It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I don't buy that. I feel like if something can be analyzed, natural or otherwise, science will attempt to understand it
Look, science operates under the assumption that there isn't anything except the natural world (methodological naturalism). It will not accept any explanation that isn't a natural one. EVER Full Stop. Science is a wonderful way of exploring the natural world, it's a horrible tool for exploring even the possibility of a supernatural realm within the universe and it is so by design.
Whether you realize it or not, you're claiming science can do something that science says it can't do and doesn't even want to talk about.
originally posted by: chr0naut
The existence of natural processes is not a disproof of supernatural ones in the same way that the existence of articulated lorries does not disprove the existence of motorbikes.
Naturalism is not the belief that there are natural processes.
No matter how many natural processes are in your first bucket, it doesn't prove naturalism until there are no further proofs possible.
Naturalism is the belief, exclusively, that there are ONLY natural processes.
Science cannot produce natural reason for some things (there is all sorts of quantum weirdness that is measurable but defies even mathematical explanation as to why the outcomes are the way they are). So science, while it makes naturalistic assumptions (that there are reasonable and natural processes behind its measurements), is not naturalism.
Naturalism as a guiding philosophy, goes way beyond science. It says things that are are unsupported by science, because true science is limited in scope and will always remain so.
Science (defined in mathematical terms) tells us that because naturalism is an axiomatic system, it can never be internally consistent - the OP is one particular expression of that.
I'm not really saying that the bucket example or science proves naturalism. I'm just saying that it is the most likely answer at this point in time given the evidence we've uncovered and quantified.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
Theistic scientists believe in things without evidence. Science doesn't prevent you from doing that, but if a scientist believes in theism outside of science then they also understand that those beliefs aren't supported by science either. Or they should at least.
Also, just because theism drove science in the past is not a valid indicator that it is true over all.
Theistic scientists believe in things without evidence. Science doesn't prevent you from doing that, but if a scientist believes in theism outside of science then they also understand that those beliefs aren't supported by science either. Or they should at least.
You seem incapable of realizing that you can have a priori knowledge of God
More like I just don't recognize that as a "thing" that I can be capable of realizing.
I've played the religion game and I never felt any connection to a god.
So what you THINK you know doesn't mean that I know it or agree with it. I just see what you are doing here as a game to wiggle out of trying to produce the evidence of your claims of godhood.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The very fact that you call it the religion game lets me know you never understood what it was about. It not a set of rituals you are supposed to follow but claims about reality.
I am sorry that is your perception of what I am doing, but it is incorrect. This is not a word game it is expressing a series of ideas, ideas which so far you have been completely unable to grasp.
Yeah claims that didn't hold up. I used to spend time wondering how all this magical stuff happened back then but when in the past it suddenly stopped happening because it didn't align with reality of my current life.
No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes(i.e. causes without insight into logical relations)
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut
Most atheists are really agnostic atheists though. They'll readily admit to a god if you present the evidence for one. They are just erring on the side of no god for now because there isn't any evidence of one. It's simple logic.
Theism makes the claim of god. Theism needs to produce the evidence of the god. You can't just do it by refuting naturalism with a logical argument.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
You seem incapable of realizing that you can have a priori knowledge of God
More like I just don't recognize that as a "thing" that I can be capable of realizing.
I've played the religion game and I never felt any connection to a god. Church was just a boring 1 hour sitting on an uncomfortable bench were I spent most of it daydreaming about being an X-men. So what you THINK you know doesn't mean that I know it or agree with it. I just see what you are doing here as a game to wiggle out of trying to produce the evidence of your claims of godhood.
originally posted by: chr0naut
I honestly think that, while many atheists cite that they will admit to a god if evidence is presented, very few actually would. They would do as has always been done and dispute the interpretation of the evidence.
In the specific context of this thread, there are many evidences of the supernatural but in all cases, these evidences are contested by those with a naturalistic belief. The issue is not one of evidence, but of acceptance of evidence.
For example: according to naturalism, everything that exists must have a natural cause. Due to the finiteness of all natural things, there must have been a time before anything existed. This state of 'the absence of anything' leaves no first cause from which everything could spring, so there must have been an 'uncaused first cause', which naturalism says that there cannot be. Yet everything exists. So there is overwhelming evidence for a supernatural origin of the natural universe. The form, logic and rationality of the mechanisms of the universe as observed indicates a highly systematic and creative principle behind that first cause. The only natural analogue we have of such a creative and systematic source is intelligence. The scale, integration and complexity observed indicates a super-intelligence. The physical mechanics of such a creation implies not only tremendous power but also tremendous finesse. Similarly, if you explore further down this track there is evidence of the necessity for the atemporality and non-locality of this creator. So the theist standpoint is neither irrational or unevidenced, as is often suggested (I have limited this to objective evidence but that does not imply that subjective evidences are not apparent as well).
