From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
The top 3 popsci atheists I would say are Hitchins,Krauss and Dawkins.
All of them have entered religious debates so they cannot (and haven't) say that there are no arguments.

What they say is that they are unconvincing.

Bingo. The arguments (ontological or otherwise) can never be linked to objective evidence. Nobody is denying that the arguments exist. People are saying they don't prove anything objectively and that they rely on numerous assumptions. The arguments themselves aren't enough to prove anything. People can make arguments for almost anything including flat earth, fake gravity and space being water. It would be ridiculous to proclaim that since the arguments have been made, that they hold weight or become an equal part of knowledge as science and verifiable objective evidence. They don't.

There are six empirical arguments for the existence of God according to Wikipedia. An empirical argument is one that relies upon measurables - accumulated evidence - some of it objective.

Atheist arguments are fewer and less evidenced.

... and don't go back to the usual circular argument that 'science is evidential for the atheist case'. It isn't, for all the reasons previously addressed.

The atheist case is based upon a vacuum of evidence. A single piece of oppositional evidence demolishes a theory. As Popper put it, "evidence of a single black swan disproves the theory that 'all swans are white". Even if the evidence could be considered weak, it is stronger than a theory based upon no evidence at all.

Not that I consider this evidential in any way but consider putting the words "proof" and "God" into the search field on the Amazon website. There are lots of results (actually over 115,000), the majority of which purport to prove the existence of God through various methodologies such as mathematics, physics, reason or philosophy. This does not indicate the evidential strength of these arguments in any way but it does indicate the likelihood that there are such valid arguments. If any one of them has any weight, atheism is disproven.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

We have purported pictures and video of Bigfoot (even if its fake), Jehovah? He's camera Shy.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut
Neither arguments are convincing, either for or against God.

It's no different to the arguments for/against Bigfoot.

I totally agree.

but at some point, you have to take it on faith (for either philosophy).

Sitting on the fence is intellectually nihilistic, IMHO.

originally posted by: chr0naut
If any one of them has any weight, atheism is disproven.

I totally agree with that! And that's the point, none of them have any weight.

The first person to absolutely prove god will be a billionaire within a week.
If it's proven you will hear about it.

originally posted by: chr0naut
There are six empirical arguments for the existence of God according to Wikipedia. An empirical argument is one that relies upon measurables - accumulated evidence - some of it objective.

Yes, and there is a huge difference between drawing conclusions directly from the testable research and referencing some facts or research and drawing your own conclusion. You have to be very careful not to fall into that logic trap.

In normal conditions, 212 degrees F is the boiling point of water. Therefor, if you leave 1 gallon of water on a stove set at 212 degrees or higher, it will boil until all of the water is eventually converted into gas.

The premise is verified and testable, there are no assumptions, the logic is valid, and there is a tangible connection between premise and conclusion. I have not seen any arguments for god like that. They seem to mostly rely on defining god by their assumed properties limited to human knowledge or imagination and then build everything on top of those assumptions. Even the so called empirical arguments rely heavily on defining things that can't really be defined.

Atheist arguments are fewer and less evidenced.

... and don't go back to the usual circular argument that 'science is evidential for the atheist case'. It isn't, for all the reasons previously addressed.

I honestly do not see many atheists arguing that science is on their side. Atheism is the logical default due to the lack of evidence of god. So atheism is a logical position, but not a scientific one.

A single piece of oppositional evidence demolishes a theory. As Popper put it, "evidence of a single black swan disproves the theory that 'all swans are white". Even if the evidence could be considered weak, it is stronger than a theory based upon no evidence at all.

Unfortunately, I have never seen a single piece of opposing evidence. Maybe we will in the future. Maybe we won't.

Not that I consider this evidential in any way but consider putting the words "proof" and "God" into the search field on the Amazon website. There are lots of results (actually over 115,000), the majority of which purport to prove the existence of God through various methodologies such as mathematics, physics, reason or philosophy. This does not indicate the evidential strength of these arguments in any way but it does indicate the likelihood that there are such valid arguments. If any one of them has any weight, atheism is disproven.

There is a big difference between claiming to have proof, and actually proving something. Tons of people claiming they have proven god doesn't increase the likelihood of being correct. Hell, just search youtube for the word proof along with dozens of other ridiculous concepts and you will get hits. Humans are very imaginative.

And come on! Your results are skewed. 100,000? First, you returned the results of all departments which includes items like a beer pong "god loves beer" table. Second you didn't even use quotes, so it returned all results that contained the word proof and the word god somewhere in the description, regardless of the context. If you search properly, and look in the books section you will be returned approximately 300 results. Like you said, it bears no weight whatsoever on on the validity of atheism or god.

