that means? Bark if you don’t.

…not to mention the fact…that recent research into quantum reality has revealed what appears to be nothing more than something made up of information… whatever ‘information’ may even exist as at such a level. Information does…though…have the peculiar feature of implicating what we refer to as consciousness….according to the confabulations of understanding that the only known consciousness in the universe labors within. The ultimate origins of this consciousness, by the way, are also all-but an utter mystery. The current position in neuroscience being described thus:

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... “

As for ‘all is explained’….again…the conviction of the ignorant. The exact opposite is the case, as was explicitly admitted by one of the most famous physicists of the past century, Richard Feynman:

“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.”

The argument you make is that the instruments we have are somehow lacking.

My argument is more like that there is no reason to think there might be any as yet undetected forces or conditions of matter, since everything so far detected fits into the model, and the model doesn't beg for any as yet undiscovered forces etc.

There's no empty seats at the tea party. When the Mad Hatter cries "All move round one", we are left with no mysteriously empty seats where before they were all occupied.

Typical skeptic delusions! The facts are….we ultimately have no idea what this universe is, how it works, or where it comes from. Nor do we ultimately have any idea what our consciousness is or how it is created…which includes this science that so many here constantly proclaim to be their salvation.

….as for evidence of something called “God”…there is a great deal…especially given that it is our own experience that has primary ontological status…and there are a great many people throughout history who have explicitly insisted that they have experienced what they call ‘God’ with, in, and through this very experience.

That is called evidence. What it means is for your own experience to determine.

It does apply to science and ultimately all philosophical premises are based on knowledge acquired by science. Philosophy is unable to acquire new knowledge on its own.

….actually…you have this completely backwards. Epistemology is exclusively the realm of philosophy. Science….in case it has escaped your withering attention….is a function of knowing. Knowing is not a function of science. Science is a model….it is not the thing in itself. The model occurs through the thing we call understanding. There is no science of understanding. As was explicitly stated above….science has not got a clue how our consciousness is created. What we have…is philosophy. Philosophy delineates the paths, patterns, and boundaries of the application we call science…not the other way around.

 

[Arcade22]

So despite what science tells us about the nature of the universe, you believe the universe has always existed? That may prove to be a position which is difficult to support considering what we know regarding expansion, etc.

Current well supported scientific theories do not say that the universe had a beginning. Despite how it is often put, especially by science journalists and scientists communicating with lay people, current models of big bang cosmology does not support some claim about the universe "starting" with be big bang (depending on what one means by "universe", "starting" and etc).

What current models do say is that the observable universe was at some point in the past (roughly 13.8 billion years ago) many orders of magnitude denser than at the present. This does not mean that "the universe" has not always existed.

 

[asydhouse]

Actually…it is your statement that is patent nonsense. The simple fact is…that the only ontology’s that have anything remotely close to absolute status are perception and the abstract mind. Do you know what that means? Bark if you don’t.

…not to mention the fact…that recent research into quantum reality has revealed what appears to be nothing more than something made up of information… whatever ‘information’ may even exist as at such a level. Information does…though…have the peculiar feature of implicating what we refer to as consciousness….according to the confabulations of understanding that the only known consciousness in the universe labors within. The ultimate origins of this consciousness, by the way, are also all-but an utter mystery. The current position in neuroscience being described thus:

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... “

As for ‘all is explained’….again…the conviction of the ignorant. The exact opposite is the case, as was explicitly admitted by one of the most famous physicists of the past century, Richard Feynman:

“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.”




Typical skeptic delusions! The facts are….we ultimately have no idea what this universe is, how it works, or where it comes from. Nor do we ultimately have any idea what our consciousness is or how it is created…which includes this science that so many here constantly proclaim to be their salvation.

….as for evidence of something called “God”…there is a great deal…especially given that it is our own experience that has primary ontological status…and there are a great many people throughout history who have explicitly insisted that they have experienced what they call ‘God’ with, in, and through this very experience.

That is called evidence. What it means is for your own experience to determine.




….actually…you have this completely backwards. Epistemology is exclusively the realm of philosophy. Science….in case it has escaped your withering attention….is a function of knowing. Knowing is not a function of science. Science is a model….it is not the thing in itself. The model occurs through the thing we call understanding. There is no science of understanding. As was explicitly stated above….science has not got a clue how our consciousness is created. What we have…is philosophy. Philosophy delineates the paths, patterns, and boundaries of the application we call science…not the other way around.

Cite some source for this. I think you are misunderstanding quantum physics. In case you don't know, the measurement problem in the double-slit experiment does not mean that a conscious entity has to be the form of interference. A camera will do the job.

