PDA

View Full Version : Question for Atheists



onevoice
07-27-2009, 11:56 AM
As far as I know, Science has not proven the nonexistence of an intelligent creator. Science as we know it has shown many changes over time. Something that was believed at one point of time to be true could be completely false today. My question is:

How can you so unequivocally say that there is no creator when it is possible that a creator could be proven using science in the future?

LordDarwin
07-27-2009, 12:02 PM
Well, I can't speak for every Atheists, but I (like most) do not believe 100% that there is no creator, merely that it is very unlikely to be true.

The chances are, that if there is a god we would have found him by now. I mean, we've gone into space, split the atom, built nuclear reactors, synthetic sperm etc. I think that if there was a god, especially the Abrahamic dessert god, then we would have found some evidence by now.

Sledgebat
07-27-2009, 12:05 PM
The point is that we don't believe in a god based on thousands of years of human knowledge. If god pops up in my bedroom tomorrow (naked), then I'll gladly believe in him.

Tiffany Wantsmore
07-27-2009, 12:15 PM
Indeed, I do not believe it is possible to prove the existence of a creator, but if it was proven, I would gladly admit I was wrong. I just don't see it happening. The likelihood of any creator existing is, in my opinion, slim to none.

hooked4life
07-27-2009, 12:19 PM
OP - you are misunderstanding what Atheism means to most.

Here, http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html ,is a short definition from the Uni of Cambridge.

yoj
07-27-2009, 12:22 PM
An intelligent creator is not directly testable, but his work is. There are a couple key points where the work of an intelligent creator is testable by science and within our capability for discussion. We must use these points as a proxy for his existence since his existence is entirely untestable and outside the bounds of science (that is a polite way of saying he is nowhere to be found).

Space:
1. Pre-big bang
2. Big bang
3. Creation of galaxies/solar systems/etc

Earth:
4. Abiogenesis (first living thing)
5. Evolution

These are all events that may *possibly* have been the work of an intelligent creator. If we can prove that these events happened without the assistance of an intelligent creator, then we have essentially demonstrated his non-existance. I'm not your mom, you can do your own research here.

Now, I also have to outline a little bit about a hypothesis and scientific method. Under hypothetical-deductive reasoning, we can never actually prove something to be true. What we can do is prove that a hypothesis is NOT true. When creating a scientific hypothesis, we actually have two hypotheses, a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis (which is made up of all possibilities besides Ho). I will use a slightly exaggerated example:

Ho: Water is H2O.
Ha: Water is not H2O.

Now, despite our most advanced microscopy technology, we can never prove 100% that water is two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen bound together. The strongest evidence we have is probably an electrolysis experiment, in which we obtain 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen for every part of water we split. However, it is entirely possible that there is a supernatural force that is triggered by the electricity to remove the water from the universe and replace it with two hydrogens and one oxygen. Science uses Occam's Razor (which basically means the simplest answer that accounts for all the facts is the best one) to wade through the infinite number of possibilities and pick the correct one.

However, we CAN prove the Ho to be false (and accept the alternate hypothesis). For example, if we ran an electrolysis experiment and found that we obtained 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part carbon dioxide, then we MUST reject the Ho.

Now when we look at the evidences for how evolution happened, we see that our current natural selection is the best answer using Occam's Razor (there are textbooks written about this evidence, I'm not writing it here but can point you towards it if you like). This holds true for all 5 of the points above. Even if we have no definitive answer for all of them (abiogenesis and pre-big bang), we still know that all the evidence points towards a materialistic explanation rather than a supernatural one. The reason that science is unlikely to ever "prove" that natural selection is wrong and an intelligent creator was right is that natural selection is perfectly capable of explaining all of the observations without the involvement of any higher power. A new observation would have to occur that PROVES a natural selection hypothesis wrong, which has not occured and is unlikely to ever occur. Until then it stands as the best answer, therefore also demonstrating the non-existence of a higher power.

Existential theories like String Theory and Natural Selection may not be the complete answer, so people like to believe that means they are false. They would be proven false if the Ha was found to be true, which so far has not happened. They may not be complete answers that answer 100% of the observations, but they are still the most correct Ho that we have. This is a very important distinction to make.

The only way to show that a higher power exists would be to PROVE the Ha's of ALL our scientific theories (prove them wrong). Then the only answer remaining would be an intelligent creator. Until then, we must accept current science as the best possible answer because they explain the observations of our universe most simply (and therefore the best).

Queequeg
07-27-2009, 12:23 PM
As far as I know, Science has not proven the nonexistence of an intelligent creator. Science as we know it has shown many changes over time. Something that was believed at one point of time to be true could be completely false today. My question is:

How can you so unequivocally say that there is no creator when it is possible that a creator could be proven using science in the future?

Atheists don't deny a creator, they deny the attributes applied to it and they deny scripture. For example the big bang is a creator in a sense, but its not a personal Phenomenon that loves each person.

Science proves redundancy and philiosphy proves a typical theistic model of God irrational

hooked4life
07-27-2009, 12:25 PM
Until then it stands as the best answer, therefore also demonstrating the non-existence of a higher power.

