God & Science: A Look at Possibilities

[gkc2294]

Every time I read a physics or modern science magazine, it always talks about evolution, our universe forming from others, and other secular stuff. Why can't God be considered as a possibility. I mean its not as if all modern scientists don't believe in God. Some of the greatest scientists are openly monotheistic (Stephen Hawking, Robert Penrose, ALBERT EINSTEIN, Michio Kaku.)

 

[n.karthick]

It is better to read "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, because, I think, it answers why God is not a possibility. In my opinion, it is not the great Scientists whom we have to look for answers, but the theories, results, work from them have to be read, tested and accepted by us.
A scientist's personal life and belief has nothing to do with Science, I believe. We have the right to doubt any scientific theory, test it and accept if it is convincing to us. This holds good for religious belief !

 

[Glennage]

Because I don't believe in a talking snake, a man who lived in a "Fish", a man who fed thousands with a few pieces of bread and fish, a man who parted the sea with his hands, and we have something like 97% DNA to Apes... Kind of figures the theory of evolution to be much more true than believing in a made up religion such as Christianity. I believe the story of Jesus was made up, to establish what is now the LARGEST religion in the world, Christianity. I simply put my FAITH in Science & Fact, not Fiction.

Read: Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion
Watch: Religilous

I don't care, nor mind what anyone believes in, but for me, it's a dilusion to the real world, a sense of comfort for the masses. Or simply, most young people as children are often brainwashed by TV, Parents etc to believe in things like this, instead of having the chance to make up there own mind.

When I have children, they will NOT be baptised & I will NOT be getting married in a church, nor do I want a "Church" Funeral, or any talk of God at my death / marriage.

Life is Material, Not Supernatural.

 

[GeorginaS]

Countdown to thread closure.

 

[leroyjenkens]

You can acknowledge that it's a possibility, but where do you go from there? What hypotheses are there to test? None. All you can do is say "it's possible", then move on to testing other theories and hypotheses that can actually be tested. In other words, if science did what you asked, nothing at all would change. It would be exactly as it is now.

 

[mgb_phys]

Why can't God be considered as a possibility.

Because then there's not much point in doing the research - if the answer is god did it.

Of course it makes the exams a lot easier if you can answer, "god did it" or "whatever god wants it to be" for every question.

 

[Borek]

Scientific tools are incompatible with god. Scientific tools are based on repeatable experiments and measurements, according to theologists and church god is unmeasurable.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Why can't God be considered as a possibility. I mean its not as if all modern scientists don't believe in God.

Sensible answer: Becuase the supernatural is not science. If you start sticking 'the big man' into unexplained things willy nilly, where do you stop? We might as well go home now and have the rest of time off trying to discover things.

My answer: Becuase god is total bollocks... that's why.

Flippant answer: Why God? I noticed you capitalised it, rather than leave it as a generic god.

 

[fluidistic]

Some of the greatest scientists are openly monotheistic (Stephen Hawking, Robert Penrose, ALBERT EINSTEIN, Michio Kaku.)

Einstein declared himself as agnostic. Since when agnostic people are considered as "openly monotheistic"?

 

[leroyjenkens]

Einstein declared himself as agnostic. Since when agnostic people are considered as "openly monotheistic"?

It bothers me when people say they're agnostic. Just say atheist. It's the same thing.

 

[mgb_phys]

Since when agnostic people are considered as "openly monotheistic"?

To one significant figure they are the same!

Really christians and atheists aren't that different, christians don't believe in 1000s of gods, atheists don't believe in 1000s +1

 

[shoehorn]

It bothers me when people say they're agnostic. Just say atheist. It's the same thing.

It's manifestly not. The weakest form of atheism is a much stronger position to hold than even the strongest forms of agnosticism.

 

[xxChrisxx]

It bothers me when people say they're agnostic. Just say atheist. It's the same thing.

Not by definition the two words mean different things. Agnostic means without knowledge. Atheist means without belief in theism.

Agnostic has come to mean 'sitting of the fence', which is a perfectly valid position to take up. It's honest saying "I don't know".

 

[Borek]

It's honest saying "I don't know".

It is honest when it is honest, but it is dishonest when it is just to cover your lack of courage.

 

[xxChrisxx]

It is honest when it is honest, but it is dishonest when it is just to cover your lack of courage.

Indeed. Not quite the point that I was conveying.

 

[jackmell]

To one significant figure they are the same!

Really christians and atheists aren't that different, christians don't believe in 1000s of gods, atheists don't believe in 1000s +1

I'm afraid it is quite a qualitative difference: Christians believe in a supreme being that actually even knows about us and influences our lives. Atheist do not believe even in the concept of "God".

