Atheism is incompatible with science

[warpspeedpetey]

it is impossible for science to offer any physical explanation for the existence of the universe, as no physical thing can cause its own creation.

in view of the impotency of science in regard then to the philosophy of atheism, what basis is there for atheism?

it is impossible for science to provide a foundation upon which to structure atheism, so what then is atheism?

atheism provides no answers to our existence apart from the sciences, if no answer then is possible, is atheism simply a position one holds from desire?

is there any other basis for atheism than science? what rational reasons can one have to hold the position if not based on the sciences?

 

[Eucharisted]

The mystery of God requires faith. Reason and Science can take you only as far as knowing that an infinite, inconceviable something started the Universe. Since this something is infinite and inconceviable, those who do not believe in God or don’t know whether He exists can make of it whatever they want, thus supporting their beliefs.

 

[Hokomai]

I don’t think your post will cause any trouble to any atheists. Your logic is, in full: all things are created; the universe is a thing; therefore it was created. It is equally logical to say: All things are imagined; the universe is a thing; therefore it is imaginary. You would need to establish what you mean by “thing” “create” and “universe” and demonstrate by observation that they are real. Then you could use them in an argument with a thinking atheist or a scientist. I don’t call myself an atheist because I think atheism is a form of “belief” and I try not to “believe” anything. Here by “belief” I mean things treated as if they were facts for which there is no observational evidence. All “faith” fits into this. I try to “conclude” rather than “believe” things. Interestingly, this is very hard to do - I have tentatively concluded i.e. come up with a hypothesis that the tendency to “believe” is hardwired in our brains and must have served some evolutionary purpose. I enjoy reading the posts on this forum, and especially the courtesy with which interlopers like myself are treated.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

it is impossible for science to offer any physical explanation for the existence of the universe, as no physical thing can cause its own creation.

in view of the impotency of science in regard then to the philosophy of atheism, what basis is there for atheism?

it is impossible for science to provide a foundation upon which to structure atheism, so what then is atheism?

atheism provides no answers to our existence apart from the sciences, if no answer then is possible, is atheism simply a position one holds from desire?

is there any other basis for atheism than science? what rational reasons can one have to hold the position if not based on the sciences?

I am a Catholic. not an atheist. I talk to God several times a day, in prayer.

But I do not believe that God’s existence can be proven.

If sheer existence implies a creator, then existent God had a creator.

If we limit the things which “have to” have a creator to “physical” things, which is what you do without giving a reason, then it is not clear that angels and demons have a creator. And nature creates matter all of the time – in stars. In the thermonuclear furnace of each star, Hydrogen protons are fused into Helium nuclei, so that energy is converted into mass. As the stars get hotter and hotter, heavier and heavier elements are formed, and more and more energy is converted into more and more mass.

An atheist would look at that process, realize that there is a potential for eternal movement there and in other possible natural processes – for example, the “expansion/contraction” Big Bang theory, and say, “I’m sorry, friend, but I see perpetual physical motion and creation of matter. I can’t accept your argument.”

I’m sorry to rain on your parade, but it’s probably cleaner to say, “Look, Aquinas was wrong. If God Himself is the exception to all of Aquinas’ arguments, then the thing ostensibly ‘proven’ disproves the rule!”

There is a pretty effective inductive argument (CentralFLJames, you’ll like this) inside of Bible typology…

A careful review of typological word pictures in the OT reveals that Jesus is foreshadowed again and again and again and again – in the JEWISH books of the Bible, the last place on Earth you would expect thiis to happen, after 1700 years of anti-Semitism.

I checked. The Jewish Bible’s English translation reads the same as ours, for type purposes.

In other words, Jews don’t know it, but the books of their Bible are jammed with Christ pictures.

This is impossible, unless there exists a God Who cleverly put the material there.

Another approach is the spiritual one: Try Christianity on for size. If it grabs you, and it works, it’s valid.

Redbook Magazine did a study, years ago, of the impact of religion on sex and marriage. (Some of the really ancient folks here will remember it.) The study showed that two groups, more than any other, enjoyed joyous marriages: Devout Catholics, and Othodox Jews.