In the light of what the universe presents to us, "erring on the side of no god", especially on the presumption of an absence of evidence, is still error.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: chr0naut
I honestly think that, while many atheists cite that they will admit to a god if evidence is presented, very few actually would. They would do as has always been done and dispute the interpretation of the evidence.
I certainly cannot argue for everyone and some people DO engrain their biases to a very stubborn degree, but if the evidence remains irrefutable to all attempts to explain it naturally, eventually they'll come around.
But our universe could just be a product of natural forces occurring on a greater than universal scale. The reason we can't see the beginning is because one cannot study things outside his own universe since everything within is supposedly self-contained.
In the specific context of this thread, there are many evidences of the supernatural but in all cases, these evidences are contested by those with a naturalistic belief. The issue is not one of evidence, but of acceptance of evidence.
For example: according to naturalism, everything that exists must have a natural cause. Due to the finiteness of all natural things, there must have been a time before anything existed. This state of 'the absence of anything' leaves no first cause from which everything could spring, so there must have been an 'uncaused first cause', which naturalism says that there cannot be. Yet everything exists. So there is overwhelming evidence for a supernatural origin of the natural universe. The form, logic and rationality of the mechanisms of the universe as observed indicates a highly systematic and creative principle behind that first cause. The only natural analogue we have of such a creative and systematic source is intelligence. The scale, integration and complexity observed indicates a super-intelligence. The physical mechanics of such a creation implies not only tremendous power but also tremendous finesse. Similarly, if you explore further down this track there is evidence of the necessity for the atemporality and non-locality of this creator. So the theist standpoint is neither irrational or unevidenced, as is often suggested (I have limited this to objective evidence but that does not imply that subjective evidences are not apparent as well).
In the light of what the universe presents to us, "erring on the side of no god", especially on the presumption of an absence of evidence, is still error.
When we talk about the scales that the universe works on, the law of large numbers comes into play considerably. It isn't right to say that the odds of something occurring are impossibly low. I don't buy the irreducible complexity argument. Because when I look at the universe I see how things start out simple and move to increasing complexity as time goes on. Sure there is entropy working against this all the time, but the universe' source of energy is rather plentiful at the moment. So entropy is easily countered.
What I see throughout the universe is the computer scientist pattern of recursion. Take the previous generation, manipulate it and produce a new generation that is dissimilar from the first but still clearly takes after its parents. So many natural processes follow this pattern. We call it evolution in biology, but chemical processes behave this way. Heck this can even be seen with the grouping of mass from atoms to molecules to structures, etc.
Run any computer simulation on a recursive pattern and you will see how quickly the complexity of what you are looking at increases with each iteration. Recursive formulas are some of the quickest loops you can program to run a computer out of memory (if you don't close it properly).
This is all because these processes are additive processes. Instead of taking a larger object and whittling it down to a human, the human grows into its shape cell by cell. Humans didn't walk out of the oceans fully formed, it took a process of slowly building up the intricate systems that make humans human over millions of years to get where we are today. First hydrogen had to be created then larger atoms are created which create structures other than stars. These structures lead to newer structures. This pattern is EVERYWHERE in our universe.
In mathematics you see it with the Fibonacci Sequence. 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13
originally posted by: chr0naut
Snip
We have no hard evidenced data, that we even have the foggiest notion of anything that may have proceeded the 'scientific' age. We look at the CMB & Hubble constant and then act like the Big Bang is the only thing that might explain it. Then we have to fudge the figures with a superluminal inflation which somehow stopped. It's all unphysical, mythologic, BS with no more validity than the universe being a flat disk carried on the backs of four elephants riding on the back of a great turtle.
Recursion, program, pattern, sequence and life all require a certain level of complexity prior to them being able to display emergent properties and greater complexity. Yet we know the big bang singularity was the ultimate in entropy.
To not ask the questions 'because the pretty pictures' isn't science, it is distraction.
Somehow, we are in a very complex and inter-relational universe. A creative intelligence is as good as any other explanation and better than most. Perhaps that is why it endures. But then if you accept a creative intelligence, you have to also consider motive and motivation, being as important as physical process. If motivation is important, there is likely to be a reason for our existence, which opens up many "cans of worms", like what then is our duty to that creator?