A question for atheists/etc

[BoomerD]

I always wondered, if this "GOD" is so omnipotent" as is advertised, why would "he" even care if we worship "him" or not? IMO, that would be like us humans demanding worship from the ants under our feet...
Nope, IMO, religion is just a tool to control the ignorant masses who are afraid of what happens when they die...Nothing wrong with adopting a "philosophy" and following it, as long as you don't get too radical about "yours" being the best or only TRUE one, and killing other human animals to defend it, or spread your particular "philosophy"...you like it? good, keep it to yourself...

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Netopia
How many atheists on here realize that Quantum Physics has had a REAL problem with the design of the universe? That in order for us to be here right now, everything (gravity, energy, matter, magnetism...all the forces) had to be within a tolerance of 1/10^30th (a 10 followed by 30 zeros) or our universe could not have existed in a state that would be able to have life. Change things just that little bit in one direction and the universe would have long ago collapsed upon itself before it cooled enough for life to have time to form.... change anything just that little amount in the other direction and the universe would have expanded SO quickly that there wouldn't be enough density of matter for life to ever form. The balance of everything was too perfect! Rational scientists knew that that odds of this universe existing in a state where life could ever exist were just too astronomically high... high enough that it had to be considered a statistical impossibility.... so unlikely that no logical person could accept that it just happened by accident.

Do you know what Quantum Physic's answer to this problem is? Imaginary Time! Yes... a time that doesn't even exist in reality, but that they can use to make models of the universe where life COULD have happened. Even with imaginary time, the odds are VERY SLIM that life could ever happen, but at least the odds are better. For more information, read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and "The Universe in a Nutshell".

My question is, why is it ok for science to theorize and calculate with things which don't exist in reality, but then use the calculations that include these things as proofs, but it ISN'T ok for Science to include a God that they also can't prove in reality and have that theory be just as valid?

Joe

Those odds are assuming that life could only exist with the current conditions. Science doesn't say the way our life started is the only way it could have started. Our life started from the conditions the universe happened to be in. But that does not say that if the universe went a seperate path, life couldn't have started another way.
That's like saying if the universe was 100 degrees hotter, life couldn't have existed! Yeah most life on planet earth that has adapted to our current temperature couldn't, but why not another life form that has slowly evolve to adapt to the hotter temperatures exist?
That's why those statistics never work. It's a logical fallacy in itself.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I always wondered, if this "GOD" is so omnipotent" as is advertised, why would "he" even care if we worship "him" or not? IMO, that would be like us humans demanding worship from the ants under our feet...
Nope, IMO, religion is just a tool to control the ignorant masses who are afraid of what happens when they die...Nothing wrong with adopting a "philosophy" and following it, as long as you don't get too radical about "yours" being the best or only TRUE one, and killing other human animals to defend it, or spread your particular "philosophy"...you like it? good, keep it to yourself...

EXACTLY!

 

[deepred98]

i beleive in a god but not jesus

i don't beleive any man could be perfect or godly

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Netopia
How many atheists on here realize that Quantum Physics has had a REAL problem with the design of the universe? That in order for us to be here right now, everything (gravity, energy, matter, magnetism...all the forces) had to be within a tolerance of 1/10^30th (a 10 followed by 30 zeros) or our universe could not have existed in a state that would be able to have life. Change things just that little bit in one direction and the universe would have long ago collapsed upon itself before it cooled enough for life to have time to form.... change anything just that little amount in the other direction and the universe would have expanded SO quickly that there wouldn't be enough density of matter for life to ever form. The balance of everything was too perfect! Rational scientists knew that that odds of this universe existing in a state where life could ever exist were just too astronomically high... high enough that it had to be considered a statistical impossibility.... so unlikely that no logical person could accept that it just happened by accident.

Your religious view point is no different than someone who would believe in religion simply because the sun cannot be explained or they do not understand how the world could possibly be round (how the hell are people living upside down).

At any point in history, we have scientific barriers that we have not yet overcome. Someone like you, looks at these barriers, fears them, and then uses that fear to reinforce their faith in xyz religion. Someone else might look at these barriers as challenges to be overcome and further our ever expanding knowledge of the world around us.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Netopia
How many atheists on here realize that Quantum Physics has had a REAL problem with the design of the universe? That in order for us to be here right now, everything (gravity, energy, matter, magnetism...all the forces) had to be within a tolerance of 1/10^30th (a 10 followed by 30 zeros) or our universe could not have existed in a state that would be able to have life. Change things just that little bit in one direction and the universe would have long ago collapsed upon itself before it cooled enough for life to have time to form.... change anything just that little amount in the other direction and the universe would have expanded SO quickly that there wouldn't be enough density of matter for life to ever form. The balance of everything was too perfect! Rational scientists knew that that odds of this universe existing in a state where life could ever exist were just too astronomically high... high enough that it had to be considered a statistical impossibility.... so unlikely that no logical person could accept that it just happened by accident.

