Atheists

I think when you get down to it, most people are really agnostic, and don't want to admit it. Agnosticism is a question of whether it's all knowable. And this isn't a question of truth.

Once that question is resolved, there is still the question of whether or not you believe in god. Agnosticism isn't a clear alternative to atheism or theism unless you've given up questioning.

No mater how many people want to argue it, I can't disprove an assertion of something that exists outside measurment.

Beliving in god isn't any more logical then belief in my leprechaun, just because more people share the view of god the subject.

And logic is a criteria based on reason, not truth. It's more reasonable to have no belief regarding group delusions, rather then to believe in the supernatural.

You answered your own question there. Supernatural is something that has to be taken upon faith, the disregard of supernatural is more rational.

Belief in the supernatural will be argued by some people in the sense of, "look how complex that the universe is", those arguments, but they'll generally get down to the fact that it's a matter of faith.

I can't win against that argument, and I won't try. They have faith in an unknowable option.

Atheism is not a faith. Not to me. It's simply a rejection of the supernatural, which is inherently more logical.

 

In ordinary usage, they are three mutually exclusive terms. Agnostics say that the existence of God is unknowable. Theists say that God exists, atheists say God does not exist. If you want to define the terms in a special way, that's up to you.

I agree, it comes down to faith. Complexity and other considerations may be reasons inclining a person to have faith, but at some point a believer (or disbeliever) needs to rely on intuition and risk taking.

I disagree. Neither acceptance nor rejection of the supernatural is particularly "logical" or illogical. Logic is a rigorous process of reasoning based on deduction from established premises or induction from particular facts to a general conclusion. Neither theism nor atheism is subject to rigorous proof, and it's not "logical" to accept one or the other by default. The concept of "supernatural" describes anything outside the currently accepted theories of science. Relativity,quantum theory, and string theory allow for phenomena that would have been considered "supernatural" in the early twentieth century.

There are some rules of thumb, however, that are not strictly speaking "logical" but seem sensible to me in dealing with experience and evidence: e.g., Occam's razor, Hume's test for miracles, the expectation that a person making an assertion will bear the burden of proof, etc. On that basis, I admit to being extremely skeptical about encounters with extraterrestrials, unicorns, leprechauns, ghosts,Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine, Muhammed riding on a winged horse, Buddha being sired by a white elephant or shielded by a giant cobra,etc. Although strictly speaking it's not "illogical" to believe or "logical" to disbelieve in such things, I ,as a professed Christian, am comfortable in taking a stand beside the infidel in insisting on strong evidence for extraordinary claims. This is a policy choice in favor of rationality, and "in my heart I know it's right".

 

Where are all the atheists and agnostics? All the action lately seems to be on the Christian Forum. To get some discussion going, I thought I'd toss out a couple of questions and see what y'all come up with:
(1) As I understand it, the oldest rocks are supposed to be about 4 billion years old, and the earliest known life forms, already somewhat complex blue-green algae and bacteria, are more than 3.7 billion years old. How did the Blind Watchmaker bring that about by a process of random mutations and natural selection during that time frame, when the probablility of a single mutation producing positive results is about one in 20 million? (2) the basic parameters of the universe involve physical constants with precisely the value needed for complex structures to arise. If these were different,the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. For example, if the expansion rate of the universe after the Big Bang had been one-billionth less, the universe would have imploded, and if it had been one-billionth more, it would have exploded, leaving only dilute gas. A minute difference in the strength of the electomagnetic field relative to the gravitational field would have prevented our Sun from forming. If the difference between the mass of the neutron and the proton were not twice the mass of the electron, it would be difficult or impossible to have chemical reactions, etc. For more examples, see http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html (obviously a Christian apologetics website). Are we lucky, or what?

 

At least for myself, I think we've been through number 2 a little:
"And if you want to take quantum mechanics to extremes... which says "nothing exists until it is observed". We have observed the initial conditions of the universe, such as the charge of the electron, the force of gravity, the speed of light, etc. And these constants must be just right for life to exist. Maybe our act of scientific observation set these constants to what they are. And they couldn't be anything other than what is required to support life - otherwise there would be no observation. Maybe our existence is required for the universe to exist! Yes it is twisted, but experiments do show that observations after an event somehow affect the event."

Things like this actually happen in QM, so this is in the realm of possibility. As for #1, I'm no biologist, but I believe the order was first amino acids from either Earth or from comets/asteroids. They are known to carry amino acids. Then eventually RNA, then mitochondria (a cell organell that holds the RNA), then the nucleus with DNA evolved and then the cell. The rest is history. Hopefully a biologist or exobiologist is in the house and can elaborate or correct me.

As for your 1 in 20 million estimate, how many chemical reactions do you suppose happened per second all over the Earth between all those organic molecules? I don't think 1 in 20 million is so rare when you look at it that way.

 

Did this quotation just say we can create or fundamentally alter our own entire universe, even adjust the constants for it, just by trying to observe it? Horsefeathers! QM and relativity theory have pushed many fine scientists to the frontiers of sanity, and certainly the universe(s), as we view them today, are far different from the mechanistic Newtonian one that actually made sense. I understand that whether an electron or other atomic entity shows particle-like or wave-like properties will depend on the experimental situation, or the apparatus it's forced to interact with. I think the leap from that fact to the extreme presented in the statement brings us to the point that we could believe anything. Why not sacred cows, virgin births, Santa Claus, whatever? Intuitively, I doubt it, just as I really doubt, relativity theory to the contrary, that there will ever be a day when we can travel back in time to meet Caesar or George Washington. If it's come to this, we might as well throw our minds away and join the New Age. I'll believe it when I see it. But I think the second part of your response was good. I'll get back on that after we get some more reactions.

 

I'm not saying I support that theory. It's just that from what I know of QM it's possible. And I'm not saying we can alter anything by observation. When an observation is made in QM it seems that one of 2 or more possibilities have been chosen, and once the observation is made, everything still remains self consistent. It's as if the choice was already made but the act of observation forced the choice. I am not sure what really happens when an observation is made in QM experiments though. But it's something weird for sure.

 

LOL...

Tide in knots by qm.. lol

Occam

 

Okie

Much of what u say is logical.. linear and lateral.
bUT BACK IN TIME...?

The IS no Back in time.
It does not exist

And cannot be reached by any method...
Reality is not the 'film hypothesis' It is not existant and we pass
thou it... thats deterministic rubbish.

There is only one reality.. now.

The future however......can be reached by suspending the now.
Einstein has shown us how to do this with time dilation.
The slow time machine.

Occam

 

Indeed...

• Quantum mechanics is magic. Daniel Greenberger.
• Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. Niels Bohr.
• Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. Niels Bohr.
• If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it. John Wheeler.
• It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman.
• If [quantum theory] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science. Albert Einstein.
• I do not like [quantum mechanics], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. Erwin Schrödinger.
• Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense. Roger Penrose.

 

mr stiffy

Yes true all those quotes,, Q theory is nearly as boggling as infinity.
Makes my small mind spin. shrodingers cat is a good one.
But, NOT ONE says we can go back in time.. QM is about existant dynamics..
But
We dont understand it very well and cant use it to go 'back in time'
[Q has nothing to do with time.. only process.]
We never will .. there is no 'time' to go back too.
The only 'time' there is is right NOW.

All is is concept

The moment you read this is the ONLY TIME THERE IS.... EVER.
[40 years i have worked this . what time is.
instinct says my conclusion is correct...disprove it and
you have earned my thanks
{i cant}]

Occam