The Absurdity of Atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NM505StKate said:
There is a difference between trust and faith. If I had a spouse I would have trust in that person to be honest with me in what they do. I don’t have faith in them. What assumptions does it have and where did you find them?
Click to expand...
We trust (rely upon) the scientific method.

But first we have to have faith that the scientific method is always going to deliver results.

But the scientific method cannot always deliver the results, so **we have to have faith in the results we discover **even though there is no science to explain them.

Example: the Big Bang.

Science gets us to the Big Bang. But once we get there, all the laws of physics break down to something we cannot understand … what caused the Big Bang. There is no science that tells us what happened … yet we have to have faith in the event itself.

It is the same with theology. We can reason our way back to a Creator, but all the laws of logic are impotent to explain the Creator. If we want the explanation, we have to have faith in what we believe God has revealed to us about himself. .
 
o_mlly said:
In life, without human faith in those who preceded us (parents, teachers), we would have no framework to doubt.

The atheist’s method is the scientific method – assumes nothing, experiments or observes to produce data and uses reason to order the data.
Click to expand...
Wherever you go, science will use the same method. As regards parents and teachers, they are entirely dependent on where you were born.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
We trust (rely upon) the scientific method.

But first we have to have faith that the scientific method is always going to deliver results.

But the scientific method cannot always deliver the results, so **we have to have faith in the results we discover **even though there is no science to explain them.

Example: the Big Bang.

Science gets us to the Big Bang. But once we get there, all the laws of physics break down to something we cannot understand … what caused the Big Bang. There is no science that tells us what happened … yet we have to have faith in the event itself.

It is the same with theology. We can reason our way back to a Creator, but all the laws of logic are impotent to explain the Creator. If we want the explanation, we have to have faith in what we believe God has revealed to us about himself. .
Click to expand...
How do I put this. When something is being tested by the scientific method scientists are trying to prove it false. not prove it true. Yes science got us to the Big Bang and yes we don’t know what happened before that but there is evidence of it happening not faith that it happened.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
We trust (rely upon) the scientific method.

But first we have to have faith that the scientific method is always going to deliver results.

But the scientific method cannot always deliver the results, so **we have to have faith in the results we discover **even though there is no science to explain them.

Example: the Big Bang.

Science gets us to the Big Bang. But once we get there, all the laws of physics break down to something we cannot understand … what caused the Big Bang. There is no science that tells us what happened … yet we have to have faith in the event itself…
Click to expand...
Science says: ‘This is the best explanation that we have at the moment. We’ll get back to you if we find a better one’.

Peoples with a religious belief say: ‘We know what the explanation is and we will not entertain any others’.
 
Bradski said:
Science says: ‘This is the best explanation that we have at the moment. We’ll get back to you if we find a better one’.

Peoples with a religious belief say: ‘We know what the explanation is and we will not entertain any others’.
Click to expand...
Science does not even offer a “best explanation” for the Big Bang. Yes, that it happened, but not how.

Atheism offers no why.

Religion goes to the why.

It would be interesting to hear you explain how it will be possible EVER for science to explain how it happened when it only happened once fourteen billion years ago and there was no one but God and the angels to witness it. 😉
 
NM505StKate said:
How do I put this. When something is being tested by the scientific method scientists are trying to prove it false. not prove it true. Yes science got us to the Big Bang and yes we don’t know what happened before that but there is evidence of it happening not faith that it happened.
Click to expand...
When scientists tried to test you could split the atom, they were trying to prove you cannot split the atom?

I doubt it very much.

Try again?
 
Bradski said:
Science says: ‘This is the best explanation that we have at the moment. We’ll get back to you if we find a better one’.

Peoples with a religious belief say: ‘We know what the explanation is and we will not entertain any others’.
Click to expand...
Such confusion.
This is how it works (in the Catholic Church anyway):

Theology does not concern itself with proving the natural world. Theology is not intended to explain how the world works or how it was created, scientifically. Theology is not concerned with how old the earth is, how our genes came to be, how many solar systems there are…etc…Theology address “larger”, more transcendental questions than the proofs of the physical aspects of the universe.
Theology accepts the accepted science. Faith and reason are never at odds.

Science cannot do theology, by it’s nature.
Science has no business making a proclamation on the (non)existence of God. Any scientist worth his salt does not even give it a passing interest, in his practice of science. Personal belief is another matter of course.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Science does not even offer a “best explanation” for the Big Bang. Yes, that it happened, but not how.

Atheism offers no why.

Religion goes to the why.

It would be interesting to hear you explain how it will be possible EVER for science to explain how it happened when it only happened once fourteen billion years ago and there was no one but God and the angels to witness it. 😉
Click to expand...
C: We’re not sure about how we got here, are we?
S: Yeah, it was entirely natural. The science is in.
C: Damn. How about all the flora and fauna?
S: Yep, same thing. We know how it happened.
C: Continents, seas and stuff?
S: Natural. We’ve worked out the processes.
C: Well, how about the whole planet?
S: Natural accretion of interstellar particles and dust. Star stuff. Same with the sun.
C: And all the other stars I suppose.
S: You got it.
C: But hang on. If we go back far enough, when everything started…
S: You mean when this observable universe started?
C: Yeah. We don’t know what caused that, do we?
S: No. There’s a limit past which we can’t investigate.
C: Yes! That’s where we can put God.
 
