Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[Navigator]

That would make everywhere the center of the universe, because thee big bang was the expansion of everything.

'The big bang' is the event by which the physical universe began. The big bang is not the effect but the cause. Like a ripple on a pond cause by a stone. The big bang is the stone. The ripple is the effect.

In those models, our 3D universe is being represented as a 2D disk-shape, and the third dimension is being used to represent the passage of time. It lets you see how rapidly the universe expanded.

Is still expanding. Rapid in relation to what?

The big-bang wasn't an explosion, just an expansion. The whole universe expanded, it wasn't something that happened at a specific location.

Oh like an expanding star that broke up into tiny bits all stuck together by the space in between them?

And the universe is flat?

So those oldish stories of how the universe theoretically stared from something infinitesimal...?

Anyway, an expansion that didnt start from anywhere specific. The effect is an expansion which has a beginning place which neednt be regarded as central...

...

The opening of the balloon isn't supposed to be part of the analogy.

The breath in the balloon represents the big bang, is that was you are saying?

 

[Pixel42]

So Feynman was wrong?

Always found him to be a pretty sharp cookie myself, so I'd be surprised if he was.

And through what medium does any scientist comprehend these models, theories, and laws? It is called meaning. Science has no understanding of it. It is philosophy, exclusively, that (explicitly) delineates and explores it.

Well let's see what Feynman had to say about philosophy, shall we? From "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out":

"My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these attributes, and Substances, and all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now how could we do that? Here's this great Dutch philosopher, and we're laughing at him. It's because there's no excuse for it! In the same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of the blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can't tell which is right."

He also once described philosophers as "People who kick up the dust, and then complain because they can't see".

Feynman acknowledged the difficulty of understanding the universe but that doesn't mean he didn't think science wasn't the best, if not the only, tool we had for doing so. He made it abundantly clear throughout his life that he thought philosophy was as much use as a chocolate teapot.

 

[Pixel42]

'The big bang' is the event by which the physical universe began. The big bang is not the effect but the cause. Like a ripple on a pond cause by a stone. The big bang is the stone. The ripple is the effect.

No, the Big Bang is the effect. A quantum fluctuation, branes bumping into each other in higher dimensions etc have been suggested as the cause, but there isn't even agreement that it needed a cause let alone what that cause was.

The breath in the balloon represents the big bang, is that was you are saying?

The only part of the balloon that features in the analogy is its skin. The two-dimensional skin represents the three dimensional universe. The expansion of the skin represents the Big Bang.

 

[Brian-M]

'The big bang' is the event by which the physical universe began. The big bang is not the effect but the cause.

No, the Big Bang theory claims that the universe was initially in a hot, dense state which then rapidly expanded. The Big Bang is the effect, not the cause.

Is still expanding. Rapid in relation to what?

In relation to the rate of expansion of the universe in different periods of time.

Oh like an expanding star that broke up into tiny bits all stuck together by the space in between them?

Huh?

And the universe is flat?

If you're talking about spacial curvature, then according to the best current observations, yes. The universe appears to be flat.

But if you're talking about representing the universe as a 2D disk in those images, then no. A spacial dimension (or two, depending on the image) has been removed so that time can be depicted as a spacial dimension, because the visual centers of our brains are incapable of processing four-dimensional perspectives (and even if our brains could process 4D space, we'd need at least a 3D display to represent it, the same way we need at least a 2D display to represent 3D objects, so you'd still need to remove a dimension or two to depict it on a standard computer screen).

The breath in the balloon represents the big bang, is that was you are saying?

No, the inside of the balloon is completely irrelevant. The expansion of the surface of the balloon represents the big bang.

 

[Aridas]

What have we observed matter arising from?

Have you ever heard of the equation e=mc²?

 

[annnnoid]

You claimed to have the answer here:

You are setting up a false dichotomy, rejecting science so that you can weasel God in as your default conclusion. Your entire modus operandi seems to be set up for this very purpose. If only you'd expressed the same uncertainty towards evidence for God as you did towards the conclusions of science, I might take you seriously. As far as I'm concerned, your posts hurt my eyes, since you can't be bothered to properly punctuate your sentences or use proper grammar. Oh and by the way, ellipses aren't supposed to be used like that.