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'm afraid it is quite a qualitative difference: Christians believe in a supreme being that actually even knows about us and influences our lives. Atheist do not believe even in the concept of "God".

It was an ironic statement.

 

[russ_watters]

Succinct answer: god CAN be considered - just not by science.

 

[Pattonias]

It is honest when it is honest, but it is dishonest when it is just to cover your lack of courage.

You mean to say, the courage to take a stand on a principle that you can not prove scientifically without a doubt. An agonostic is taking a more objective view. As an agnostic, I say that I will try to follow the evidence as it is given to me. How is it less couragous of me to not jump off the "fence" and say that there is not God or god without absolutely knowing for sure. That would be roughly equivalent to saying that there is a God or god without having the evidence to prove it. At the moment I try to live based on what I know.

Maybe one day we'll find a cave on a distant planet that says "God's house" and find it empty. Then I can step off the fence.

 

[zomgwtf]

You mean to say, the courage to take a stand on a principle that you can not prove scientifically without a doubt. An agonostic is taking a more objective view. As an agnostic, I say that I will try to follow the evidence as it is given to me. How is it less couragous of me to not jump off the "fence" and say that there is not God or god without absolutely knowing for sure. That would be roughly equivalent to saying that there is a God or god without having the evidence to prove it. At the moment I try to live based on what I know.

Maybe one day we'll find a cave on a distant planet that says "God's house" and find it empty. Then I can step off the fence.

Uhmmm, I think you misunderstand what the word atheism means. It doesn't mean a position against existence of god, it means lack of belief in gods. You do get those 'radical' or 'fundamental' atheist who go around giving lectures in which they say 'god doesn't exist' but those are ALWAYS to do with a specific concept of god, whether it be christian or hindu or ancient egyptian. I don't think I have ever seen an atheist come right out and claim 'universal knowledge' that there 'is no god(s)'.

I'll repeat if you didn't get it, atheism isn't a belief, it's the lack of belief and saying 'I don't believe god exist' isn't the same as saying 'god does not exist' (in a definitive sense on the concept not as an opinion or a definitive stance against a religious concept of a particular god)

 

[leroyjenkens]

Not by definition the two words mean different things. Agnostic means without knowledge. Atheist means without belief in theism.

The atheist is also without knowledge. The agnostic is also without belief. What's the difference?

 

[Pattonias]

Atheism as defined by Merriam-Webster

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

This definition is broad enough that you can make it as mild or extreme as you hold your own convictions. I have met both, those who simply don't believe in a god, and those who don't think anyone else should either.

 

[zomgwtf]

The atheist is also without knowledge. The agnostic is also without belief. What's the difference?

No, the atheist bases their unbelief ON knowledge, that's the key difference in my opinion. Agnostic literally means 'no knowledge' they are at this conclusion becaues they don't have the knowledge to make a claim of belief or unbelief. They are 'neutral' in their beliefs. Atheist is nobelief theist is belief. simple.

 

[xxChrisxx]

The atheist is also without knowledge. The agnostic is also without belief. What's the difference?

Why do you always insist on arguing about things that just aren't subjective? We assign meanings to words, and put those meanings in thnigs called dictionarys.

Atheist and agnostisiam have two totally separate meanings and definitions. Saying they are the same isn't true.

You can use boths words to describe a single person.

gnostic atheist - someone who has considered what he knows and has come to the active conclusion there is no god/s. (also known as strong atheism, I believe this is also as flawed a position as saying there most certainly is a god)
agnostic atheist - either soneone who hasn't/can't make their mind up. Or hasn't considered the evidence. (a baby would fall under this category)

agnostic theist - you don't know if something exists but believe anyway.
gnostic theist - you've condiered what you know and come to the colcusion that god must have done it. (I'd argue that it's always flawed reasoning, but still flawed or not those people believe for a reason).

(someone else can probably come up with a better description).

 

[leroyjenkens]

No, the atheist bases their unbelief ON knowledge, that's the key difference in my opinion. Agnostic literally means 'no knowledge' they are at this conclusion becaues they don't have the knowledge to make a claim of belief or unbelief. They are 'neutral' in their beliefs. Atheist is nobelief theist is belief. simple.

What knowledge could an atheist possibly have on the non-existence of god? Children don't have to learn anything to become atheists, their parents have to teach them about god for them to start believing it.

gnostic atheist - someone who has considered what he knows and has come to the conclusion there is no god.
agnostic atheist - either soneone who hasn't/can't make their mind up. Or hasn't considered the evidence. (a baby would fall under this category)

agnostic theist - you don't know if something exists but believe anyway.
gnostic theist - you've condiered what you know and come to the colcusion that god must have done it. (I'd argue that it's always flawed reasoning, but still flawed or not those people believe for a reason).