Pretty cool!

I evangelize atheists with the prayer experiment. In one website, I befriended a rather famous Lebian atheist (and she is my good friend to this day!) and challenged her to do the prayer experiment. I said, “If you have really fouled something up, and you are in big, big trouble, and reality is chasing you like a vicious, snarling, salivating German shepherd, snapping at your tail, down the street, then if you have no faith, stop, pray to the darkness for faith, and then, when you have enough faith to at least believe that it is POSSIBLE that there is an almighty loving God there in the darkness, pray to the possibility. Ask Him for help ONCE. (Don’t wear out the rug, with, ‘God ya gotta help me! God ya gotta help me! God ya gotta help me!’ God HATES that, because it’s really a LACK of faith which makes you do that.) Then, relax! I swear that your problem has already been solved, maybe not in the way you want, but the problem is solved. When the solution becomes apparent, words like this will jump into your head, in your own mind’s voice: ‘This is the answer to your prayer, So-and-so.’ Report back to me. I say that with confidence. If this works, though, I ask that you give God ‘free advertizing.’ TELL people what happened.”

My friend tried the experiment, and to the astonishment of everyone she posted, “Everyone, I have to confess that Peter’s prayer experiment worked. I had a giant problem that was going to do me in. I prayed to the possible God in the darkness. The problem evaporated. It was amazing.”

 

[VociMike]

I don’t think your post will cause any trouble to any atheists. Your logic is, in full: all things are created; the universe is a thing; therefore it was created. It is equally logical to say: All things are imagined; the universe is a thing; therefore it is imaginary.

That’s just language sleight-of-hand, with you substituting “imaginary” for “imagined” and hoping nobody will notice.

I don’t call myself an atheist because I think atheism is a form of “belief” and I try not to “believe” anything. Here by “belief” I mean things treated as if they were facts for which there is no observational evidence. All “faith” fits into this.

That is a perceptive point, one which comes as a shock to many atheists. To claim there is no God is every bit as much an act of faith as to claim that there is a God.

I try to “conclude” rather than “believe” things. Interestingly, this is very hard to do - I have tentatively concluded i.e. come up with a hypothesis that the tendency to “believe” is hardwired in our brains and must have served some evolutionary purpose. I enjoy reading the posts on this forum, and especially the courtesy with which interlopers like myself are treated.

I find this an interesting topic. What evolutionary advantages comes from believing in beings that do not exist, and in devoting great time, treasure and talent to them? And, per Occam’s Razor, why couldn’t the same advantages have been selected for without the vast baggage of believing in beings that do not exist?

Oh, and welcome to the forums, and I hope we all treat you with charity.

 

[crowonsnow]

… I have tentatively concluded i.e. come up with a hypothesis that the tendency to “believe” is hardwired in our brains and must have served some evolutionary purpose.

I think that people are pretending and fantasizing, and that this activity constitutes good brain exercise, making the brain stronger. A stronger brain is a brain that has a survival advantage. And it doesn’t have to be religious pretending. We can pretend about anything. But pretending to too great a degree is self destructive. For example we might pretend we can fly off a cliff or face down a polar bear. This gets us killed.

So pretending is healthy. But pretending too much is held in place by natural selection.

So in a way we’re saying the same thing, that the ability to pretend and engage in mental fancy has a definite survival advantage.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t think your post will cause any trouble to any atheists.

i think any true rationalist would be bothered if the foundation of their position were removed in this way. if they arent bothered, then i would their doubt whether or not they were really interested in being rational, or if they simply wish to hold a position because they like it.

Your logic is, in full: all things are created; the universe is a thing; therefore it was created.

thats not what i said or my logic at all, where did you get that?

here is my argument.

premise

a) no physical origin for the universe is possible, as no physical thing can create itself.

conclusion

b) therefore science can offer no explanation for the universes origin.

the premise is true, therefore the conclusion is true.

very simple, and i believe, completely undeniable. science does not, cannot, support atheism with alternative origins.

so what can we construe from this?

atheism as a rational alternative to faith is dead, it just doesnt know it yet. its little nore than simply saying “i dont know”, thats not a philosophical position, backed by rational argumentation, that is a personal preference apart from any foundation in science.

