??? Several times here on the SDMB, no few of us have said we “disprove” the concept of an infinite God, given that omniscience and omnipotence, together, lead to logical paradoxes which cannot be resolved.
Most atheists are comfortably neutral regarding the possibility of a “vastly powerful” entity, although there are a few who have declared those to be impossible also.
Anyway, for the record, I believe that the concept of an “infinitely powerful” God is trivially disproved: such a concept contradicts itself and is meaningless.
we all look at the mystery of the universe. we ask, how did it get here? people have different answers and they end up believing one or none of these suggested answers. no?
So - you cannot prove god exists - and you have no evidence either.
That is the default assumption from science -
X does not exist.
In order for it to exist - there must be some objective evidence for it.
Until there is some - the default assumption is presumed true. Science spends its time working with and from observable evidence - this is the exact opposite of ‘Faith’ (which is where we began this ‘conversation’)
This would be an example of your “first principle” in action.
but the very checking assumes that our universe is uniform and that our senses give us reliable information. Remember Descartes…? he wanted to have proof that some mighty demon wasn’t causing him to see the world and all that was in it. for that matter, how can you prove that other people have minds?
a) ‘atheists’ or ‘atheism’ has absolutely nothing to do with creation - it is a simple statement as to the belief in god(s). Nothing more, nothing less
b) Science (or atheists, in general) does not deal with a ‘creation’ story - Evolution is NOT about ‘creation’ - it is about the process of change in living things. While we work to understand how certain things came to be, we start talking about how something ‘may have been’ created/started - but as a rule, what we are dealing with is talking about what we have observed since that event happened.
Religionists (hate that word, but so be it) - are the ones who worry about the ‘who’ or the ‘what’ - and they should, given the bible god’s blood lust and requirement for ‘faith’…
well the other poster pointed to DNA as evidence for a creator. we have to do science to learn about DNA. and once we learn about DNA, we ask…what is the best explanation for how this originated?
Then, scientists try to reproduce the conditions for DNA to evolve on its own. So far, they have been unsuccessful. So…in light of this, noone can say that it is irrational to believe that God assembled DNA when He created the world.
Correct. And only one specific kind of God: the “Infinite” one. When Preacher Bob says, “God is infinitely powerful,” I consider this to be a foolish and meaningless statement, internally self-contradictory. But this is at a level of philosophical understanding of words and meanings, not at a scientific level.
The scientist, told that God is infinite, asks, “Okay: Show me.” Science depends on demonstrable propositions. Philosophy operates at a more remote level of abstraction.
Like I said, substitute your favorite creation myth. Have any of them proven to be accurate?
Is it? We execute killers, we try not to execute apes. Science can measure the intelligence of apes and humans. Science does not define good and evil, but it can give you information to make a decision. As for religion - I’ll get to that later.
No, when we look at vacuum we see it is not empty. Heisenberg tells us it cannot be empty. We’re still working out the details. It takes longer to explore this stuff than it does to write down a holy book.
Can religion? Anyone can and does claim that their god requires all sorts of stuff. The Bible has God ordering massacres. Is your definition of morality whatever God says? What if he tells you to kill babies? If you say he wouldn’t because that would be immoral, where do you get your morality from if not God?
There is the field of ethics which covers this stuff without reference to deities. It doesn’t home in on an answer (unlike science) because there probably is no answer.
A primitive view. We know that fiddling with the brain changes the mind. We observe no mind without associated matter. We see animals with different levels of intelligence as the brain gets more complex. The evidence is all for mind as a product of matter.
Well, the society you live in most certainly thinks so. You won’t ever be convicted of first degree ape murder (although the inverse, an animal being put on trial for harming a man, can and has happened including, memorably, one elephant sentenced to death by hanging).
… did you just equate Jews with apes ?
Many philosophers would opine, yes. Many others wouldn’t. Right and wrong are nice and all, but they’re arbitrary and subjective notions. Not absolutes, and certainly not quantifiable.
