Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by ixiy
A logical, rational person, atheist or otherwise, should realize that having an ethical and moral code in any society usually allows for a better, stable, peaceful and safer place to stay as a community (even if certain codes are questionable by others) compared to one without it which has a higher chance of turning into an Anarchy and Chaos.

It's logical for a society or group of humans to have a moral code or common cause in the interests of bonding and preventing fragmentation of the society. That helps group survival.
It is less relevant in societies these days, due to their broader and more disparate nature.

It is totally illogical for someone to live their own personal life according to an arbitrary ethical code. If there is no arbitor of right and wrong, then morality is irrelevant.

Setting a moral code for yourself is an unneccessary and irrational millstone to hang around your neck.

You've contradicted yourself in your own argument.

It is for the very reasons that you stated above, that it's logical to follow a general code of ethics, derived from a consensus of society, as a means to foster survival. So why then would anyone in that same society NEED a master arbiter to also tell them to follow that ethic code? If they want to be part of the society, and agree that living by that moral code is beneficial to their survival and that of the overall society, then doing so is not unnecessary (to them), and it is then not a burden or millstone around their neck (unless they like flour and want to grind wheat all day as part of the ethical code).

Case and point: If I decide personally to not beat my wife and daughter to a pulp when I'm feeling angry about the world or if they do something to upset me, not even because society might frown upon this, but because I value the benefits that I enjoy in being part of this family, then it's _completely_ logical that I self-impose a code of ethics to not beat them. I don't need a god or society to tell me or convince me of this, I have my own internal justification for following such. It just so happens that a lot of basic ethics are rooted in common sense, and so it's not hard to justify following them, if you are of sound mind. If you grew up in the wild and were raised by other wild human animals, I'd venture that you would have fewer "morals" than most in a modern society.

I see the trap argument you're trying to make, repeatedly, but it doesn't hold up. Perhaps if you frame it differently, or just come out and explain what conclusion you're trying to get others to see by way of your argument, we might all benefit from it.

-Greyling

Originally posted by grahag
Explain to me how God exists when I see so much to say he doesn't.

Children being raped and killed by their parents.

Cancer.

Wars in the name of religion.

None of those things have any relevance to whether God exists or not. You are creating your own concept of God and then disbelieving in your self-created concept using personal opinion.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

I'm wondering why they claim rationality for their absence of belief in God, yet actively embrace something as illogical as morality.

Maybe this will help us understand what you're getting at...

Why is morality illogical? Please frame 3 answers in the context of: a human animal living alone without society, one living in a primitive hunter-gatherer society, and one living in a modern society today.

-Greyling

Originally posted by Greyling2012
First of all, if one makes a decision to follow any given behavioral construct, and that decision is informed by past personal experience or intuition, it really wouldn't be considered a "burden" to that person.

From what I've seen, most people's moral behaviour is not based on intuition, but on their own moral philosophy that they've chosen. That is why I call it a burden or hindrance, because their behaviour from an objective level is irrational.

For example, if you found a wallet with plenty of money in it, then I'd like to think that most people would hand it in so as the rightful owner may be reunited with it. I would personally consider that the moral thing to do; yet, it would also be the illogical thing to do.
If you pocketed the money yourself, nobody would find out; the person who owned the wallet wouldn't know you'd taken the money, so you wouldn't need to worry about any negative repercussions that he may cause; pocketing the money would also have no relevance on the outcome of a similar future situation, where the same thing may happen to you.

Originally posted by Greyling2012And by intuition, I really mean an inherent instinctual survival mechanism that most mammals (and anything else with half a brain - pun) employ, naturally. It's hard to explain this objectively since I'm a part of society myself, but I think I would know instinctually to not kill another human (or another animal more cunning or dangerous than I), lest I face the same from another, unless they were holding the last piece of nutrition on the planet and I had everything to lose.

I'm not so sure I personally agree with that. When you see things such as the holocaust, Rwanda, Yugoslavia etc. you see just how many people are capable of slaughtering another human being when they know they can get away with it.
There are other societies in the past that had a very laissez-faire attitude to killing, with things such as human sacrifices.