An invisible, omnipotent being that can act in any way we can imagine (or can't even imagine) who inhabits a plane of existence we can't go to (or even imagine) who only revels him/her/it/them self/selves upon death will NEVER be able to be 100% disproved by science.

yoj
07-27-2009, 12:34 PM
An invisible, omnipotent being that can act in any way we can imagine (or can't even imagine) who inhabits a plane of existence we can't go to (or even imagine) who only revels him/her/it/them self/selves upon death will NEVER be able to be 100% disproved by science.

Agreed. But then we have to ask ourselves, is a higher power that was not responsible for the the big bang, the existence of our universe, abiogenesis, or evolution relevant to our life in any way? Clearly whatever force he is does not resemble any type of God that is worshipped on this planet (especially the abrahamic god). How likely is it that such a being is listening to my prayers if he abandoned our universe for the last 14 billion years?

huss30
07-27-2009, 12:35 PM
As far as I know, Science has not proven the nonexistence of an intelligent creator. Science as we know it has shown many changes over time. Something that was believed at one point of time to be true could be completely false today. My question is:

How can you so unequivocally say that there is no creator when it is possible that a creator could be proven using science in the future?

Friend there are different degrees of Athiest. I am probabley not doing them justice but there are "strong athiest" Those who believe unequivocally that their are no gods especially the God of the diety. There are also "weak atheists" those who say God doesn't exist because there hasn't been sufficient evidence to make me believe. Then there are "Agnostics" which are not athiest but have similar views to the "weak athiest." All three of these wonderful folks are simply saying "It didn't happen the way you thiests say it happened" at least not without presenting sufficient evidence. Few atheists actually proclaim that the science in infalible only that it seems to scratchh the itch a little better for them. How did I do?
J

whattheschmidt
07-27-2009, 12:37 PM
Most of us don't believe 100% there isn't a god...that's just silly to say something with 100% certainty when there isn't evidence.

With science though it has been the other way around this whole time :). Really funny what some people used to believe...(and things that people still believe lol)

hooked4life
07-27-2009, 12:38 PM
Agreed. But then we have to ask ourselves, is a higher power that was not responsible for the the big bang, the existence of our universe, abiogenesis, or evolution relevant to our life in any way? Clearly whatever force he is does not resemble any type of God that is worshipped on this planet (especially the abrahamic god). How likely is it that such a being is listening to my prayers if he abandoned our universe for the last 14 billion years?

To me, relevance is not important, as it has nothing to do with truth or fiction. As I can find no proof a God exists, and all the kind of magic described in holy books is completely counter to anything we have encountered so far, I conclude the most logical explanation is that people made it up.

The fact that millions of Gods have, do and probably will continue to be created, worshiped and eventually forgotten only fuels my assumption that, really, the simplest explanation is that they are all works of fiction.

hooked4life
07-27-2009, 12:39 PM
Friend there are different degrees of Athiest. I am probabley not doing them justice but there are "strong athiest" Those who believe unequivocally that their are no gods especially the God of the diety. There are also "weak atheists" those who say God doesn't exist because there hasn't been sufficient evidence to make me believe. Then there are "Agnostics" which are not athiest but have similar views to the "weak athiest." All three of these wonderful folks are simply saying "It didn't happen the way you thiests say it happened" at least not without presenting sufficient evidence. Few atheists actually proclaim that the science in infalible only that it seems to scratchh the itch a little better for them. How did I do?
J

You could have read the link I provided.

Harbinger
07-27-2009, 12:43 PM
I have said this many time before and I'll say it again now. It's very unlikely that the existence of god will ever be disproven. It's nearly impossible to prove something does not exist. I do believe that the probability of god will be reduced sufficiently that all but the hardcore fundies will still believe jordansrt and D-Bol come to mind. That being said, it would be amazingly easy for god to prove himself. All he has to do is show up. That doesn't seem to hard a task for an omnipotent being does it? But, we all know that that's not going to happen don't we?

huss30
07-27-2009, 12:47 PM
You could have read the link I provided.

I did, trying to save others some time.
J

hooked4life
07-27-2009, 12:48 PM
I did, trying to save others some time.
J

Bullsh!t you tried to define, editorialize and comment all in one.

Negged.

Rune
07-27-2009, 12:50 PM
If there is a God it is:

1)Non-invasive

and

2)NOT a personal God

hooked4life
07-27-2009, 12:53 PM
Why get personal? This is a place to debate. I find it amazing people get so personal in this place!!

Not personal at all, I don't care that I disagree with him, I care that he is presenting his opinions slipped into 'summing it up' for the OP.

Debate is based upon knowledge.

BB.com Rep System FAQ :"Negative reputation should be given if the person is posting something that detracts from the conversation."

In my judgment his post detracted from any discourse on Atheism.

Harbinger
07-27-2009, 12:53 PM
Why get personal? This is a place to debate. I find it amazing people get so personal in this place!!