The majority of people in the world are theists, so it kind of makes sense that more people would have written books about claiming to prove god than to prove atheism. It could also be that atheists don't try to argue that their position is proven. They just deny your explanation with the absence of evidence.

a reply to: chr0naut

The problem with this argument, is that it infers that atheists are a subset of scientists. OR that only atheists do science. While you've not obliquely stated this, it is inferential.

This is easily proven to not by the case, there are many theistic scientists. This has been proven here in ATS (we've had besides myself, a Jew, several Christians, a Buddhist, and a Hindu post in these sorts of threads) and in History (Isaac Newton anyone? Many many more than him as well).

Science is not concerned with the presence or absence of Deities, be that singular, or be that multiple.

Science is: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Deities are not observable, physical entities, and are super natural. QED, science can not, and does not have a part in proving and/or disproving them.

The realm of intellectual endevours to go to would be theology, religious studies, and philosophy. If you draw a ven diagram, you will find that science does not overlap with all of those, it overlaps with philosophy, but on the side opposite to the side with theology and religious studies.

So, are you too lazy to quote the actual citations in that WIkipedia entry for your argument, or the books from Amazon? Because generally Wikipedia is not considered a legitimate reference, and the number of books written on a subject do not mean it is any more credible than one with one book written on it. Again the quality of the writing is important.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
There are six empirical arguments for the existence of God according to Wikipedia. An empirical argument is one that relies upon measurables - accumulated evidence - some of it objective.

Yes, and there is a huge difference between drawing conclusions directly from the testable research and referencing some facts or research and drawing your own conclusion. You have to be very careful not to fall into that logic trap.

In normal conditions, 212 degrees F is the boiling point of water. Therefor, if you leave 1 gallon of water on a stove set at 212 degrees or higher, it will boil until all of the water is eventually converted into gas.

That is not universally true. it only works is the pressure if the water is at 14.7 pounds/square inch. Lower the pressure and it boils at a lower temp. Higher pressures = higher boiling point/s (i'm just being pedantic, though).

The premise is verified and testable, there are no assumptions, the logic is valid, and there is a tangible connection between premise and conclusion. I have not seen any arguments for god like that. They seem to mostly rely on defining god by their assumed properties limited to human knowledge or imagination and then build everything on top of those assumptions. Even the so called empirical arguments rely heavily on defining things that can't really be defined.

Atheist arguments are fewer and less evidenced.

... and don't go back to the usual circular argument that 'science is evidential for the atheist case'. It isn't, for all the reasons previously addressed.

I honestly do not see many atheists arguing that science is on their side.

[sarcasm] Honestly, an atheist suggesting that science was on their side? Unpossible! [/sarcasm]

Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens, probably the most major proponents of atheism in this century, have ALL used this argument. For instance, In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes that "scientific theories are superior to a God hypothesis". Victor Stenger wrote books such as God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist and The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason. Daniel Dennet co-authored the book Science and Religion where he directly suggests that atheism is valid and theism isn't, on the basis of science. Sam Harris is famous for his assertion that science should supplant religion in the moral arena and that religion should be abolished, in books such as The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion. Hitchens has stated his belief, several times, that belief in a 'heaven' is the basis of all conflicts and that "there is no scientific evidence for heaven".

Atheism is the logical default due to the lack of evidence of god. So atheism is a logical position, but not a scientific one.

A single piece of oppositional evidence demolishes a theory. As Popper put it, "evidence of a single black swan disproves the theory that 'all swans are white". Even if the evidence could be considered weak, it is stronger than a theory based upon no evidence at all.

Unfortunately, I have never seen a single piece of opposing evidence. Maybe we will in the future. Maybe we won't.

Not that I consider this evidential in any way but consider putting the words "proof" and "God" into the search field on the Amazon website. There are lots of results (actually over 115,000), the majority of which purport to prove the existence of God through various methodologies such as mathematics, physics, reason or philosophy. This does not indicate the evidential strength of these arguments in any way but it does indicate the likelihood that there are such valid arguments. If any one of them has any weight, atheism is disproven.

There is a big difference between claiming to have proof, and actually proving something. Tons of people claiming they have proven god doesn't increase the likelihood of being correct. Hell, just search youtube for the word proof along with dozens of other ridiculous concepts and you will get hits. Humans are very imaginative.

And come on! Your results are skewed. 100,000? First, you returned the results of all departments which includes items like a beer pong "god loves beer" table. Second you didn't even use quotes, so it returned all results that contained the word proof and the word god somewhere in the description, regardless of the context. If you search properly, and look in the books section you will be returned approximately 300 results. Like you said, it bears no weight whatsoever on on the validity of atheism or god.