I mean, I would think that the way that I and most people feel repulsed when we think of cannabalism, is the reult of a hard-wired, instinctual human response. Yet, the fact that cannabalism was acceptable amongst some societies, indicates that our reaction towards it comes from societal indoctrination, rather than an instinctive response.

Originally posted by Greyling2012Of course, some people don't seem to have this natural, instinctual moral compass, and either learn it through experience (if they survive the lessons), or through a rational interpretation of common societal programming, which often benefits the same survival instinct.

And that's what makes me question why people bother with morality. It's clear that the world is full of immoral and amoral people that succeed in life, and advanced partially to their total disregard for any kind of ethical behaviour.

Originally posted by Greyling2012
That being said, in general, I think some (most?) people should have some religion (belief in a feared arbiter of moral behavior with deadly consequences) for the very reason that I've postulated above - for without it, and otherwise without a natural or intuitive sense of morality, or in some cases lacking the ability to learn such from society early enough in life, that they may become a menace. If not for this service of religion, fellow humans would have to "play god" and teach these moral deviants a lesson (i.e. we'd have to full on torture people in this life, instead of just the after-life. BTW, I think society has mostly confirmed that torture is bad, no? Why isn't there a thou shalt not torture? Perhaps a designed loophole?).

Yes, sadly religion is a double-edged sword to some people too. Just as religion might help someone to become a better, more moral, person, it also gets twisted by people to justify their immoral behaviour, under the pretext of having it approved by a deity.

Originally posted by Greyling2012
Even with this "admission," as it were, of the importance of religion in terms of it's morality stick, herein lies one of the main problems I have with religions (emphasis on the plural) in general - because different religions espouse different moral codes, rewards and punishments, they will never all get along, and hence the fact that most of the senseless wars throughout history have been perpetrated in the name of gods (again with the plurality). And this of course begs the ultimate question - If a loving, all-knowing, omnipotent deity created all that is, and us in "his" (apparently "his" Creator was also a bigot) image, why "design" in us, the ability to be amoral at all, unless again, he wanted a loophole for that whole killing the other people that don't believe in him thing?

I've never had anyone concisely answer that question - it always comes back to using satan as the excuse, or that we were designed to be imperfect sinners at the outset, and that that's just part of gods plan (really? remind me not to RSVP for the next exercise in celestial sadism)

I agree. I personally believe that religions have much more in common than some of their believers acknowledge, and I'd much prefer them to come together towards a common goal for humanity.
If you take some of the more ''robust'' messages out of religious text, then you'll see that most religious doctrines followed well are actually a good philosphy to live your life by. If you take the best messages out of any of the many religious texts, and live your life by them, then I don't think anyone could argue with that.

Originally posted by Greyling2012
Sorry, I didn't mean to rant on specifically about religion too much there at the end, but I think it's related to the debate at hand, especially in explaining to others why one might choose to state that they don't believe in deities.

-Greyling

No, it wasn't a rant.
I enjoyed reading your post, and it was very interesting to see your thoughts.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Forming a certitude based on the profound lack of evidence is very logical and hardly fallacious.

It is illogical to form a certitude, as you are doing so on your own personal belief. It is only your belief that there is a profound lack of evidence for the existence of God.

Put it this way, would you say I had a logical stance if I formed a certitude that the earth didn't revolve around the sun due to a lack of evidence ?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If anything, agnosticism is the most illogical. Agnostics hold open the possibility of the existence of deities when the likelihood of such is about on par with discovering evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy or the easter bunny. Agnostics readily form a certitude against the existence of the tooth fairy and the easter bunny citing lack of evidence and credibility, yet fail to form the same certitude against the existence of deities given the same reasons. That is illogical.

Whoa there, old chap !
Earlier on in this thread, you said:

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
How exactly does an agnostic have the exact definition of god? And I suspect that if you hold that description, then anything goes: any suggestion becomes possible including cyclones and dragons. I'm detecting some flaws in the logic of agnosticism

In your above statement, you appear to be saying that agnosticism is logically flawed because it won't rule out cyclones and dragons, and now you're saying it's illogical because some agnostics do !