So you're saying we have more to learn? :Q

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee


Just because something happened by chance doesn't make it meaningless. It means that it wasn't engineered to produce a specific result. It "means" a great deal to me that I am here, it doesn't matter how this came to be. Being a bit anthropic, creation has great meaning to us because we are the result of it. Why does there have to be "someone behind the curtain" for us to assign meaning?

That's my whole point. What you say is "meaning" is really just something that you arbitrarily assign via emotion. It isn't something that is measurable. It isn't something that can be proven scientifically. And yet you accept it as true. How then is a theist different in believing in something that cannot be measured or proven? The theist believes that what they feel is truth, just as you do about there being some sort of meaning to life.

Joe

 

[CVSiN]

anyone seen toy story 1 and 2? we are the little misguided green guys in the claw game box...

we are just someones ant farm. there is no dog or god or whatever..

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I always wondered, if this "GOD" is so omnipotent" as is advertised, why would "he" even care if we worship "him" or not? IMO, that would be like us humans demanding worship from the ants under our feet...
Nope, IMO, religion is just a tool to control the ignorant masses who are afraid of what happens when they die...Nothing wrong with adopting a "philosophy" and following it, as long as you don't get too radical about "yours" being the best or only TRUE one, and killing other human animals to defend it, or spread your particular "philosophy"...you like it? good, keep it to yourself...

Well, in general, Biblical (at least New Testament) worship is simply assigning a high value (worTH ship) to God, accepting that He has our best interest in mind and trusting Him. So... what does the Bible have to say about what God thinks about religion?

James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

What's so wrong with what God wants us to do?

Joe

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee


Just because something happened by chance doesn't make it meaningless. It means that it wasn't engineered to produce a specific result. It "means" a great deal to me that I am here, it doesn't matter how this came to be. Being a bit anthropic, creation has great meaning to us because we are the result of it. Why does there have to be "someone behind the curtain" for us to assign meaning?

That's my whole point. What you say is "meaning" is really just something that you arbitrarily assign via emotion. It isn't something that is measurable. It isn't something that can be proven scientifically. And yet you accept it as true. How then is a theist different in believing in something that cannot be measured or proven? The theist believes that what they feel is truth, just as you do about there being some sort of meaning to life.

Joe

There is a difference. I accept that there may be no meaning to anything beyond what I assign to it. Using an outside entity like God to find meaning makes said meaning arbitrarily true for everyone, for the entire universe. I have no trouble finding meaning in life, but I certainly don't think that my meaning applies to anything other than myself.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Those odds are assuming that life could only exist with the current conditions. Science doesn't say the way our life started is the only way it could have started. Our life started from the conditions the universe happened to be in. But that does not say that if the universe went a seperate path, life couldn't have started another way.
That's like saying if the universe was 100 degrees hotter, life couldn't have existed! Yeah most life on planet earth that has adapted to our current temperature couldn't, but why not another life form that has slowly evolve to adapt to the hotter temperatures exist?
That's why those statistics never work. It's a logical fallacy in itself.

No, in this case they're pretty much saying life couldn't have started at all. In models that are short, the temperatures are thousands (or millions) of degrees in the universe and then a relatively quick collapse. In the hyper-inflationary models, the temperature is VERY low and not enough stars are even created for the formation of any heavier elements. Hawking and most of his ilk are not Evangelical Christians, so why not read so of their work and see why it was so bothersome to them that everything was just so absolutely perfect.

Live can't live at a million degrees, and neither can it at nearly absolute zero and with no building blocks.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: skace

Your religious view point is no different than someone who would believe in religion simply because the sun cannot be explained or they do not understand how the world could possibly be round (how the hell are people living upside down).

At any point in history, we have scientific barriers that we have not yet overcome. Someone like you, looks at these barriers, fears them, and then uses that fear to reinforce their faith in xyz religion. Someone else might look at these barriers as challenges to be overcome and further our ever expanding knowledge of the world around us.

I'm not a quantum physicist... it's not me that discovered these "barriers", nor is it me who created "imaginary time" to overcome them.

I believe that my faith is improvable. Many would say that it should then carry no weight. I say that at the scientific level all particles should be viewed as alike and that to value one collection (a human) more than another (a rock) is also a type of faith... if so, why do atheists adhere to valuing one more than another (well... not all... Stalin didn't for instance).

