From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: Astyanax

and what was i talking about

Evolution doesn't support what you said.

a reply to: Astyanax

You can believe something sensible instead, like the theory of evolution.

hahahaha,sensible,
Welcome to the church of Astyanax

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Sadly.....

One fact people seem to be omitting while wailing about the bleakness of an atheistic point of view, is, as far as I'm concerned - atheists are the only ones genuinely concerned with the here and now and life itself.

It's the religious believers in the greatness and wonderfulness of the afterlife who scare the sh*t out of me.

It's those that can't wait until they are with their maker, and can praise his or her name for ever and ever. Or those who have 72 virgins awaiting them when they die.

THESE are the people who bring contempt to mankind. Those who value "what may be" after your physical body ends.

Me - I don't know what happens. As I have said I would love to think there is something more, however, the reality of life and what the current evidence suggests is that there is nothing else. So damnit, I'm going to LOVE this life and what it offers, look forward to advancing mankind in the here and now and reject the 'faiths' of those who only yearn for 'heaven and bliss' after this wretched existence is over.

..just my opinion of course...I have no evidence either way and don't presume to know.

a reply to: eldemie

Yea sadly . When science meets the supernatural then you see the status quo either shriek that they might have to share some of the money's our Govt's . collect from us to pay scientist to look into things . A good example is this vid that was banned . Its the story behind the story that should raise our eyebrows . When heads of science act politically to keep it simple and control the moneys . Imagine someone speaking to truth being told to shut up by the science community .

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Based on 15th century thinking you probaly play god everytime you get in a car or take a flu shot.

Based on 15th century thinking? IDK
The Bible may seem archaic, but the wisdom is timeless.

Why would that be a concern - dont forget the creator/s of this existence were people of science - just a science that we havent acheived as yet.

And I don't Think anything that is a part of this existence. could be responsible for creating existence.
The Creator of this existence would be able to transend this existence.
It would take a God. not people.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It (massive) was a play on words neighbor. Clearly it whooshed right past you Clearly there was no attraction to this, as you did not have the mass

People love to say what science "should" be looking into, yet very few of them actually know what science IS and never what it DOES. As a scientist, I spend many days with people telling me "I should discover a cure for XYZ (insert a condition)". They don't get what that involves. Let alone how drugs are developed. That is just my little corner as a Process Development Chemist. So when as a whole Scientists are challenged to "talk about" or "prove"/Disprove something that is not science, its like asking a poet to perfom open heart surgery, in the form of a haiku.

a reply to: Astyanax

You are 100% correct with what "faith" means here in ATS. Very few will acknowledge my right to use the term. Fewer still will understand my admission of having one, is actually a sign I am not a "foe" to their faith. But rather I have a foot in two worlds (science and faith) and might be able to talk to them, and these evil "atheists" (they mean people who are of the opinion evolution and various biogeneses are likely, as is a Universe just happening) on equal footing.

Thus far these "atheists" are the only ones willing to engage.

Back to the OP, I kind of love how these "people of faith" assume that nothing from nothing is any different from "and God created it"

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: SLAYER69

How do we measure it? Its that simple. If you can not measure it, it can't be part of science.

That is a weird way of thinking. Name one thing in science that could be measured before it was figured out it was there and then developed a scale to measure it.

The ability to measure something comes after the realization that there is something that needs to be measured.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SLAYER69

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

We are, for lack of a better term, "energy". To extrapolate beyond that is way above my pay grade.

Ah but that is based on our kindergarten level of understanding of the universe. If the knowledge of the universe was the book War and Peace, I would be greatly surprised if we have got past the first chapter yet.

a reply to: chr0naut


Very good post.

I think we are at the same point as us giving a monkey a computer. We can punch the keys and see the pretty lights, but still have no idea that there is a CPU in the shiny box.

a reply to: dismanrc

Agreed. Again, way above my pay grade. But I do try to understand the un-understandable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SLAYER69

This is why I consider suicide an even FAR greater sin among atheists than Christians. At least Christians still live on to be punished for it in hell. If you are believer of atheism then you believe this is the only chance you'll get, thus you should make it want to count. Ending it early isn't "making it count."

Doesn't count anyway. It's very possible that we could all become someone's fossil-fuel someday. As the late George Carlin once said maybe the Earth cultivated the human race to give it plastic. Earth plus plastic and a side dish of human based fossil fuel. We as a species have only been around for half a millennia so I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. One last note I want to drop here is that we wouldn't have to worry half so much about an afterlife if we could just get our crap together and bring Heaven here to Earth.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: leolady

Several humans, over a long period of time. Science is a philosophy which works.