It is equally logical to say: All things are imagined; the universe is a thing; therefore it is imaginary. You would need to establish what you mean by “thing” “create” and “universe” and demonstrate by observation that they are real. Then you could use them in an argument with a thinking atheist or a scientist.

i never said any of that, dont make up straw men, simply attack or defend the actual argument made.

I don’t call myself an atheist because I think atheism is a form of “belief” and I try not to “believe” anything

.

we theists think the same thing, atheism in practice is pretty much a “faith” in a scientific based origin theory.

Here by “belief” I mean things treated as if they were facts for which there is no observational evidence.

yeah thats called empiricism, though its not really on topic, i would suggest that you check out my previous threads dealing with the “non-physical”, empiricism only takes you so far.

I try to “conclude” rather than “believe” things. Interestingly, this is very hard to do

yup, i understand, rationality often ends at the edge of belief

I have tentatively concluded i.e. come up with a hypothesis that the tendency to “believe” is hardwired in our brains and must have served some evolutionary purpose.

for me belief is a rational expression of logic, based on observed phenomenon, most people arent interested in such things, which seems to lead many to believe that faith is not rational! (if only everyone was a jesuit) sigh…

 

[crowonsnow]

premise

a) no physical origin for the universe is possible, as no physical thing can create itself.

conclusion

b) therefore science can offer no explanation for the universes origin.

the premise is true, therefore the conclusion is true.

Your argument is flawed. I will demonstrate:

a) no non-physical origin for the universe is possible, as no non-physical thing can create itself.

conclusion

b) therefore non physicality can offer no explanation for the universes origin.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I am a Catholic. not an atheist. I talk to God several times a day, in prayer

But I do not believe that God’s existence can be proven.

why not? what makes it impossible?

If sheer existence implies a creator, then existent God had a creator.

thats the usual atheist line, the problem is with the understanding of cause, cause only applies to physical things, things that act and react in accord with physical laws. the non-physical, logically necessary from the inability of physical self causation, cannot be held to those standards as it lacks any physical qualities by which causation may be applied.

If we limit the things which “have to” have a creator to “physical” things, which is what you do without giving a reason,

please read my threads on the “non-physical” it would save alot of time rehashing.

And nature creates matter all of the time – in stars. In the thermonuclear furnace of each star, Hydrogen protons are fused into Helium nuclei, so that energy is converted into mass. As the stars get hotter and hotter, heavier and heavier elements are formed, and more and more energy is converted into more and more mass.

ummmm, no… there is no matter created anywhere in the universe by any physical process. …no new matter comes from stars, its just recycled.

An atheist would look at that process, realize that there is a potential for eternal movement there and in other possible natural processes – for example, the “expansion/contraction” Big Bang theory, and say, “I’m sorry, friend, but I see perpetual physical motion and creation of matter. I can’t accept your argument.”

im sorry, but no rational person holds with perpetual motion. there are myriad further problems with that statement, but its off topic.

I’m sorry to rain on your parade, but it’s probably cleaner to say, “Look, Aquinas was wrong. If God Himself is the exception to all of Aquinas’ arguments, then the thing ostensibly ‘proven’ disproves the rule!”

as i said above, that argument assumes some sort of physical G-d, which by both logical necessity and Christain tradition, is not our regular understanding of G-d. please look at my “non-physical” threads for furhter discussion.

the above argument is a common misunderstanding, but its been thoroughly roasted. maybe you can use these arguments put in a more social context, the next time someone tries to give you that.

There is a pretty effective inductive argument (CentralFLJames, you’ll like this) inside of Bible typology…

A careful review of typological word pictures in the OT reveals that Jesus is foreshadowed again and again and again and again – in the JEWISH books of the Bible, the last place on Earth you would expect thiis to happen, after 1700 years of anti-Semitism.