More strawmen and false dichotomies. .

Obviously someone needs to review some elementary definitions. Did I claim to have THE answer? No. For a definition of answer…go here.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/answer

What was the word I used? The word I used was evidence. I said there is evidence to support the conclusion. For a definition of evidence…go here.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

I also argued that there is evidence to support the conclusion that the process by which (and the context within which) people reach the conclusion (God) is also valid. God is only one conclusion available within the range of options available to us that occur within the capabilities of the human landscape. Ultimately what is indisputable is that we are a function of something that is all-but infinitely greater than we are. A higher authority by any other name. As David Fincher (The Social Network) said…” You are in charge…you are not in control. Anyone who thinks they are in control is nuts!” Whether anyone wants to recognize that something as ‘God’ is entirely up to them.

And where did I reject science (...not to mention...where did I say that God is the default conclusion)? I merely point out (frequently) that there are holes in scientific understanding big enough to drive a universe through. Quite literally. When it comes to scientific delusions…I sometimes wonder which group is more guilty…the religious or the skeptics.

As for my grammar…who decides what is proper punctuation or grammar? Maybe I wasn’t using ellipses.

Philosophy cannot. Philosophy is merely speculative guess-work based on existing knowledge. It has no mechanism whereby it can "delineate and explore" anything. For this you need science.

Provide me with a scientific(falsifiable) explanation of this sentence. The scientific (falsifiable) meaning of each individual and combined component. Do not use any philosophical tools.

Always found him to be a pretty sharp cookie myself, so I'd be surprised if he was.

Well let's see what Feynman had to say about philosophy, shall we? From "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out":

He also once described philosophers as "People who kick up the dust, and then complain because they can't see".

Feynman acknowledged the difficulty of understanding the universe but that doesn't mean he didn't think science wasn't the best, if not the only, tool we had for doing so. He made it abundantly clear throughout his life that he thought philosophy was as much use as a chocolate teapot.

There is another thread that explores the various uses and attributes of philosophy. Not surprisingly…it is typically those who know the least about it (and themselves) who complain most loudly about its utility.

As for understanding the universe…science is a great tool. But what about understanding understanding? What about understanding science itself and the identities of the creatures that create it?

Have you ever heard of the equation e=mc²?

Meaning…what? Matter and energy are interchangeable? And preceding that we may or may not have varieties of probability waves…and preceding that we may or may not have…God only knows WTF!?!?!?!

Actually…as things currently stand…nobody knows what matter either is or what it arises from. A thread about a year or two back produced some very credible papers suggesting that something called ‘information’ precedes energy / matter (whatever that means / is). Information…quite obviously…implicates consciousness (of some inconceivable variety). Thus…matter arises from consciousness…in some inevitably speculative metaphysical fashion. But then again…speculation is all there is at such levels.

 

[Navigator]

No, the Big Bang is the effect. A quantum fluctuation, branes bumping into each other in higher dimensions etc have been suggested as the cause, but there isn't even agreement that it needed a cause let alone what that cause was.


The only part of the balloon that features in the analogy is its skin. The two-dimensional skin represents the three dimensional universe. The expansion of the skin represents the Big Bang.

Thus the big bang represents the breath - that which effects the expanding.

There will have to be agreement on cause or its back to 'magic did it' which of course still requires explanation as we all know that magic is explainable. It might look like magic but something did it.

We may never truly know what that something is and for that reason cannot dismiss that the something was conscious and aware of its doings.

Especially when the result is something very akin to intelligent design.

 

[gentlehorse]

We may never truly know what that something is and for that reason cannot dismiss that the something was conscious and aware of its doings.

Especially when the result is something very akin to intelligent design.

"...only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

 

[John Jones]

'The big bang' is the event by which the physical universe began. The big bang is not the effect but the cause. Like a ripple on a pond cause by a stone. The big bang is the stone. The ripple is the effect.





Is still expanding. Rapid in relation to what?