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: RBachman

So you're saying we have more to learn? :Q

Won't we always? My point is that why should atheists accept science that has things like "imaginary time" and have that be ok, but scoff at someone who believes in a God?

Joe

 

[thecrecarc]

the diffrence is religion is unalterable. science is. science is changed daily, sometimes in small steps, or big ones. (THE WORLD IS ROUND!!!11!1oneone!1!)

thats why ur statement of qutum physics doesnt count. it could be proven wrong. it would be changed. THATS science. religion, on the other hand, NEVER changes, instead, quotes from a little book made many years ago, trying to prove stuff happening today, and failing at it.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: RBachman

So you're saying we have more to learn? :Q

Won't we always? My point is that why should atheists accept science that has things like "imaginary time" and have that be ok, but scoff at someone who believes in a God?

Joe

Yep, and all atheists scoff at those who believe in god. Every last one.

 

[PrinceofWands]

You oversimplify much.

Not believing that Jesus existed, and not believing he is the actual offspring of an omnipotent being are two entirely different things. Most atheists acknowledge the likelihood of Jesus existing, just not his divinity. They do this because there is absolutely no proof whatsoever in anything divine (as is in fact required by the very definitions of divinity).

Many mental patients have developed deep and meaningful relationships with entities we label fictitious. We can't actually prove they don't exist, it's just that we can't prove they do. This is generally the way of things. Relationships with a spiritual being fall under the same heading and so are treated much the same way by some. That's not to call religious people crazy, I'm just pointing out the logical path of conclusions.

I have experienced that most atheists do believe we cease at death, but some are not so certain. There are some quasi-spiritual groups that deny monotheism but believe (or at least hope) that some form of consciousness continues after death, though they are often hard pressed to rationalize this duality. You could, I suppose, believe in reincarnation of some type and still be an atheist, as long as you deny the existence of a god. I think that's stretching the defnition of atheism however.

Lastly, being an atheist doesn't mean you don't search for answers, any more than being a theist means you look for answers. Many (in my opinion the vast majority) of people claim religious affiliation without ever seriously questing for truth. It's more about being included for them than it is about answers to any great questions. I never sought answers and truth as hard as I did for the 30ish years I spent as an atheist. During that time I read most religious texts, attended services of every faith I could find, debated frequently, read incessantly, and thought endlessly. None of that in any way suggested a 'truth' to be found in any religion.

In my opinion the answer is that there is NO universal truth. Everything is subjective, including answers of divinity and the nature of life and the universe. You can't find the 'truth' of religion by trying to see that religion thru the eyes (or words) of others. You have to experience something that clicks inside you as being 'true'. In other words, you don't find religion, religion finds you. ***note that I actually don't mean that, because I don't believe in religion (meaning the institution thereof). A more accurate description for it would be belief, or spirituality***

 

[middlehead]

It's not that there's something which makes me disbelieve, it's that there's nothing that makes me believe.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

There is a difference. I accept that there may be no meaning to anything beyond what I assign to it. Using an outside entity like God to find meaning makes said meaning arbitrarily true for everyone, for the entire universe. I have no trouble finding meaning in life, but I certainly don't think that my meaning applies to anything other than myself.

I GREATLY admire your honesty. I find that most people either can't think outside the box enough to grasp what you just did or they simply don't want to admit it.

Ok... we are in agreement that if there is no higher authority that has defined meaning (and things like right and wrong), then those are all a construct of our own "feelings and thoughts" about things. But feelings and thoughts aren't provable or absolute.

If one person feels it's ok to kill and eat other people, how can anyone say that person is "wrong" to do so? If that person says that since everything is just a random grouping of particles and no one thing has any more meaning or value than any other one thing, isn't he the one who is actually acting out of logic and not emotion? Why then would an atheist, looking at the situation logically and not emotionally or with anything that required "faith" in anything that wasn't quantifiable, find fault with him?

I realize that I'm using some very extreme examples, but the point I'm trying to make and show is that even the person who says they don't believe in God because it's all faith and nothing can be proven about it... that same person actually does lots of things in life that are based on faith, but never demands absolute proof for those thing. Why is that ok but the person who believes in God without absolute proof is wrong?

Joe

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: skace

Your religious view point is no different than someone who would believe in religion simply because the sun cannot be explained or they do not understand how the world could possibly be round (how the hell are people living upside down).

At any point in history, we have scientific barriers that we have not yet overcome. Someone like you, looks at these barriers, fears them, and then uses that fear to reinforce their faith in xyz religion. Someone else might look at these barriers as challenges to be overcome and further our ever expanding knowledge of the world around us.