I checked. The Jewish Bible’s English translation reads the same as ours, for type purposes.

In other words, Jews don’t know it, but the books of their Bible are jammed with Christ pictures.

This is impossible, unless there exists a God Who cleverly put the material there.

Another approach is the spiritual one: Try Christianity on for size. If it grabs you, and it works, it’s valid.

Redbook Magazine did a study, years ago, of the impact of religion on sex and marriage. (Some of the really ancient folks here will remember it.) The study showed that two groups, more than any other, enjoyed joyous marriages: Devout Catholics, and Othodox Jews.

Pretty cool!

I evangelize atheists with the prayer experiment. In one website, I befriended a rather famous Lebian atheist (and she is my good friend to this day!) and challenged her to do the prayer experiment. I said, “If you have really fouled something up, and you are in big, big trouble, and reality is chasing you like a problem has already been solved, maybe not in the way you want, but the problem is solved. When the solution becomes apparent, words like this will jump into your head, in your own mind’s voice: ‘This is the answer to your prayer, So-and-so.’ Report back to me. I say that with confidence. If this works, though, I ask that you give God ‘free advertizing.’ TELL people what happened.”

My friend tried the experiment, and to the astonishment of everyone she posted, “Everyone, I have to confess that Peter’s prayer experiment worked. I had a giant problem that was going to do me in. I prayed to the possible God in the darkness. The problem evaporated. It was amazing.”

as im not a theologian, but rather a metaphysicist, i use the mathematically convergent messianic prophecies to prove the validity of Christianity once i have established the logical necessity of the “non-physical”

all that said, you never seemed to mention the actual argument i made, i.e. no scientific explanation of the origins of the universe are possible, therefore atheism cannot be grounded in empirical science.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your argument is flawed. I will demonstrate:

a) no non-physical origin for the universe is possible, as no non-physical thing can create itself.

ok, can you prove this? my premise is true, no physical thing can cause itself.

can you prove your premise?

conclusion

b) therefore non physicality can offer no explanation for the universes origin.

if your premise is false, so is your conclusion.

how does that then make my argument flawed?, it looks like you replaced my true premise, with a false one.

straw men aside, can you disprove my premise? no you cant, here is why.

if something doesn’t exist, it cant act, if it cant act, it cant cause itself.

if nothing physical can cause itself, then science, which only deals with physical things can offer no comment on it.

 

[VociMike]

it is impossible for science to offer any physical explanation for the existence of the universe, as no physical thing can cause its own creation.

The most common response to this line of thought seems to be “well why can’t the universe (or multiverse) just have existed forever?”

I have problems with pulling that rabbit out of that hat. For one thing, it conveniently gets around the “problem” of God by granting the material world some properties associated with God. That strikes me as special pleading. For another, I’m not convinced that there can be actual physical infinities in either time or space or any other physical quantity. But I haven’t seen any arguments that are really effective against this response. Perhaps there is one, I just haven’t seen it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The most common response to this line of thought seems to be “well why can’t the universe (or multiverse) just have existed forever?”

I have problems with pulling that rabbit out of that hat. For one thing, it conveniently gets around the “problem” of God by granting the material world some properties associated with God. That strikes me as special pleading. For another, I’m not convinced that there can be actual physical infinities in either time or space or any other physical quantity. But I haven’t seen any arguments that are really effective against this response. Perhaps there is one, I just haven’t seen it.

sure, ive heard that repeatedly, let me list my regular refutations.