Oh like an expanding star that broke up into tiny bits all stuck together by the space in between them?

And the universe is flat?

So those oldish stories of how the universe theoretically stared from something infinitesimal...?

Anyway, an expansion that didnt start from anywhere specific. The effect is an expansion which has a beginning place which neednt be regarded as central...

...












The breath in the balloon represents the big bang, is that was you are saying?

No. Stop doing that. Stop doing it immediately.

 

[annnnoid]

"...only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Is this actually supposed to be a serious comment? Do we have another universe....somewhere...where the validity of the conclusion can be confirmed? Assuming this is not the case...it is theology.

...and the statement should actually read something more like...
"...only in a universe capable of eventually supporting ...conscious creatures with a specific conceptual orientation and ability... will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.

 

[gentlehorse]

Is this actually supposed to be a serious comment?

No more serious than the topic--

Do we have another universe....somewhere...where the validity of the conclusion can be confirmed? Assuming this is not the case...it is theology.

Are you positing the existence of non-living observers? That a universe that is not conducive to life will go unobserved is self-evident.

...and the statement should actually read something more like...
"...only in a universe capable of eventually supporting ...conscious creatures with a specific conceptual orientation and ability... will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.

Increased wordiness, coupled with poor grammar, doesn't necessarily increase clarity.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I also argued that there is evidence to support the conclusion that the process by which (and the context within which) people reach the conclusion (God) is also valid.

Anecdotal evidence that exploits people in vulnerable states is not valid.

God is only one conclusion available within the range of options available to us that occur within the capabilities of the human landscape.

That's not what you said the first time. You simply argued against science while arguing for God, without the nuance you showed here.

Ultimately what is indisputable is that we are a function of something that is all-but infinitely greater than we are. A higher authority by any other name. As David Fincher (The Social Network) said…” You are in charge…you are not in control. Anyone who thinks they are in control is nuts!” Whether anyone wants to recognize that something as ‘God’ is entirely up to them.

Or we could be the function of mundane natural processes without any aim or purpose whatsoever.

And where did I reject science (...not to mention...where did I say that God is the default conclusion)? I merely point out (frequently) that there are holes in scientific understanding big enough to drive a universe through. Quite literally. When it comes to scientific delusions…I sometimes wonder which group is more guilty…the religious or the skeptics.

Just because there are holes in your own understanding of science doesn't mean there are holes in scientific understanding. This was already explained to you.

As for my grammar…who decides what is proper punctuation or grammar? Maybe I wasn’t using ellipses.

There you go again. You're one to lecture me on basic definitions when you can't even use proper grammar.

 

[annnnoid]

Anecdotal evidence that exploits people in vulnerable states is not valid.

What science is it that has established that anecdotal evidence is not valid and that these people are in vulnerable states?

…and who…precisely…are you to judge the deepest convictions and choices of anyone…at all?

That's not what you said the first time. You simply argued against science while arguing for God, without the nuance you showed here.

How is pointing out what science does not know an argument against science???? The simple fact is...human truth unconditionally takes precedence over science. Some people are simply too insecure to acknowledge that.

Or we could be the function of mundane natural processes without any aim or purpose whatsoever.

Except for the all-but indisputable fact that human truth is about nothing but purpose. But it’s ok if you missed that in algebra class.

Just because there are holes in your own understanding of science doesn't mean there are holes in scientific understanding. This was already explained to you.

Feynman said, quite explicitly, that we have no idea what is happening at the most basic levels of our universe. that science has no idea where this universe came from doesn't even need repeating. The director of one of the most well known cognitive institutes in the world said that we have no idea how the brain creates consciousness.

This has already been explained to you.

Were there holes in their understanding of science?

There you go again. You're one to lecture me on basic definitions when you can't even use proper grammar.

Feel free to reply when you actually can muster a coherent argument.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

What science is it that has established that anecdotal evidence is not valid and that these people are in vulnerable states?

Argument from personal anecdote is a logical fallacy.

…and who…precisely…are you to judge the deepest convictions and choices of anyone…at all?