The majority of people in the world are theists, so it kind of makes sense that more people would have written books about claiming to prove god than to prove atheism. It could also be that atheists don't try to argue that their position is proven. They just deny your explanation with the absence of evidence.

edit on 12/9/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Barcs
I honestly do not see many atheists arguing that science is on their side. Atheism is the logical default due to the lack of evidence of god. So atheism is a logical position, but not a scientific one.

Hey Barcs, hope all is well

Shouldn't agnosticism be the more logical default?

Isn't atheism a belief as well? (i.e. a belief in the non existence of a deity of any kind)

a reply to: PhotonEffect

No true atheism means it doesn't matter of there is a god or not; life and reality still occurs. If you can reach down and touch the dirt it's there real and tangible and you use it in the very many real and tangible ways you can use it... not get lost in a day dream wondering why it is there that is of no use in that moment unless creating works of fiction or forming a hypothesis which would also be moot to putting that soil to actual scientific use, and instead become philosophy not science.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Barcs
I honestly do not see many atheists arguing that science is on their side. Atheism is the logical default due to the lack of evidence of god. So atheism is a logical position, but not a scientific one.

Hey Barcs, hope all is well

Shouldn't agnosticism be the more logical default?

Isn't atheism a belief as well? (i.e. a belief in the non existence of a deity of any kind)

One might also posit that igtheism is an option, too.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: PhotonEffect

No true atheism means it doesn't matter of there is a god or not; life and reality still occurs. If you can reach down and touch the dirt it's there real and tangible and you use it in the very many real and tangible ways you can use it... not get lost in a day dream wondering why it is there that is of no use in that moment unless creating works of fiction or forming a hypothesis which would also be moot to putting that soil to actual scientific use, and instead become philosophy not science.

Unless the sensation of the dirt was an induced dream and you are really just a head in a jar.

However, there may be consequence of one choice but not the other.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

The problem with this argument, is that it infers that atheists are a subset of scientists. OR that only atheists do science. While you've not obliquely stated this, it is inferential.

This is easily proven to not by the case, there are many theistic scientists. This has been proven here in ATS (we've had besides myself, a Jew, several Christians, a Buddhist, and a Hindu post in these sorts of threads) and in History (Isaac Newton anyone? Many many more than him as well).

Science is not concerned with the presence or absence of Deities, be that singular, or be that multiple.

Science is: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Deities are not observable, physical entities, and are super natural. QED, science can not, and does not have a part in proving and/or disproving them.

The realm of intellectual endevours to go to would be theology, religious studies, and philosophy. If you draw a ven diagram, you will find that science does not overlap with all of those, it overlaps with philosophy, but on the side opposite to the side with theology and religious studies.

So, are you too lazy to quote the actual citations in that WIkipedia entry for your argument, or the books from Amazon? Because generally Wikipedia is not considered a legitimate reference, and the number of books written on a subject do not mean it is any more credible than one with one book written on it. Again the quality of the writing is important.

While this is quite true, I must confess that I am too lazy to reference each and every book on the topic on Amazon. You are probably too lazy to read such a boring list.

And you could simply ignore it out of hand anyway. (like those who suggest that all atheists admit there is evidence of God's existence but that it is particularly weak, and then they conclude by saying that the atheists case is that there is no evidence for the existence of God).

a reply to: chr0naut

Perfect example of what I was pointing at...

You used creativity for a "what if scenario" ok so what if it was like you say? You would still experience what seems or appears to be tangible dirt so dream with a dream within a jar or get to that work instead of dreaming about it? Because real or dream it is there... blowing bubble after bubble of belief will accomplish many works of fiction for people to spend their money and time on so it isn't pointless as a reality unless turning it into a religion and trying to say it is.

a reply to: chr0naut

You would be wrong, I clicked the links, however I'm not making the argument based on dodgy citations (or styles of citations) so the onus is not on me to do anything but comment on that being sloppy.

As for the rest. There is no evidence for God, Gods, or the lack there of, there is only belief, and that is a different type of knowledge, and belief can not be interrogated, unlike observable evidence.

a reply to: Noinden

Even then what is observable must be agreed on in a conspiracy by more than one person as existent... as that is not validation but simply agreement that there is a phenomena to exist; and that labeling it dirt so everyone can be in on the conspiracy as a reality of course change the language and the label ceases to exist in the same form called dirt, even in ones own language; it can become soil, ground, sand etc. so the conspiracy of that reality must also cross borders or even barriers of language to be fully comprehended as an existing reality and not simply a conspiracy.