1. it violates the second law of thermodynamics. if the universe existed forever than we would not exist as the universe would have reached maximum entropy.

here they usually try to assert a repeatedly bouncing universe… only scientific observation excludes that, the rate of universal expansion is increasing with no stop in sight, among other problems
ultimately though it doesnt matter what physical theory they propose, they are all fail based on the impossibility of physical causation.

but your right, rather than accept the obvious truth of causation, they flee to another argument excluded by physics.

to me that screams that atheism is a position held by desire rather than rational exploration.

they just really dont want there to be a G-d, whatever their reasons. science is just the excuse, im trying to take that away. they will still be atheistsregardless of the arguments, logic, or evidence. because they want to be

as to physical infinities, the closed nature of the universe prevents that, i.e. you can only stuff so much in a box, no matter how big, it aint infinite.

as to temporal infinities, they are excluded once again, by our friend, science, the standard BB theory says time started around 1x10(-34) seconds after the BB, prior to that, we have no evidence that time existed in in way.

remember, regarless of common opinion, properly applied, science and rationalism are the friend of the theist. dont let them tell you any different

 

[anEvilAtheist]

A careful review of typological word pictures in the OT reveals that Jesus is foreshadowed again and again and again and again – in the JEWISH books of the Bible, the last place on Earth you would expect thiis to happen, after 1700 years of anti-Semitism.

I checked. The Jewish Bible’s English translation reads the same as ours, for type purposes.

In other words, Jews don’t know it, but the books of their Bible are jammed with Christ pictures.

This is impossible, unless there exists a God Who cleverly put the material there.

Hey Peter. I posted replies to what you said about typology on the two other threads in which you recently brought it up. I won’t rehash my arguments here, but I would be interested in hearing your reply to what I had to say if you have the time.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I evangelize atheists with the prayer experiment. In one website, I befriended a rather famous Lebian atheist (and she is my good friend to this day!) and challenged her to do the prayer experiment. I said, “If you have really fouled something up, and you are in big, big trouble, and reality is chasing you like a vicious, snarling, salivating German shepherd, snapping at your tail, down the street, then if you have no faith, stop, pray to the darkness for faith, and then, when you have enough faith to at least believe that it is POSSIBLE that there is an almighty loving God there in the darkness, pray to the possibility. Ask Him for help ONCE. (Don’t wear out the rug, with, ‘God ya gotta help me! God ya gotta help me! God ya gotta help me!’ God HATES that, because it’s really a LACK of faith which makes you do that.) Then, relax! I swear that your problem has already been solved, maybe not in the way you want, but the problem is solved. When the solution becomes apparent, words like this will jump into your head, in your own mind’s voice: ‘This is the answer to your prayer, So-and-so.’ Report back to me. I say that with confidence. If this works, though, I ask that you give God ‘free advertizing.’ TELL people what happened.”

My friend tried the experiment, and to the astonishment of everyone she posted, “Everyone, I have to confess that Peter’s prayer experiment worked. I had a giant problem that was going to do me in. I prayed to the possible God in the darkness. The problem evaporated. It was amazing.”

The problem I see with this experiment is that it will give a ton of false positives if God does not exist and is thus a very unreliable way of determining whether there is a God. If someone is at their lowest point and thinks that they are in big trouble, I think that things will often get better regardless of whether they pray. I know from personal experience that every time I feel like I am in a situation like this, things have soon taken a turn for the better, even though I have never prayed that they would.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The problem I see with this experiment is that it will give a ton of false positives if God does not exist and is thus a very unreliable way of determining whether there is a God. If someone is at their lowest point and thinks that they are in big trouble, I think that things will often get better regardless of whether they pray. I know from personal experience that every time I feel like I am in a situation like this, things have soon taken a turn for the better, even though I have never prayed that they would.

i noticed another thread on bad apologetics you wrote. i wonder, what are your specific arguments are in support of atheism?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

i noticed another thread on bad apologetics you wrote. i wonder, what are your specific arguments are in support of atheism?

My best argument is that none of the arguments for God have been shown to work. What are your specific arguments that show that invisible unicorns don’t exist?

I do have a few arguments that I’ve thought of that I think might provide evidence against God’s existence (but do not disprove his existence with 100% certainty, since I think that pretty much the only thing you can know with 100% certainty is your own existence). I will start some more threads at some point, but right now I already have way more posts to respond to than I can handle, so you’ll have to wait.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My best argument is that none of the arguments for God have been shown to work. What are your specific arguments that show that invisible unicorns don’t exist?