Speaking personally, I do not rule in or out the existence of tooth fairies or Easter bunnies or anything like that. I don't need to form an opinion one way or the other; I can't see the logic in that.

As I've said earlier in this thread, God is slightly deifferent due to the infinite possibilities and concepts that God could take. You could conceptualise and falsify a billion different definitions of God, yet that wouldn't rule out God existing in any other posited concept.

Originally posted by acapablemind
Ahh, Dawkins' ideological progeny. Firstly, Dawkins' book of which you referenced in the above quote, was refuted by many scholars and well educated individuals.

You're quite full of yourself but I for one am not impressed by your debating skills. If you hadn't quoted my post, I'd be convinced that you were replying to someone else's post. Considering your next paragraph, it speaks volumes that you claim that The God Delusion was refuted by scholars and well educated individuals but fail to supply even one reference.

The controlled demolition of three World Trade Center towers has been refuted by countless "experts" but it doesn't prove that it didn't happen. I know a lot of intelligent, well educated people who cannot get past their religious indoctrination.

Secondly, your entire post is biased. You make a lot of outrageous claims (just like Dawkins) and state them as matter of fact (not literally but in sentence structure, etc so as to be interpreted this way) without any data to support said claims.

I'll admit that I haven't read even a small proportion of the vast tomes supporting religious beliefs but with 50+ years experience behind me, I'm not ashamed to say that the only thing that will change my mind about the existence of a god will be meeting a god in the flesh so to speak.

How can you accuse me of making outrageous claims? The only "claim" that I made was that there was no organised Atheism. If you know that to be incorrect, please tell me where to join up.

The rest of my post was my opinion plus one undeniable argument, the latter being "If a god can just exist, then so can a complete universe."

What really gets me are the hard line Atheists; those campaigning against 'evil' religion, 'saving' individuals from the clutches of idiocy.

Again, no evidence/reference to said hard line Atheists. Hence no way of knowing what you're railing against.

The main point always has and always will continue to be:

No one knows the truth.

I disagree. The main point is that religion is used as a justification for immoral or criminal acts from discrimination to exploitation to extermination.

As an example, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Pakistan : Hindus

In a utopian world, Catholics would live their Catholic lives, Protestants would live their Protestant lives, Muslims would live their Muslim lives, Hindus, etc. and everyone would get along just fine. However that doesn't happen.

Lastly, and in conjunction with the above logic, the religious man believes in his deity via faith just as you believe in Darwin's "Origin of Life" via faith. This is irrefutable and to claim otherwise is to ignore the simple logic behind it.

You took a great leap on this one. I don't believe in Darwin's "Origin of Life" either by faith or science. I cannot deny that there is evidence to support the theory that creatures evolve but my "feeling" is that we haven't got the full story on this subject yet.

Your simple logic argument fails because you mistakenly assume that people "believe" in the Origin of Life theory either because a teacher told them it was true or because they experienced a personal epiphony. However, I suspect that most pro-Origin of Life people believe in it because they've been convinced by the physical evidence and will soon drop it once evidence is found that disproves it.

No offense brother, didn't mean any. Just pointing out the fallacies in your argument. I could go on for days, however, I have to work.

No offense taken. Perhaps because you were in a hurry to get to work, you rushed this through and forgot to make the salient points you were intending. I'm not against learning so feel free to share any meaningful facts that come to mind.

Originally posted by Greyling2012
You've contradicted yourself in your own argument.

It is for the very reasons that you stated above, that it's logical to follow a general code of ethics, derived from a consensus of society, as a means to foster survival.

It's not contradictory. Societal morality is different to individual morality, otherwise we wouldn't have so many problems in society.
It's not logical to follow your society's arbitrary moral code in modern day society. All that's needed is moral expediency; amorality is by far the most logical position to take.

Put it this way; if someone is driving 35mph within a 30mph speed limit, are they more likely to reduce their speed because they have less control over their braking distance or because they see a police car ? I'd say the latter.
Their motivation for staying inside the speed limit is done due to the fact that they are worried about the consequences of getting punished, rather than for any position on the rights or wrongs of speeding.
And that's what I mean by moral expediency; you don't have to adopt a moral philosophy to survive in a society.