It baffles me that they do to. It's like people who buy a house next to an airport and then complain about the noise.

thorton
07-27-2009, 01:03 PM
An intelligent creator is not directly testable, but his work is. There are a couple key points where the work of an intelligent creator is testable by science and within our capability for discussion. We must use these points as a proxy for his existence since his existence is entirely untestable and outside the bounds of science (that is a polite way of saying he is nowhere to be found).

Space:
1. Pre-big bang
2. Big bang
3. Creation of galaxies/solar systems/etc

Earth:
4. Abiogenesis (first living thing)
5. Evolution

These are all events that may *possibly* have been the work of an intelligent creator. If we can prove that these events happened without the assistance of an intelligent creator, then we have essentially demonstrated his non-existance. I'm not your mom, you can do your own research here.

Now, I also have to outline a little bit about a hypothesis and scientific method. Under hypothetical-deductive reasoning, we can never actually prove something to be true. What we can do is prove that a hypothesis is NOT true. When creating a scientific hypothesis, we actually have two hypotheses, a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis (which is made up of all possibilities besides Ho). I will use a slightly exaggerated example:

Ho: Water is H2O.
Ha: Water is not H2O.

Now, despite our most advanced microscopy technology, we can never prove 100% that water is two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen bound together. The strongest evidence we have is probably an electrolysis experiment, in which we obtain 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen for every part of water we split. However, it is entirely possible that there is a supernatural force that is triggered by the electricity to remove the water from the universe and replace it with two hydrogens and one oxygen. Science uses Occam's Razor (which basically means the simplest answer that accounts for all the facts is the best one) to wade through the infinite number of possibilities and pick the correct one.

However, we CAN prove the Ho to be false (and accept the alternate hypothesis). For example, if we ran an electrolysis experiment and found that we obtained 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part carbon dioxide, then we MUST reject the Ho.

Now when we look at the evidences for how evolution happened, we see that our current natural selection is the best answer using Occam's Razor (there are textbooks written about this evidence, I'm not writing it here but can point you towards it if you like). This holds true for all 5 of the points above. Even if we have no definitive answer for all of them (abiogenesis and pre-big bang), we still know that all the evidence points towards a materialistic explanation rather than a supernatural one. The reason that science is unlikely to ever "prove" that natural selection is wrong and an intelligent creator was right is that natural selection is perfectly capable of explaining all of the observations without the involvement of any higher power. A new observation would have to occur that PROVES a natural selection hypothesis wrong, which has not occured and is unlikely to ever occur. Until then it stands as the best answer, therefore also demonstrating the non-existence of a higher power.

Existential theories like String Theory and Natural Selection may not be the complete answer, so people like to believe that means they are false. They would be proven false if the Ha was found to be true, which so far has not happened. They may not be complete answers that answer 100% of the observations, but they are still the most correct Ho that we have. This is a very important distinction to make.

The only way to show that a higher power exists would be to PROVE the Ha's of ALL our scientific theories (prove them wrong). Then the only answer remaining would be an intelligent creator. Until then, we must accept current science as the best possible answer because they explain the observations of our universe most simply (and therefore the best).

In your experiment, Ho could still possible be correct if a supernatural force to bind carbon to the oxygen to give you H + c02 instead of h+ 02 , would actually make more sense since carbon is pretty abundant.

The point I'm making is your assumption is incorrect since once you bring in the possibility of supernatural you have to apply it evenly across the board as you would any variable. I understand what you are trying to say, but your examples do the opposite of supporting your argument, rather they detract from it.

To the OP: Very few atheists do not say "there is no god" rather they say "I do not believe in a god". There is a very distinct difference in those phrases. Not to mention the concept of a deity, or god is not clear nor directly defined. I have said in previous threads our technology would be godlike to previous periods of humans, this does not make us god.

If we became immortal, it would not make us god would it?

If we learned how to leave the universe, travel outside the universe, fold space, create our own universe type creations, would it make us god?

Most atheists are defined by a lack of belief in a theistic deity. This is much different than a belief in the openness of a possibility of an intelligent being who might have helped us along someway or another.

huss30
07-27-2009, 02:26 PM
Bullsh!t you tried to define, editorialize and comment all in one.

Negged.

WOW! I said I was probably not doing you any justice. Hey Harbinger old buddy, was my post way too far off base?
J

Beeewbs
07-27-2009, 05:39 PM
How can you so unequivocally say that there is no creator when it is possible that a creator could be proven using science in the future?



Two in one day? This is sad. It's not hard to read a few FAQ's in the atheist sticky before you ask questions.

huss30
07-27-2009, 05:50 PM
Not personal at all, I don't care that I disagree with him, I care that he is presenting his opinions slipped into 'summing it up' for the OP.

Debate is based upon knowledge.

BB.com Rep System FAQ :"Negative reputation should be given if the person is posting something that detracts from the conversation."

In my judgment his post detracted from any discourse on Atheism.

I was simply explaining to the OP that his question was really broad and that there is a wide array of atheist beliefs, therefore, by assuming all atheist believed in science' theory of creation was not right. Sorry if I din't do it in a way that met your obviously high standards. Geeez.
J

by the way got it from here: www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html