I do have a few arguments that I’ve thought of that I think might provide evidence against God’s existence (but do not disprove his existence with 100% certainty, since I think that pretty much the only thing you can know with 100% certainty is your own existence). I will start some more threads at some point, but right now I already have way more posts to respond to than I can handle, so you’ll have to wait.

yeah, you cant prove a negative.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

sure, ive heard that repeatedly, let me list my regular refutations.

1. it violates the second law of thermodynamics. if the universe existed forever than we would not exist as the universe would have reached maximum entropy.

here they usually try to assert a repeatedly bouncing universe… only scientific observation excludes that, the rate of universal expansion is increasing with no stop in sight, among other problems
ultimately though it doesnt matter what physical theory they propose, they are all fail based on the impossibility of physical causation.

but your right, rather than accept the obvious truth of causation, they flee to another argument excluded by physics.

Well, I do not think we know enough to say whether a universe that has only existed for a finite amount of time is possible without God. However, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the only possible way the universe could exist without God is if it had always existed. There are plenty of theories for how the universe could have existed eternally (such as the Steinhardt–Turok model and the Baum–Frampton model). We will probably never know which model is correct since our ability to see what happened in the past has a lower limit at Planck time. We do weed out theories that don’t work as we discover problems with them just as we do in any field, but unless you have just made some brilliant discoveries, there are still quite a few workable cosmological models that avoid the problem of the second law of thermodynamics. If you think that these models could not possibly be true, please explain why.

to me that screams that atheism is a position held by desire rather than rational exploration.

Certainly some people are atheists because they want it to be true, just as some people are Christians because they want Christianity to be true. However, there are a lot of atheists who wish that Christianity were true and came very reluctantly to atheism, only after realizing that there was no reason to believe.

they just really dont want there to be a G-d, whatever their reasons. science is just the excuse, im trying to take that away. they will still be atheistsregardless of the arguments, logic, or evidence. because they want to be

I appreciate you “trying to take that away.” Exposing scientific inconsistencies with someone’s position is important. None of us want to believe something that is logically inconsistent. Currently I haven’t seen anything to show that my position is inconsistent, but if you keep studying this issue and do find something, I would definitely want to know about it.

as to temporal infinities, they are excluded once again, by our friend, science, the standard BB theory says time started around 1x10(-34) seconds after the BB, prior to that, we have no evidence that time existed in in way.

How is time supposed to start a certain amount of TIME after anything? You are also misunderstanding the Big Bang Theory a little bit. The version of it that we have evidence for deals only with the expansion of the universe from a point in time where it was very small and hot. I suggest that you brush up a little bit on what the Big Bang model actually says: talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html.

remember, regarless of common opinion, properly applied, science and rationalism are the friend of the theist. dont let them tell you any different

If you could provide scientific evidence that atheism is inconsistent than I would agree.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I’m not convinced that there can be actual physical infinities in either time or space or any other physical quantity.

I haven’t seen any valid proofs that actual infinities cannot exist. I don’t think the existence of God hinges on whether they can exist, but it is an interesting topic and I would like to see any proofs you might have that they cannot exist.

 

[wasmit]

it is impossible for science to offer any physical explanation for the existence of the universe, as no physical thing can cause its own creation.

in view of the impotency of science in regard then to the philosophy of atheism, what basis is there for atheism?

it is impossible for science to provide a foundation upon which to structure atheism, so what then is atheism?

atheism provides no answers to our existence apart from the sciences, if no answer then is possible, is atheism simply a position one holds from desire?

is there any other basis for atheism than science? what rational reasons can one have to hold the position if not based on the sciences?

are you discussing strong atheism or weak atheism?
“it is currently impossible for science to offer any physical explanation for the existence of the universe”

You should insert the word “currently” to be more accurate, unless you can show that it will be forever impossible to demonstrate a physical explanation.

“atheism provides no answers to our existence apart from the sciences”

You seem to be confused about what atheism is. Atheism provides nothing, it is merely a position on one issue.