Originally posted by Greyling2012
So why then would anyone in that same society NEED a master arbiter to also tell them to follow that ethic code? If they want to be part of the society, and agree that living by that moral code is beneficial to their survival and that of the overall society, then doing so is not unnecessary (to them), and it is then not a burden or millstone around their neck (unless they like flour and want to grind wheat all day as part of the ethical code).

Following an ethical code is different to adopting that code to live your life by.
If they don't have an arbitor, they have no logical need to adopt a moral philosophy for themselves.

Originally posted by Greyling2012
Case and point: If I decide personally to not beat my wife and daughter to a pulp when I'm feeling angry about the world or if they do something to upset me, not even because society might frown upon this, but because I value the benefits that I enjoy in being part of this family, then it's _completely_ logical that I self-impose a code of ethics to not beat them.

In your above example you would not beat them because it would personally disadvantage you; that has nothing to do with it being wrong or right, and you have no need to impose a code of ethics not do so.

I'm also assuming that the main reason you wouldn't beat them is just because you know that it's wrong. You have no real reason to rationalise why you wouldn't attack them.

Originally posted by Greyling2012
I don't need a god or society to tell me or convince me of this, I have my own internal justification for following such. It just so happens that a lot of basic ethics are rooted in common sense, and so it's not hard to justify following them, if you are of sound mind. If you grew up in the wild and were raised by other wild human animals, I'd venture that you would have fewer "morals" than most in a modern society.

I don't believe indiscriminately following an arbitrary ethical code is common sense; there are plenty of instances where temporarily breaking your society's code is the common sense option.

Originally posted by Greyling2012
I see the trap argument you're trying to make, repeatedly, but it doesn't hold up. Perhaps if you frame it differently, or just come out and explain what conclusion you're trying to get others to see by way of your argument, we might all benefit from it.

I don't understand what you mean by trap argument. That makes it sound like you think I'm up to some funny business !

My point is that atheists say they take the logical approach in their absence of belief, yet don't extend that approach to logically reject morality.
Despite what others say, I can't see how moral nihilism isn't the most logical philosophy to adopt as an atheist. There must be a large number of nihilists that live in society, and just adapt to its rules for their own benefits.

Originally posted by idmonster
Have been lurking for a while decided its time to join in.

One of the reasons why some atheists are so anti religion is exactly the opposite of the threads header. Children being taught that we live on a planet created approx 6000 years ago in direct opposition to scientific evidence.

Creationist mis-using the word theory to try and discredit evolution, evolution is a fact people (look up the dictionary definition of theory in a scientific context)

All of the scientific evidence support the hypothesis there is a high probability of no god.

As an aside, i made the switch from agnostic to atheist when my own brother (a minister) made a very simple staenment as follows.

Either the bible is the word of god, and holds the ultimate truth, or it is a fiction. If you can find anything in the bible that is wrong, it can not be the work of an omnipitent, omniscient god and it should all be disregarded.

There is a lot in the bible, (and other holy scriptures) that is obviously wrong, and no matter how much you believe in something, or how much you sincerely want something to be true, that belief and need isnt going to make it true.

I whole heartedly believe in the scientific method as it allows for full examination of the available facts, for testing and reproducing results and I will go out on a limb and say the greater majority of atheist would hold the same view.

I dont care if an individual wants to believe in god, gods or coloured cotton wristbands, but when it comes to education, particularly presenting information, then only facts should be presented as such.

I have no problem either with religion being taught, but be under no illusion, it is a philosophical belief system (i refer to all religion) and should be taught as such.

Before i finish, i will attempt to pre-empt the " science once thought the world was flat" anti-science argument. The staement is correct, science did once believe the world to be flat, but as new information and better testing was introduced, science changed it view and thats what is great about the scientific method.

Show me the creationist who is of the same flexibilty of mind. Show me the creationist who says, "well, religion did once think the world was 6000 years old, but with the new evidence....etc, etc.