I might reply to the rest of your post in detail later… just now I have better things to do.

 

[tsig]

Its the principle I am pointing out, surely any suitable physical medium in which agency can in principle operate would be required.



The distinction between alien life forms and gods becomes lost the more advanced the technology of the alien.
Within the physical world we are acquainted with perhaps, but there might well be other worlds. Also I see no theoretical barrier preventing an advanced alien life form from developing the technology to manipulate matter and/or spacetime.
Agreed.


In fact it seems more likely to me that if a God of the bible, for example, existed, that it would actually be an advanced alien. A true all powerful God would seem less likely to get up to that kind of shenanigans.

Man can manipulate matter, in fact, you are using a bit of man manipulated matter right now.

 

[Aridas]

I consider one absolute is that I am conscious. Another than I am consciousness. Another that I am living on a planet in the physical universe.
Science could show these to be absolutely true.

No. Science really can't. Science might be able to find evidence supporting or falsifying those propositions, but it can't "prove" anything in an absolute sense. Either way, you're equivocating between science and differing areas of philosophy.

I am referring to ideas. Specifically the idea of consciousness continuing after body death and the idea of god existing. There is no 'issue' as you imply.
If any idea turns out to be true, it becomes fact. It need no longer be considered an 'idea'.

And you're basically arguing that "if someone determines that something is the color royal purple, it need no longer be considered purple." If an idea turns out to probably be true, it is no less an idea than it was before it was found to probably be true. Either way, you still did not answer my question. Which meaning of true?

Hobbies are hobbies and attempting to make issue about them is pointless.

And invoking hobbies as part of your response to the statement that was made was meaningless and irrelevant.

We don't have to accept anything to be true if it is unknown.

Are you, then, postulating that we don't have to learn to accept numerous things as a child to be able to make any sense of life? And that we don't still accept things for practical purposes, even if we don't actually know them to be true?

What is the 'provisional conclusion'?

Any and all provisional conclusions. I'm speaking generally, in case you hadn't noticed, yet.

My position is logical. I require 100% before I can say 'I know'. Otherwise, I don't know.

In short, then, if you're honest, you cannot say that you know anything, which renders the word rather pointless, really. You certainly do assume things, yes, but you don't know anything, then.

Well lets take one. You exist in this physical universe. Do you have evidence to support that this is not an absolute?

*sigh* You realize that you're on the wrong side of the burden of proof, again, if you were actually being consistent, and you're negating your own position. All I need to do is point out the possibility that we do not actually exist in "this physical universe" to counter your assertion, if 100% certainty is in question, as you've been making it. Further, if you actually think that this line of argument was valid, statements of "Gods do not exist. Do you have evidence that this is not an absolute?" could be validly used, too for much the same purpose.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

In fact it seems more likely to me that if a God of the bible, for example, existed, that it would actually be an advanced alien. A true all powerful God would seem less likely to get up to that kind of shenanigans.

Except the God of the Bible isn't an advanced alien.

That's a bit like saying if Harry Potter really existed he'd most likely be a middle-aged woman with no magical abilities!

 

[Navigator]

No. Science really can't. Science might be able to find evidence supporting or falsifying those propositions, but it can't "prove" anything in an absolute sense. Either way, you're equivocating between science and differing areas of philosophy.

You are claiming science cannot, but you have not given any examples of why the examples I gave are not something science can agree with. These subjective observations I have called absolutes can be established by scientific method.

Science is a method involving measurement of the physical and thus is able to establish with certainty that I exist, that I am conscious and that I am living on a planet in a physical universe.

What has philosophy got to do with that?

And you're basically arguing that "if someone determines that something is the color royal purple, it need no longer be considered purple." If an idea turns out to probably be true, it is no less an idea than it was before it was found to probably be true. Either way, you still did not answer my question. Which meaning of true?

No I am not basically doing any such thing. Why divert to 'the color purple'?
"if science determines that consciousness does in fact continue on after the body has died, it need no longer be considered an idea".

Why did you decide to place the word 'probably' into this? Probably is not certainly. Your comment was not on my comment but on a version of it which you yourself created.

I said:

If any idea turns out to be true, it becomes fact. It need no longer be considered an 'idea'.

You retort:

If an idea turns out to probably be true, it is no less an idea than it was before it was found to probably be true.​

Your retort is not aligned with my statement. You had to reword my statement so that it would fit your retort. Rewording my statement make it your statement. My statement remains unanswered.

And invoking hobbies as part of your response to the statement that was made was meaningless and irrelevant.

According to what or who?