Look I am not saying there are no deities (read my first post, I am spiritual. I'm a pre-Christian Gaelic Polytheist). What I am saying is that Science should keep out of theology and theology out of science. Just as I'd not want a poet to do my dental work.

But if science is a philosophy which works, then science was created by a philosopher. And you stated that a philosopher is not a scientist earlier. so where does that leave us?

Maybe it takes a little bit of both to work?

Who was it that said the any highly advanced science would look like magic a lower species?

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: leolady

Several humans, over a long period of time. Science is a philosophy which works.

Look I am not saying there are no deities (read my first post, I am spiritual. I'm a pre-Christian Gaelic Polytheist). What I am saying is that Science should keep out of theology and theology out of science. Just as I'd not want a poet to do my dental work.

But if science is a philosophy which works, then science was created by a philosopher. And you stated that a philosopher is not a scientist earlier. so where does that leave us?

Maybe it takes a little bit of both to work?

Science answers questions of can it happen and how does it happen. Philosophy answers questions of should it happened or why does it happen.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
You are making the assumption that science has the capability of explaining everything.

The first issue that I see is that science is reductionist. There are complexities that reductionism cannot ever explain.

This is also an assumption. You don't know this for a fact either.

The second issue is that science by definition must be able to be falsified or disproven. If there are no alternate cases, against which to test the science, then the science cannot be considered to be either provable or disprovable and therefore falsification is a requirement of testability. Without testability, it is pseudoscience. This limits science to only those things which may be tested.

So science at best is a subset of, and cannot encompass, all knowledge.

More assumptions.

You can't just tell me that I'm wrong because I'm making assumptions then counter what I'm saying with a bunch of assumptions of your own.

Yes, indeed, all is assumption, but a study of philosophy or ontological logic supports those assumptions, despite the fact that we cannot apply scientific method to those fields of knowledge. So there you have a prima facie case of knowledge that remains outside of the remit of science, in two separate areas, which was exactly my argument.

There's knowledge that science cannot penetrate (unless you redefine science to include pseudoscience).

But atheism is surely based upon assumptions, too, with less evidence (the absence of evidence is the primary atheist argument) and therefore weaker 'scientific' support.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
You are making the assumption that science has the capability of explaining everything.

The first issue that I see is that science is reductionist. There are complexities that reductionism cannot ever explain.

This is also an assumption. You don't know this for a fact either.

The second issue is that science by definition must be able to be falsified or disproven. If there are no alternate cases, against which to test the science, then the science cannot be considered to be either provable or disprovable and therefore falsification is a requirement of testability. Without testability, it is pseudoscience. This limits science to only those things which may be tested.

So science at best is a subset of, and cannot encompass, all knowledge.

More assumptions.

You can't just tell me that I'm wrong because I'm making assumptions then counter what I'm saying with a bunch of assumptions of your own.

Yes, indeed, all is assumption, but a study of philosophy or ontological logic supports those assumptions, despite the fact that we cannot apply scientific method to those fields of knowledge. So there you have a prima facie case of knowledge that remains outside of the remit of science, in two separate areas, which was exactly my argument.

There's knowledge that science cannot penetrate (unless you redefine science to include pseudoscience).

But atheism is surely based upon assumptions, too, with less evidence (the absence of evidence is the primary atheist argument) and therefore weaker 'scientific' support.

Share with us one fact that cannot be verified via the scientific method.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Totally fine with it, Slayer. And we're not that special with regards to existence, if people are willing to consider animals & also that we're just King right now, not Only. At some point before we existed, something else dominated Earth.

Going with the lottery angle, the animals won, too. Which is fine & dandy, but there's no need for supernatural fluffing of it. If/when life of similar magnitude is found on another celestial rock, be it within this system or within another, they too have won a randomness lottery of sorts. It doesn't mean religious Earthlings are right, though. They may have a completely different explanation for existence that makes us look completely retarded as a whole.

Eh, maybe they already know as much about us. Wouldn't be too surprised if at some point a group came to catalogue & study Earth, saw us and thought "Holy s#, this species is fekking retarded as hell. They really believe this magic omnipotence trash. Way too stupid to be worth more than just observing for now."

a reply to: dismanrc

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. Also the philosophy of science is not the idea of a single person, but rather a group effort, with continuous improvement.