You have a lot of problems in this argument brother, sorry but it is true.
1. prove that evolution is a fact.
2. List all of the parts in the bible that you claim to be wrong and we will see how wrong they actually are.
3. You should not pick and choose which scientific facts you base your method on.
4. don't be silly of course the world is older than 6000 years.
I am working on a thread that will explain a lot of the things people have questions about in the bible. The age of the earth is one of those. Due to the amount of research it is taking me longer than I had hoped.
I hope that once I have it up you will read it and give me your feed back.

reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign


you say "Much like I've said in the past, I see nothing inherently wrong with being a person of faith, or a person of atheistic beliefs as long as no one is imposing their beliefs on anyone. "

But you can't be Christian at least according to the bible if you don't push your beliefs on everyone you are instructed to do just that. I actualy at least have a little more respect for those Christians who try to push their religion on me as I can at least see they have read the book they claim to be following and claim some all powerful being had people write up a hundred years or so after his son died as their sole means of knowing he sent him to die for our sins so they could have....faith.

People need to realise why religion is a bad thing:-

THINGS ATHEISTS DID NOT DO!

I'm not saying having your own beliefs is wrong but this organised religion indoctrination using your beliefs to commit unethical acts is just wrong.

[edit on 22/5/10 by awake_and_aware]

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

It is illogical to form a certitude, as you are doing so on your own personal belief. It is only your belief that there is a profound lack of evidence for the existence of God.

Put it this way, would you say I had a logical stance if I formed a certitude that the earth didn't revolve around the sun due to a lack of evidence ?

No, the certitude I have formed is not a belief. It is a logical conclusion based on evidence and/or lack thereof.

If you are certain the the earth doesn't revolve around the sun because of lack of evidence then you are ignorant of the objective tangible evidence that exists to support it. The "evidence" presented for existence of deities is strictly subjective and never objective nor tangible.

Speaking personally, I do not rule in or out the existence of tooth fairies or Easter bunnies or anything like that. I don't need to form an opinion one way or the other; I can't see the logic in that.

I find that a failure to rule out the existence of tooth fairies and easter bunnies to be an absurdity.

As I've said earlier in this thread, God is slightly deifferent due to the infinite possibilities and concepts that God could take. You could conceptualise and falsify a billion different definitions of God, yet that wouldn't rule out God existing in any other posited concept.

It appears you've set up an "anything goes" scenario for existence of deities to reconcile the illogic of agnosticism. Once you accept a possibility that the laws of physics can be violated by supernatural forces and deities unlimited by your imagination you've thrown logic out the window.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

it's not the "belief", it's the action against others to support it. to cast aside ones own responsibility in their action, is the problem.

reply to post by Conspiracy Chicks fan !


So what about all the other times in history where a culture came up with a list of rules for their soceity? Are you saying it was impossible for them to do such without the belief in God?

We have a compass within us as well as we learn from experiences and through others. Empathy is a nature within us unless we are raised in a enviroment where this empathy becomes too hard to tap into and acknowledge. Studying a little psychology on our human feelings, our thoughts, our nervous system, the way our minds react to past feelings in past experiences....is amazing...and it really explains how humans function and learn over time, how we figure things, and how are reactions go along with our past experiences of good feelings and bad. There are plenty of non believers that want the best for the world...there are pleny of non believers that will stand up for universal rights for others. Laws will never be perfect...and there willl always be debate on where to draw the line with laws in society. But you have no reason to assume a person that does not believe in God should have no reason to believe in morality.

People have hearts, feelings, and can think....without believing in God. My father does not believe in a higher power...he believes in what he can see. And he will be the first one to step up where he see's someone not getting a fair treatment (according to what his own environment and feelings and mind has created a moral compass within him). Even with all believers....their moral compass's are not all the same just because they believe...there are some that would be willing to kill in the name of God and for the land of Israel...and there are some that are not. Moral judgments are personal and individual...and when a society makes laws and tries to bring morals to a society...the base of that morality is going to have to do with the past of those people and the experiences of the ones making the laws.