There is another way of course to experience reality; cease the labeling or subjecting everything in the mind to ones observation of those labels... such a thing is called mental quiescence. The experience of such makes "I think therefore; I am" fall utterly apart, unless one is using it to substantiate an ego which only exists in thought itself, except when carried out in some action from some intent that can be of wide benefit or of wide detriment in the carbon footprint or on others that take one's thought or form as a self instead of the entire conglomerate that makes it up, energy included.

So matter and energy in a constant state of flux natural and artificial... the ideas whether it is created or destroyed become moot in in discussion.

If we plug the ears that does not cease sound occurring in the world, if we die and shed our container that does not mean life ceases in the world.

Consciousness can take place in all 5 senses and not be conscious of it occurring in any of them; the experience is termed the void of being... thought does not have to occur as the body and other senses can perform any task it has previously encountered and learned. This is actually the goal of meditation, it isn't to unlearn but to cease thinking about what is already known unless more learning is required, or to communicate a relative experience to another observer as a subject... hopefully neither become subjected to the subject itself and can continue on in observation as pure awareness.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Mmm word salad.

This is a mighty fine statement. But it is all unverifiable personal gnosis. It can't be proven, it is personal. More power too you for this, but I've limited my own UPG (or shared gnoses for that mater). WE are talking belief vs verifiable facts here, and in the end, teh belief can't be proven or disproven, adn as such can be discounted.

a reply to: Noinden

Yes, relative to the observer just like everything else without a conspirator to validate it as being real or existent outside of one's own prognosis or perceiving awareness or sense doors. Inflow becomes outflow, ceasing the outflow does not stop inflow, ceasing inflow; the experience of void mentioned above as it is just a sensing of unity or all pervasiveness indistinct or separate from anything else in the entire universe. The oneness that gets repeated over and over in every single religious language with a dogmatic expression unique to that language but not unique in experience as the experience itself does not change just the description of it.

Sadly no one can hand anyone this as an experience... not even 5 Billion books on the topic despite all the trying... now whether that is a good thing or not? Relative to the individual.

originally posted by: chr0naut
That is not universally true. it only works is the pressure if the water is at 14.7 pounds/square inch. Lower the pressure and it boils at a lower temp. Higher pressures = higher boiling point/s (i'm just being pedantic, though).

Yes, I knew somebody was going to bring up some silly technicality like that which is why I put "Under normal conditions" at the beginning. Philosophy guys love to nitpick things like that, while at the same time relying on vague terminology and interpretation of assumptions to make their arguments. I could have made that point 2 paragraphs long to account for every possible exception, but don't see a need for it in the context. The point was about arguments for god and how they DO NOT use empirical data to form their conclusions. Any response to my actual point? Do you have an empirical argument you'd like to present for god that doesn't rely on defining things that can't really be defined or assumptions?

Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens, probably the most major proponents of atheism in this century, have ALL used this argument. For instance, In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes that "scientific theories are superior to a God hypothesis". Victor Stenger wrote books such as God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist and The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason. Daniel Dennet co-authored the book Science and Religion where he directly suggests that atheism is valid and theism isn't, on the basis of science. Sam Harris is famous for his assertion that science should supplant religion in the moral arena and that religion should be abolished, in books such as The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion. Hitchens has stated his belief, several times, that belief in a 'heaven' is the basis of all conflicts and that "there is no scientific evidence for heaven".

You have to understand that many of those books are written in response to the numerous creationist attacks on science (mostly evolution). This is why folks defend science and bring it up in these arguments. Yes, scientific theories are FAR superior to a god hypothesis (god is not even a hypothesis, as it's not testable). That's a basic fact, but that does not mean that science disproves god or proves atheism. You really have to give me their arguments in context to make the case that they are claiming atheism itself is backed by science. It's different to say that science holds more weight than guesswork, than to say it proves god doesn't exist.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Shouldn't agnosticism be the more logical default?

Agnosticism in it's purest form can claim that we don't know and can't know(some even say we will never know). It's not a default position, it is refusal to take a position. The logical default of anything without evidence is non existence. That's kind of like saying that it would be a logical position to be agnostic toward flying crocodiles.

It's difficult to really define because most atheists & agnostics out there are actually agnostic atheists, meaning they reject other people's versions of god, but they are still open to the possibility of god being discovered one day. Extreme atheists (believe there is absolutely no god) exist, sure, and extreme agnostics (we will never know the answer) exist. They just don't accurately portray what most folks actually believe. I can't remember who said the quote but, the only difference between an atheist and a theist is that the atheist rejects one more god than the theist (or a few in cases of polytheism).

Isn't atheism a belief as well? (i.e. a belief in the non existence of a deity of any kind)

It is, in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby. It's more like a rejection of a belief, but there are extreme atheists out there, so it definitely can be a belief.