A person can have convictions about anything. That doesn't make it true, because convictions can go either way. For everyone who has seen heaven in a NDE, there's someone who has seen nothing at all. Furthermore, I'm not the one exploiting these people's experiences to make an argument for God.

How is pointing out what science does not know an argument against science???? The simple fact is...human truth unconditionally takes precedence over science. Some people are simply too insecure to acknowledge that.

Except for the all-but indisputable fact that human truth is about nothing but purpose. But it’s ok if you missed that in algebra class.

You are failing to qualify "human truth."

Feynman said, quite explicitly, that we have no idea what is happening at the most basic levels of our universe. that science has no idea where this universe came from doesn't even need repeating. The director of one of the most well known cognitive institutes in the world said that we have no idea how the brain creates consciousness.

This has already been explained to you.

Were there holes in their understanding of science?

Statements made at a particular time in the past do not represent the end-all limit to our understanding. We are discovering more and more about the universe, about the brain and consciousness, every day. To say that science doesn't know everything isn't to say that science knows nothing, nor does it justify sneaking in an alternate explanation with no evidence to back it up.

Feel free to reply when you actually can muster a coherent argument.

You're one to talk.

 

[annnnoid]

Argument from personal anecdote is a logical fallacy.

….except that personal anecdotes form the foundation of the lives of just about everyone on this planet. So they’re all invalid now….because you say so.

A person can have convictions about anything. That doesn't make it true, because convictions can go either way. For everyone who has seen heaven in a NDE, there's someone who has seen nothing at all. Furthermore, I'm not the one exploiting these people's experiences to make an argument for God.

True!!!! Where did I use the word ‘true’???? Once again…I was pointing out that the primary ontological reality in this universe is us. Do you know what that means? Apparently not. Pointing out that people come to religious conclusions is not, in fact, exploiting them….it is merely pointing out that people come to religious conclusions.

Given that science has precisely zero ability to determine how people ultimately come to these conclusions, we have to respect the possibility that there is some kind of veracity to them…especially given that the processes of human identity represent the primary ontological reality of this universe.

You are failing to qualify "human truth."

Life and the living of it. What humans do that rocks and air and ants and solid state circuits don’t do. There is no defnitive ‘science’ of it. There is you. There is what the bible (and just about every genuine religious manual every written) has said. Know thyself. It’s a good idea!

That’s called purpose.

Statements made at a particular time in the past do not represent the end-all limit to our understanding. We are discovering more and more about the universe, about the brain and consciousness, every day. To say that science doesn't know everything isn't to say that science knows nothing, nor does it justify sneaking in an alternate explanation with no evidence to back it up.

Yes…of course. I repeatedly asserted that science knows nothing. I could insist that you produce evidence to support this conclusion but I’d rather not waste my time.

Science knows lots. People know more. There is evidence to support the conclusion of some kind of greater authority / reality / creator / God / whatever the hell you want to call it. Lots of it. Does that mean you need to agree with Pat Robertson? Surprisingly…it does not.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

….except that personal anecdotes form the foundation of the lives of just about everyone on this planet. So they’re all invalid now….because you say so.

When you're talking about proof or evidence for God, yes, it's invalid, because people have believed in many different gods in many different ways. Some people believe in gods in very dangerous ways. People have disagreed on gods to the extent that they've slaughtered each other en masse. Disagreements persist today on the level of, "You'll burn in hell," and religion is frequently used as motivation to deprive groups and minorities of basic rights.

So what objective criteria do you use to weigh one type of "anecdote" against another? The fact that a type of religious conviction exists is not a foundation for reality.

True!!!! Where did I use the word ‘true’???? Once again…I was pointing out that the primary ontological reality in this universe is us. Do you know what that means? Apparently not. Pointing out that people come to religious conclusions is not, in fact, exploiting them….it is merely pointing out that people come to religious conclusions.

Some people come to the conclusion that there are no gods. Does that surprise you?

Given that science has precisely zero ability to determine how people ultimately come to these conclusions, we have to respect the possibility that there is some kind of veracity to them…especially given that the processes of human identity represent the primary ontological reality of this universe.