See the problem here is...if you 'think' that your 'God' ordered a action to man to do for God....then what ever action it is...your going to think it was justified. Any action you read that says your 'God' did this and that....your going to go against your own inner compass, your own inner reasoning, and say it was justified. The killing of inocent first borns, the killing of a enitire Earth of people in a flood (but dont forget the giant that was allowed to stay on Earth), the killing of thousands of people over a specieal land, and the killing even of their own tribes men when they did wrong.....people find this justified....because it said....God said so.

So yes, inner judgments are a must. If not, we are going to ignore common sense. And yes, common sense is something we gain over time, if we are shelterd we wont have much of it...but in a united way, with past experiences, we learn from mistakes and errors, we learn things that worked well and not so well.

Part of our purpose as a people is to one day come together...with our morals, with our dreams and goals. There is a long way to go, thousands of years in fact....but the people that are giving up on this idea...and are just waiting on God to save the day....are actually the ones not helping our purpose here....of moving mountains...and going on to do better things. We are to unite...atheists, agnostic, and all believers...we have to find a way.

I just think your ideas of atheists having no moral standard for society as a whole is one of the craziest claims Ive heard here...about as bad as Science is a lie.

Why so harsh on others? Why does it bother you so that non believers can be good people and have good leader ship skills, and can have a good healthy dream for society?

Originally posted by pondrthis
Yay another $0.02 thread. (NOT... v.v)

Seriously, this doesn't matter, but of course, as a human being, I can't help but state my opinion....

An opinion is a summary of a belief, regardless of the source. Once we all recognize this fact we can finally make sense of each other's claims and begin a ralional discussion of why we each believe what we believe.

How hard is it to admit that we believe what we believe because we have been taught to believe these things? Whether it is atheist, agnostic, or organized religion, we are taught from parents, school officials, military, government, friends, mentors, scientif community, and enemies. At least be honest that we doubt our sources but we doubt different ideas more.

Having a belief in a higher power does not make one religious. Having a religion does not make one have faith. A claim to believe in nothing is not exactly a truth. Too many different ideals are being generalized because people do not know how to express their beliefs for one main reason, beliefs change.

The common link among all these different ideas is fear. Fear that someone else may be right, fear that maybe there is a one true set of rules, fear about many things. I say there is no God that talks to humans and there never was. I do not dismiss the idea that something made all this occur simply because I have no concept of infinity. Humans have no concept of infinity so I am not alone. Our life cycle dictates what we are willing to believe: there is a beginning and an end, a birth and a death, and religions use the big bang theory for their own ends just like the scinece community uses the notion of a creator to his or her own agenda.

Perception is a very powerful phenomenon. It controls all individual thoughts. I have no substantial beliefs one way or the other but I am more than willing to play the "devil's advocate" to all sides. My belief in an argument is "your claim--you prove it!" So far all sides are tied at zero. Infinity is a difficult concept to master.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
It is totally illogical for someone to live their own personal life according to an arbitrary ethical code. If there is no arbitor of right and wrong, then morality is irrelevant.

Setting a moral code for yourself is an unneccessary and irrational millstone to hang around your neck.

Illogical? Has your "faith" blinded you to such a degree that you cannot see any beautiful personality, compassion and "heart" in other individuals, not of your "faith" may posses?

Have you not seen beautiful relationships formed, shared and spread between beings of the same and that of different species?

Why do they do it?

Since you have such a hard time figuring it out judging from the looks of so many of your post, I'll help you out.

BECAUSE, IT'S IN THEM.

It is just who they are, good decent individuals of all kinds with beauty personalities, all around us.

You should really considered leaving your "faith" if you still have a hard time figuring out this "illogical" problem.

P.S. If you happen to meet your God, and it happened to have the same problem as you, I would advise you to get the hell of out of there.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by ixiy]

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
None of those things have any relevance to whether God exists or not. You are creating your own concept of God and then disbelieving in your self-created concept using personal opinion.