Are you, then, postulating that we don't have to learn to accept numerous things as a child to be able to make any sense of life? And that we don't still accept things for practical purposes, even if we don't actually know them to be true?

What we have to do or don't have to do is not a choice for many children. Once we pass that state as individuals then we can question what we have been taught, if we have not already abdicated that power in exchange for more of the same from those we learn are our teachers.

In relation to practical purposes, (you do not give example of these practical purposes) not knowing something to be true but accepting them as true anyway, is the symptom of belief.

In short, then, if you're honest, you cannot say that you know anything, which renders the word rather pointless, really. You certainly do assume things, yes, but you don't know anything, then.

Yet you still don't give any examples along with your statements. I have already said what I know. I gave examples. Use those examples to justify your statement here as to why they cannot be known as absolutes.
Why am I assuming these things to be absolutes?

*sigh* You realize that you're on the wrong side of the burden of proof, again, if you were actually being consistent, and you're negating your own position. All I need to do is point out the possibility that we do not actually exist in this physical universe to counter your assertion, if 100% certainty is in question, as you've been making it. Further, if you actually think that this line of argument was valid, statements of "Gods do not exist. Do you have evidence that this is not an absolute?" could be validly used, too for much the same purpose.

If you point out the possibility that we don't actually exist in a physical universe as an argument against my absolute claim that we do, you are correct.

Science cannot determine for us in any absolute way, and is therefore not useful for that purpose.
I cannot absolutely claim that I exist only in this universe, due to possibilities which cannot be measured. Scientific method is only useful in relation to the physical universe which we cannot absolutely say exists at all, but it appears to exist and can be measured, but it all might not really exist.

Therefore, the statement "God does not exist" is not a statement of science.

Because it is an absolute statement.

 

[asydhouse]

Actually…it is your statement that is patent nonsense. The simple fact is…that the only ontology’s that have anything remotely close to absolute status are perception and the abstract mind. Do you know what that means? Bark if you don’t.

Bark.

Do you have anything useful to derive from your ungrammatical reference to "ontology's"? For your information, this bit of solipsistic special pleading is tantamount to proclaiming that your dreams take precedence over the physics of the world which provide the venue for your dreams to occur.

I look at that situation, see the rock sliding inexorably over the ridge above your sleeping head, and silently wish you luck with that.

(Absolute? Only you brought that in.)

…not to mention the fact…that recent research into quantum reality has revealed what appears to be nothing more than something made up of information… whatever ‘information’ may even exist as at such a level. Information does…though…have the peculiar feature of implicating what we refer to as consciousness….according to the confabulations of understanding that the only known consciousness in the universe labors within. The ultimate origins of this consciousness, by the way, are also all-but an utter mystery.

We do know however that if that rock crushes your head, you are no longer going to exist.

The current position in neuroscience being described thus:

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... “

let me finish that sentence for you: "… but we do know that a human can only exist currently with the support of a living physical brain."

As for ‘all is explained’….again…the conviction of the ignorant. The exact opposite is the case, as was explicitly admitted by one of the most famous physicists of the past century, Richard Feynman:

“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.”

Quoting Feynman in no way bolsters or elucidates your argument. My claim that "all is explained" was in response to the admission by punnnsh that he bases his embrace of the notion that consciousness comes before the brain exists on this unsupported bit of "philosophy", as if philosophy has any kind of validity beyond self-consistency.

His reliance on philosophy to give his notions ground is where he goes wrong. Just because you can compose an argument does not ensure that the argument correlates to reality as manifested by the actual universe. Science is that bridge, and punnnsh privileges philosophy over science. Ask any physicist, even a "theoretical physicist", and they will tell you that experimental physics always takes precedence over theoretical physics.

Typical skeptic delusions! The facts are….we ultimately have no idea what this universe is, how it works, or where it comes from. Nor do we ultimately have any idea what our consciousness is or how it is created…which includes this science that so many here constantly proclaim to be their salvation.

Your contempt for physics is noted. We actually have some pretty sound ideas, and detailed models, of "what this universe is, how it works" if not where it comes from… Same with consciousness. Your refusal of those models and discoveries does not give your totally unsupported assertions any more credibility.

….as for evidence of something called “God”…there is a great deal…especially given that it is our own experience that has primary ontological status…and there are a great many people throughout history who have explicitly insisted that they have experienced what they call ‘God’ with, in, and through this very experience.

That is called evidence.

No, it's called anecdotal ravings of ignorant and misinformed, highly suggestible people in vulnerable states of mental distress or illness, or poetic transports of mind in the throes of faulty perception and credulous priming of their conceptual frameworks being misled by their preconceptions and the inherent limitations of human psychology.