I'm not a quantum physicist... it's not me that discovered these "barriers", nor is it me who created "imaginary time" to overcome them.

I believe that my faith is improvable. Many would say that it should then carry no weight. I say that at the scientific level all particles should be viewed as alike and that to value one collection (a human) more than another (a rock) is also a type of faith... if so, why do atheists adhere to valuing one more than another (well... not all... Stalin didn't for instance).

Joe

It is a kind of faith, but it's not the same kind. I don't have any good reason to doubt the existence of my fellow humans. I can hear, see, touch, and speak to them at any time I wish. The only thing that involves faith is when you consider WHY I value other humans more than rocks. I think that human's are much more interesting than rocks (well some humans) so that's as far as I am able to go with that without going into instinct, evolution, and such.

Inasmuch as it is provable, I believe that humans exist. So it's a good thing I like them better than rocks. The same goes for God. If someone tells you that they live without faith in ANYTHING, then they're liars, but to call faith in common, everyday life the same as faith in a supreme being would trivialize your faith I think.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Netopia
I'm not a quantum physicist... it's not me that discovered these "barriers", nor is it me who created "imaginary time" to overcome them.

I believe that my faith is improvable. Many would say that it should then carry no weight. I say that at the scientific level all particles should be viewed as alike and that to value one collection (a human) more than another (a rock) is also a type of faith... if so, why do atheists adhere to valuing one more than another (well... not all... Stalin didn't for instance).

Joe

Because science is based on proveable repeatable results. Aaaand religion isn't. If you are so freaked out about imaginery time, wrap your head around irrational numbers.

Notice how you are using Quantum Physics as your example instead of something such as gravity? Why? Because gravity has been accepted for a very long time and you'd have to be insane to attack it. But you can attack Quantum Physics because neither you nor I are versed in it, thus it cannot defend itself against your attacks. That makes you happy, I'm sure.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
the diffrence is religion is unalterable. science is. science is changed daily, sometimes in small steps, or big ones. (THE WORLD IS ROUND!!!11!1oneone!1!)

thats why ur statement of qutum physics doesnt count. it could be proven wrong. it would be changed. THATS science. religion, on the other hand, NEVER changes, instead, quotes from a little book made many years ago, trying to prove stuff happening today, and failing at it.

That's a good argument. From what you've said, science can always be upheld to support an argument, but at the same time, you can keep from being backed into a corner by being able to say that science might be wrong, but we'll have to wait and see.

I agree that true religion should not change... though there are all sorts of perversions of religion happening all over the place. If something is true, then it need not change.

But back to physics... you really didn't answer the question. Why is it ok to accept something that is made up, like "imaginary time" (where you KNOW it's made up), but to believe in something like religion is wrong? Don't you see a dichotomy?

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: RBachman
Yep, and all atheists scoff at those who believe in god. Every last one.

Never did I say that all of any group do anything.

BTW... I liked your books.

Joe

 

[mooncancook]

I was raised atheist. I thought the Bible is just another storybook written by men just like the Greek myths, and thought Evolution just made too much sense for my young mind to reject. I thought religion is just something ppl make up for the week-minded. I never really took time to read the Bible or any religious books coz I thought that was waste of time. So for me it's easy to understand the POV of an atheist.

As an atheist I thought there's nobody to depend on better than myself. I should depend on myself instead of some "gods" and control my own destiny. But now when I think about it, we humans are so fragile that I don't think we are that dependable. A tiny scorpion can kill us, and even a lowly fly can resist disease so much better than us. Even the most powerful and wealthy person in the world can't resist disease and death from old age. It's sad that as soon as we are born we are destined to die so how the heck can we control our own destiny. So only when I grew up and become more open minded I started to accept Jesus and the Bible.

 

[PrinceofWands]

BTW... I liked your books.

Man I haven't read Illusions in forever, or Gift of Wings. Just read Jonathan to my daughter so I'm current on that one. Thanks for the idea.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Netopia

My question is, why is it ok for science to theorize and calculate with things which don't exist in reality, but then use the calculations that include these things as proofs, but it ISN'T ok for Science to include a God that they also can't prove in reality and have that theory be just as valid?

Joe

I have read both works to which you refer, and Hawking never once refers to these as anything but a hypothesis. I.E. an idea that someone had that holds sway better than a fairy tale merely because it seems to follow logically from known facts; nevertheless, such a hypothesis is still very far from accepted science without actual evidence for their basis in reality.

Also, hawking specifically addresses this when he points out that m-theory may not be testable (nobody has as of yet come up with a test for m-theory) and thus, is arugably not science.