The same could be said of those who believe in a supreme creator of the universe who chose to make contact with a very, very small portion of his creation by sending a material form of himself at only one time and one place (a middle eastern desert no less) to one group of a people with a set of rules which, if not followed, result in eternal punishment, yet, are so vague that many religions and denominations of each exist. So every time I hear some one quote the Bible (or any religious text) or describe their idea of God I think...

"None of those things have any relevance to whether God exists or not. You are creating your own concept of God and then believing in your self-created concept using personal opinion."

Except in most cases you're just listening to what your parents and friends believe because you were never presented with a choice of religion at a young age. In a certain sense, an atheist is a person who listens to the various self promoting, egotistical stories about how the creator of the universe loves them, and them alone for following a set of rules in the form of a test to see if your soul spends 99.999999% of its existence in eternal happiness or pain, and go.... "yeah, I think I'll pass" The burden of proof is not on the atheist side of the argument.

Every thing and I mean EVERYTHING can be explained by math and science with out the existence of a god.

can you explain why everything in the universe is so finely tuned as to allow our existence? if any one thing from the force of gravity to the mass of an electron was different by even the smallest fraction, the universe as we know it would not exist. it certainly seems like although science can explain everything in the universe, it doesnt explain why it was born with such a precise set of perfect rules to follow.

for the record, i believe in God. i am also very rational and follow logical processes to derive any conclusions that i ultimately store in my bank of oppinions. in my view, the universe doesnt have to be continually governed by a higher power, only started on the right path. It could also be thought of as reverse causation: instead of A causing B causing C, realise that time moving foward is just an abstract concept made by man and the truth of the universe may be that C causes B which Causes A.. just not in our perspective. if we see A B C as the evolution of the universe, in my view God would at least know what point C is or perhaps, even more philosophically, maybe God is point C. in that way the universe would have no choice but to form and evolve in the way that would bring about C.

however, for the opposing team i have a rational explaination that explains the paradox i opened with with god deciding the rules: bare with the quantum physics references from here on. when a sub atomic particle is considered on a quantum level, it exists as a probibilty wave function. technically the partical exists in many different places at the same time, even light years apart and just has a higher probability of being in some places than others. It only actually becomes a physical partical that is measurable and examinable when it is observed by the concious observer. this may seem strange but it is FACT. quantum physics reveals the truth that the observation of matter by consciousness is vital to the physical existence of the matter. (this amazing revelation was uncovered but since quantum mechanics can be calculated without analyzing this amazing fact, few scientists go there).

now imagine the universe before the big bang on a quantum level.. it could have existed as millions of different probable universes with different laws of physics and maths before it was ever physical. eventually in that point of nothingness, one of the potential universes inside had just the right ingredients and ultimately conscious life formed. suddenly the universe had a witness which allowed it self referenciate and blast into physical being. since quantum physics dont require time to move forward, this particualr observation could trigger the big bang billions of years earlier to allow the events that caused the observation to unfold. under this theory, the universe and all its perfect rules exists because of all the probabal universes.
, this one is one that worked to make life. ofcourse this would also mean that the universe may only have one race of being conscious enough to observe and contemplate the universe enough to form it.

one more point though, if quantum physics proves the essential role of consciousness in governing matter does that not mean that consciousness exists outside of the realm of matter, and would have to exist before matter? surely, if consciousness exists.. it may well be proof of and the substance of God.

Originally posted by vash87
It only actually becomes a physical partical that is measurable and examinable when it is observed by the concious observer. this may seem strange but it is FACT. quantum physics reveals the truth that the observation of matter by consciousness is vital to the physical existence of the matter. (this amazing revelation was uncovered but since quantum mechanics can be calculated without analyzing this amazing fact, few scientists go there).

This is a misinterpretation of the observer effect that new agers and religious people use to usher in all manners of weird theories. Matter existed long before there were conscious beings to interpret it. The mysteries of quantum physics are not a license for the supernatural.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
This is a misinterpretation of the observer effect that new agers and religious people use to usher in all manners of weird theories. Matter existed long before there were conscious beings to interpret it. The mysteries of quantum physics are not a license for the supernatural.

please inform us or at least me on the proper interpretation of the observer effect.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by vash87]