What it means is for your own experience to determine.

What my experience has determined is that people are prone to confirmation bias and our brains are not perfect machines but are prone to delighting us with unscheduled outages and skirmishes of access to unusual moments of rewiring.

….actually…you have this completely backwards. Epistemology is exclusively the realm of philosophy. Science….in case it has escaped your withering attention….is a function of knowing. Knowing is not a function of science. Science is a model….it is not the thing in itself. The model occurs through the thing we call understanding. There is no science of understanding. As was explicitly stated above….science has not got a clue how our consciousness is created. What we have…is philosophy. Philosophy delineates the paths, patterns, and boundaries of the application we call science…not the other way around.

Science is not a model, nor a collection of facts. Science is a process, specifically developed to counter the human tendency to seek out confirmation of our own delusions.

Using the process of science, we build a model. It is through checking the model against reality as presented by the universe that we know our model has any validity at all.

Thinking alone won't do it.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

So despite what science tells us about the nature of the universe, you believe the universe has always existed? That may prove to be a position which is difficult to support considering what we know regarding expansion, etc.

There is no scientific theory that says there was nothing before the Big Bang. That is a deliberate distortion by theists.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... “
...

Typical skeptic delusions! The facts are….we ultimately have no idea what this universe is, how it works, or where it comes from. Nor do we ultimately have any idea what our consciousness is or how it is created…which includes this science that so many here constantly proclaim to be their salvation.

….as for evidence of something called “God”…there is a great deal…especially given that it is our own experience that has primary ontological status…and there are a great many people throughout history who have explicitly insisted that they have experienced what they call ‘God’ with, in, and through this very experience.

That is called evidence. What it means is for your own experience to determine.

In other words, you don't know, therefore God. However, you don't know everything about God either. Just be honest and admit what you don't know.

 

[mikeb768]

So that was the extent of your logic and reason? Some unsupported assertions that you cling to when challenged but cant actually defend?

colour me unimpressed.

From the micro,


to the macro God has repeatedly shown you and others his signs.


Your only true recourse is to say "He was the world's best guesser" or "He had a great imagination". But why trade truth for folly?
[Quran 22:66] "It is He Who gave you life, will cause you to die, and will again give you life: Truly man is a most ungrateful creature."

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

From the micro,
[qimg]http://s12.postimg.org/6u9r7dvjt/embryo.jpg[/qimg]

to the macro God has repeatedly shown you and others his signs.
[qimg]http://s7.postimg.org/epb5ojmqf/timeline.jpg[/qimg]

Your only true recourse is to say "He was the world's best guesser" or "He had a great imagination". But why trade truth for folly?
[Quran 22:66] "It is He Who gave you life, will cause you to die, and will again give you life: Truly man is a most ungrateful creature."

So you have given up on the first 4 lines of your OP and you are on to some other kiech now?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

From the micro,
[qimg]http://s12.postimg.org/6u9r7dvjt/embryo.jpg[/qimg]

to the macro God has repeatedly shown you and others his signs.
[qimg]http://s7.postimg.org/epb5ojmqf/timeline.jpg[/qimg]

Your only true recourse is to say "He was the world's best guesser" or "He had a great imagination". But why trade truth for folly?
[Quran 22:66] "It is He Who gave you life, will cause you to die, and will again give you life: Truly man is a most ungrateful creature."

All you are doing is retconning the verses based on new information. Do you realize there are many other ways those verses could be interpreted that are flat out wrong? 21:33 the sun and the moon do not "swim" because there is not literally any water around them. 36:40 meanwhile seems to imply that the sun orbits the Earth if taken at face value.

Haven't you seen the very same thing done with the Hebrew Bible? Because it has. It's funny how scripture has "always meant" what we now understand reality to be.

 

[Craig4]

From the micro,
[qimg]http://s12.postimg.org/6u9r7dvjt/embryo.jpg[/qimg]

to the macro God has repeatedly shown you and others his signs.
[qimg]http://s7.postimg.org/epb5ojmqf/timeline.jpg[/qimg]

Your only true recourse is to say "He was the world's best guesser" or "He had a great imagination". But why trade truth for folly?
[Quran 22:66] "It is He Who gave you life, will cause you to die, and will again give you life: Truly man is a most ungrateful creature."

Where in the Quran is the word galaxy used?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

All you are doing is retconning the verses based on new information. Do you realize there are many other ways those verses could be interpreted that are flat out wrong? 21:33 the sun and the moon do not "swim" because there is not literally any water around them. 36:40 meanwhile seems to imply that the sun orbits the Earth if taken at face value.