Agreed: we have to start with certain philosophical assumptions about reality. The first one is “There is such a thing as reality.” This cannot be proven. However, the opposite assumption – “There is no such thing as reality” – doesn’t lead anywhere. Since we live in a world with a strong appearance of reality, we can either get up and start exploring it – or sit in a yoga position and meditate eternally on the koan “Inside a dog, it is too dark to read.”
The first leads to geology, zoology, chemistry, physics, and other useful disciplines.
The latter leads nowhere.
You are free to choose your path to enlightenment.
I can say it is irrational - there is no reason to believe that either ‘god’ created the world or ‘assembled’ DNA. There is no evidence for ‘god’ - period.
You seem to think that because science doesnt have an answer - then there must be a god - this is, as another poster pointed out - the ‘god of the gaps’ fallacy.
I am content to say "don’t know - might one day, until then, we don’t " In either case - us not understanding something does not prove ‘god’.
You are correct. However, I don’t think it is proper for us to tell believers the characteristics of the God they say they believe in. When one says they believe in a tri-omni god then we can unleash the argument.
I don’t like it when they tell me what atheists are supposed to think, and so I think we should return the favor.
you still dont get it - one more time for clarity - and I’ll even put it in CAPs so you can read it -
SCIENCE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DISPROVING SOMETHING
do you get that?
Science is interested in things that can be observed and proven.
In the process of proving things - we do disprove many other things - but that is the side affect, not (generally) the goal.
You make the claim that ‘God exists’ - then you need to back up your claim with objective evidence - then we can get into wether or not that evidence holds up to scrutiny.
What do you mean by “wrong”? That is a serious question I am asking you; just like you need to define what you mean by “God” in order to answer your OP, you also need to define “wrong” before it is possible to discuss your statement. Science can certainly say that causing people pain is non-altruistic, which is one reasonable interpretation of “wrong”.
Okay, and now you’re going to have to explain how this is coherent. What does it even mean to be “outside of the universe of space and time”. How is that even possible for any existing object? Doesn’t this run against the very concept of what we consider “existence”?
Well, name me another path to truth. What other mechanism, beyond empirical evidence and observation, do we have to truth? The scientific method is, basically, merely the honing of personal observation to account for individual bias and error. And personal observation and empiricism is all we have. There is no other route to take. What alternative path to truth would you propose?
Prove it. Your weak explanations are incredibly inadequate, and everyone else has already shown you why. So really get down to it. Prove that life cannot come from non-life, then explain to me how this doesn’t lead to infinite regress issues.
Okay, just setting aside the evidence (because when it comes to spoonfeeding remedial biology to creationists, I’m currently in a state of semi-perpetual “cannot be asked”) that demonstrates beyond any doubt that you are simply wrong for the moment… Essentially every reputable scientific association in the western world; every school; every college; essentially anywhere where information is imparted teaches evolution as a fact and a theory. Every elite college in the world - you’re learning biology? Evolution is taken for granted. The only places where this isn’t the case is shitty christian diploma mills and Falwell University. Most biologists consider the strongest evidence in favor of evolution to be things like genome sequencing, which didn’t exist until the late 1900s. Some “19th century science that has seen its day”. Kinda like Germ Theory. :rolleyes:
Well, here’s a hint: it’s not “an intelligent being with power far beyond our comprehension whose existence we have not been able to verify”. Because what you are proposing is, essentially, magic. You are basically allowing magic as a valid explanation. That doesn’t fly in science, for hopefully obvious reasons. If we can say “god did it” to that, why couldn’t we say “god did it” to other complex issues? Why not just insert “god did it” into everything, call it a day, and go home? Well, obviously because it has no explanatory or predictive power along with presupposing things which have not been verified, and thus is a complete waste of time.
Oh, and slight side note: if you’re implying that god did it, then how is this coherent with the god you described previously, if the beginning of life on earth is an event anchored in both time and space inside our universe, and god is outside of our universe?
Well then, what is the mind, and how can we observe it? And how does the idea that the mind is not the brain gel with the vast degree to which we can observe how brain injury affects the personalities and thought processes of those around us? Here you go again, using complex, multifaceted terms and NOT DEFINING THEM.