Bradski said:
C: We’re not sure about how we got here, are we?
S: Yeah, it was entirely natural. The science is in.
C: Damn. How about all the flora and fauna?
S: Yep, same thing. We know how it happened.
C: Continents, seas and stuff?
S: Natural. We’ve worked out the processes.
C: Well, how about the whole planet?
S: Natural accretion of interstellar particles and dust. Star stuff. Same with the sun.
C: And all the other stars I suppose.
S: You got it.
C: But hang on. If we go back far enough, when everything started…
S: You mean when this observable universe started?
C: Yeah. We don’t know what caused that, do we?
S: No. There’s a limit past which we can’t investigate.
C: Yes! That’s where we can put God.
Click to expand...
What does it mean to be natural?

I don’t think science can answer “why is there something rather than nothing?” etc.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Bradski said:
Science says: ‘This is the best explanation that we have at the moment. We’ll get back to you if we find a better one’.

Peoples with a religious belief say: ‘We know what the explanation is and we will not entertain any others’.
Click to expand...
This view is a result of your belief that reality is fundamentally relative.
An alternative view is that there are not different truths, but different perspectives on the truth.
The Golden Rule reveals a truth that is unanimously agreed upon by those who seek the good.
We cannot entertain that the Truth does not exist, nor that the Truth is not Beauty, Life, Goodness and Love.
The difference lies in seeing reality not as relative but as relational, to each other, the world and the Source of our being.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Science does not even offer a “best explanation” for the Big Bang. Yes, that it happened, but not how.

Atheism offers no why.

Religion goes to the why.

It would be interesting to hear you explain how it will be possible EVER for science to explain how it happened when it only happened once fourteen billion years ago and there was no one but God and the angels to witness it. 😉
Click to expand...
Why does “the why” have to be God? Why can it not be a natural event?
 
Bradski said:
. . . C: Yeah. We don’t know what caused that, do we? S: No. There’s a limit past which we can’t investigate. C: Yes! That’s where we can put God.
Click to expand...
You may wish to consider that there is one creation. All the currents, the rocks, the molecules, the flora, the fauna are like individual melodies which together form the symphony that is the universe, eternal and being played out to our rational minds which cleave the present moment from the whole. They all come together, parts relating to one another. Some people put God where they cannot explain things any further, such as why we are here, how is it that things and we ourselves, exist.
 
NM505StKate said:
Why does “the why” have to be God? Why can it not be a natural event?
Click to expand...
Because time/space begins with the Big Bang, and therefore there was no natural law to “start” the universe. We must look elsewhere, as Newton, Einstein and others acknowledge. For them the elsewhere is in the mind of God.
 
Bradski said:
C: We’re not sure about how we got here, are we?
S: Yeah, it was entirely natural. The science is in.
Click to expand...
Not really. There is no science that explains how or why the Big Bang began, only that it did begin.

Therefore there is no science that explains why there is something rather than nothing.

“I want to know how God created this world. I’m not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details.” Albert Einstein
 
clem456 said:
Theology is not intended to explain how the world works or how it was created, scientifically. Theology accepts the accepted science.
Click to expand...
In which case, if I should ask you how the universe was created (not why, but how), the answer should be: ‘I don’t know’. Because that is the current scientific answer. Are you OK with that?
Lucretius said:
What does it mean to be natural?
Click to expand...
Anything that can be explained using the scientific method.
Aloysium said:
We cannot entertain that the Truth does not exist, nor that the Truth is not Beauty, Life, Goodness and Love.
The difference lies in seeing reality not as relative but as relational, to each other, the world and the Source of our being.
Click to expand...
Capitalising words does not imbue them with any mystical meaning.
clem456 said:
And the natural event comes from…🤷
Is caused by…🤷
Is formed from…🤷
Click to expand...
I think that you’ll find that some people believe that theology accepts the accepted science (I saw it written somewhere). So the answer would be: ‘I don’t know’.
 
Bradski said:
I think that you’ll find that some people believe that theology accepts the accepted science (I saw it written somewhere). So the answer would be: ‘I don’t know’.
Click to expand...
Theology doesn’t accept the accepted science any more than science accepts the accepted theology. They are two different realms altogether.

Atheism also does not accept the accepted science because atheism accepts nothing.

The very word “atheism” designates the rejection of God and everything associated with theism. It certainly does not designate accepting the accepted science. Sometimes it even looks for highly imaginative alternatives (science fiction) to the Big Bang, such as the multiverse, which it would like to see become the accepted science so that the uncomfortable implications of the Big Bang can be dismissed, as in “Let there be light!”
 
Bradski said:
In which case, if I should ask you how the universe was created (not why, but how), the answer should be: ‘I don’t know’. Because that is the current scientific answer. Are you OK with that?
Click to expand...
I would be very O.K. with that. 😉

Just like any good theist, you are acknowledging the mystery of Creation.

You might insist we will someday be able to scientifically solve the mystery.

But I don’t see how science is even going to come near to doing that. and I know of no research that is addressing the question of why there was (is) a Big Bang.

For atheists it used to be over a hundred years ago so much easier to just assume there was no creation. That the universe is infinite and eternal.

Then comes along that pesky “Let there be light!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top