Haven't you seen the very same thing done with the Hebrew Bible? Because it has. It's funny how scripture has "always meant" what we now understand reality to be.

No different from when creationists do it. Mike why is it every holy book is full of vauge passages that are easy to cram any theory into? Is "allah" so impotent he can't work out how to deliver a clear message?

 

[Aridas]

From the micro,
[qimg]http://s12.postimg.org/6u9r7dvjt/embryo.jpg[/qimg]

to the macro God has repeatedly shown you and others his signs.
[qimg]http://s7.postimg.org/epb5ojmqf/timeline.jpg[/qimg]

Your only true recourse is to say "He was the world's best guesser" or "He had a great imagination". But why trade truth for folly?
[Quran 22:66] "It is He Who gave you life, will cause you to die, and will again give you life: Truly man is a most ungrateful creature."

If those are your examples? No. "He was the world's best guesser" and "He had a great imagination" aren't really on the list. That the relevant interpretation pointed out wasn't novel information, though... yes. That the verses cited don't actually say what you're claiming they say, even moreso. That the sun and moon can't catch up to each other seems to be directly contradicted by solar eclipses, but it is a common, but ignorant claim that was written.

Heliocentrism had been around since at least the 3rd century, apparently, regardless, and geocentrism was the overwhelmingly popular Muslim view.

 

[mikeb768]

If those are your examples? No. "He was the world's best guesser" and "He had a great imagination" aren't really on the list. That the relevant interpretation pointed out wasn't novel information, though... yes. That the verses cited don't actually say what you're claiming they say, even moreso. That the sun and moon can't catch up to each other seems to be directly contradicted by solar eclipses, but it is a common, but ignorant claim that was written.

Heliocentrism had been around since at least the 3rd century, apparently, regardless, and geocentrism was the overwhelmingly popular Muslim view.

These verses say nothing! The Atheist

As I mentioned before, I always enjoy my time here, but time is also a very precious commodity.

 

[Foster Zygote]

YouTube is like ostrich egg. Is miracle!

 

[Brian-M]

From the micro,
[qimg]http://s12.postimg.org/6u9r7dvjt/embryo.jpg[/qimg]

Okay, looking at that video now it mentions Quran 23:12-14, so I paused the video and looked up the quote in The Skeptics Annoted Quran...

23:12 Verily We created man from a product of wet earth;
23:13 Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging;
23:14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!​

Ha! Clearly the verse reveals ignorance. Embryos don't form skeletons first with flesh coming later. It's absurd, and clearly reveals the ignorance of the author.

But watching the rest of the video, I see they ignore the fact that the verse is dead wrong and focus instead on the word "alaqah", which can be translated as "clot", "suspended" or "leech", and try to spin these three definitions as all being good descriptions of an embryo. Therefore God, or something. The images at the end they describe as "mind-blowing" I'd describe as merely vaguely similar.

It's quite pathetic, really. They're treating the Quran the same way that people treat the writings of Nostradamus.

It's also strange that they completely fail to notice that the start of the quoted verse makes it clear that this is supposed to be a description of how God personally created the first man, not how embryos develop.

to the macro God has repeatedly shown you and others his signs.
[qimg]http://s7.postimg.org/epb5ojmqf/timeline.jpg[/qimg]

From that image...

Quran 21:33
It is He Who created the Night and
the Day, the sun and the moon: all swim
along, each in its rounded course​

Where's the miracle in that? A commonplace assertion that their god created the sun and the moon, a ridiculous description of the sun and the moon "swimming" along, and mention of them moving in a rounded course which could also apply to flat-earth and earth-centered models of the universe.

Where's the miracle? There's nothing in that quote that suggests the author had the slightest clue about the heliocentric view of the solar system.

And below that we read...

Quran 36:40
It is not permitted to the Sun to
catch up with the moon, nor can the Night outstrip
the Day: Each swims along in orbit.
​

This was even known to be false at the time it was written. Astrologers of the time were certainly familiar with with lunar eclipses. Plus the very idea of night outstripping the day reveals a profound ignorance on the writer's part about the cause of day and night.

Where's the miracle? And why are these verses attached to a timeline of astronomical discoveries that they have nothing to do with?

 

[Aridas]

These verses say nothing! The Atheist

Amusing. That does sounds like your position, as long as you switch "atheist" with what you consider yourself. That said, are you done commenting about yourself and willing to actually address what I pointed out? At no point did I say that the verses say nothing. I pointed out that what they say is easily explained by the popular paradigm of the era as well as inaccurate. Your response just shouts out that you have nothing to counter either point... and you complain when we don't take you seriously?