Humans once believed the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

Life and the living of it. What humans do that rocks and air and ants and solid state circuits don’t do. There is no defnitive ‘science’ of it. There is you. There is what the bible (and just about every genuine religious manual every written) has said. Know thyself. It’s a good idea!

That’s called purpose.

You completely missed my point. I said we could be the function of mundane natural processes without any aim or purpose whatsoever, meaning that the basic functions of life and the workings of nature don't care about our lives or existence. It is therefore up to us to give life meaning and purpose, not anything else. Not God, not the Bible, not any religion. Those are secondary reinforcing factors. You can't impose them on anyone.

Yes…of course. I repeatedly asserted that science knows nothing. I could insist that you produce evidence to support this conclusion but I’d rather not waste my time.

Science knows lots. People know more. There is evidence to support the conclusion of some kind of greater authority / reality / creator / God / whatever the hell you want to call it. Lots of it. Does that mean you need to agree with Pat Robertson? Surprisingly…it does not.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to furnish some of this so-called evidence. Maybe you'll have better luck than mikeb768.

 

[Tassman]

Provide me with a scientific(falsifiable) explanation of this sentence. The scientific (falsifiable) meaning of each individual and combined component. Do not use any philosophical tools.

Philosophy is a very useful tool within its limitations; I've said this many times.

But that’s not what I’m saying here. What I said was that: “Philosophy is merely speculative guess-work based on existing knowledge”. It's basically just an academic exercise. It has no mechanism whereby it can obtain a verifiable true premise thus the conclusions it arrives at cannot be established as true – no matter how valid the argument.

Only science can acquire new knowledge. This assertion is readily falsifiable by you proving me wrong. What new knowledge has philosophy ever obtained which hasn't been based on existing knowledge as verified by science?

 

[Pixel42]

….except that personal anecdotes form the foundation of the lives of just about everyone on this planet. So they’re all invalid now….because you say so.

Nobody is saying that anecdotal evidence always points to the wrong conclusion, just that it does so often enough for it to be an unreliable guide to the nature of reality.

Anecdotal evidence convinced people that doing a rain dance made it rain, that homeopathy works, that aliens are abducting people and performing invasive medical procedures on them ... this forum is chock full of threads providing plenty of examples of just how unreliable a source of information subjective experiences can be. That's why the scientific method was invented.

 

[Aridas]

Is this actually supposed to be a serious comment? Do we have another universe....somewhere...where the validity of the conclusion can be confirmed? Assuming this is not the case...it is theology.

...and the statement should actually read something more like...
"...only in a universe capable of eventually supporting ...conscious creatures with a specific conceptual orientation and ability... will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.

So, your objection that it's not specific enough? Sure. That it's theology? Hardly. Either way, its primary function is pointing out that life arising under conditions where life can arise is not at all evidence of godly involvement or outside involvement of any kind. This should likely be fairly obvious, yet, the claim that only life can create other life is still far too common, despite issues with the logic.

Meaning…what? Matter and energy are interchangeable? And preceding that we may or may not have varieties of probability waves…and preceding that we may or may not have…God only knows WTF!?!?!?!

Meaning that physics has already addressed the question that was being asked.

Actually…as things currently stand…nobody knows what matter either is or what it arises from. A thread about a year or two back produced some very credible papers suggesting that something called ‘information’ precedes energy / matter (whatever that means / is). Information…quite obviously…implicates consciousness (of some inconceivable variety). Thus…matter arises from consciousness…in some inevitably speculative metaphysical fashion. But then again…speculation is all there is at such levels.

Feel free to link the thread and papers, if you want. I rather strongly suspect that 'information,' if they were in fact credible papers, was not being used in a manner that implies the involvement of consciousness, much as a number of people do like to try to conflate things.

 

[Brian-M]

Only science can acquire new knowledge. This assertion is readily falsifiable by you proving me wrong. What new knowledge has philosophy ever obtained which hasn't been based on existing knowledge as verified by science?

Science is a branch of philosophy. It used to be called natural philosophy. So I guess you could say that philosophy obtained the knowledge of how to perform scientific research.