That's an interesting way of putting it. It also goes far beyond the definitions of both words. I haven't seen a definition of agnostic that doesn't sound like just an extenuated definition of atheist. You combined agnostic with theist and atheist, you didn't use it by itself. Where did you get all this extra information to clarify the definitions?

 

[xxChrisxx]

What knowledge could an atheist possibly have on the non-existence of god? Children don't have to learn anything to become atheists, their parents have to teach them about god for them to start believing it.

That's an interesting way of putting it. It also goes far beyond the definitions of both words. I haven't seen a definition of agnostic that doesn't sound like just an extenuated definition of atheist. You combined agnostic with theist and atheist, you didn't use it by itself. Where did you get all this extra information to clarify the definitions?

Yes ok, you are perfectly correct. All words now mean exactly what you say they mean. I shall go and burn my dictionary forthwith.

 

[Pattonias]

It seems to me that the definition can be made like this.
Don't get hung up on the sign but.
When it comes to whether you think there is a god or not.

(-) Atheist, (neither positive or negative e.g. neutral) Agnostic, (+) Theist

If you are inclined to think there is no god (no matter to what extreme) you are an atheist.
If you are inclined not to say one way or the other (no matter to what extreme) you are agnostic.
If you are inclined to think there is a god (no matter to what extreme) you are theist.

Barring all other definitons, if you had to lump all human beings into these three categories.
This isn't to say that you personally claim to be atheist and believe that one day you may be convinced that you were wrong. This means that right now you think there is no god therefore you are atheist.

I'm just going by the definitions.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Yes ok, you are perfectly correct. All words now mean exactly what you say they mean. I shall go and burn my dictionary forthwith.

And I apologize for wasting my time trying to debate with you.

If you are inclined to think there is no god (no matter to what extreme) you are an atheist.
If you are inclined not to say one way or the other (no matter to what extreme) you are agnostic.

That would also make the agnostic an atheist. If the agnostic doesn't want to say one way or the other, until he makes up his mind, he's an atheist.
For example, if my friend says he found some gold, I'm not inclined one way or the other to say for sure that he did or didn't find gold. I don't know. But I won't believe it until I see it. So until I see it, I have to be considered a non-believer.

 

[magpies]

Does this conversation change if you use the words supreme being instead of god?

 

[xxChrisxx]

And I apologize for wasting my time trying to debate with you.

That would also make the agnostic an atheist. If the agnostic doesn't want to say one way or the other, until he makes up his mind, he's an atheist.
For example, if my friend says he found some gold, I'm not inclined one way or the other to say for sure that he did or didn't find gold. I don't know. But I won't believe it until I see it. So until I see it, I have to be considered a non-believer.

I do have a morbid fascination as to the inner workings of your mind leroy, as you seem to hold contrary opinion regaring everything and anything to everyone else on the planet.

My immediate conclusion is that you simply do it to be awkward, which is why I'm not playing the little game you appear to have going. As you can't be that detached from how everyone else sees things that you can so consistently have such strange views on things.

It's not just this thread, but you appear to simple ignore subtleties either on purpose or you just don't see them.

Using your example.

Do you really, honestly, not see the difference between being unsure if he has gold, or believeing that he is lying and needing to be convinced otherwise?

 

[Pattonias]

That would also make the agnostic an atheist. If the agnostic doesn't want to say one way or the other, until he makes up his mind, he's an atheist.
For example, if my friend says he found some gold, I'm not inclined one way or the other to say for sure that he did or didn't find gold. I don't know. But I won't believe it until I see it. So until I see it, I have to be considered a non-believer.

That is not it at all. I'm going by the dictionary definitions.

atheism:
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

agnostic:
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics

theism:
belief in the existence of a god or gods

In the example you gave regarding the gold a true agnostic when asked to make a statement by a third party regarding whether he believes his friend has gold, would reply that he can say nothing one way or another as he has never seen it himself.

 

[jackmell]

What knowledge could an atheist possibly have on the non-existence of god?

Emergence. That's why not God.

 

[Pattonias]

Assuming that a god didn't set "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence" " into motion.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Do you really, honestly, not see the difference between being unsure if he has gold, or believeing that he is lying and needing to be convinced otherwise?

I don't believe he's lying, I don't know one way or the other, but I can't be considered a believer until I see it.

In the example you gave regarding the gold a true agnostic when asked to make a statement by a third party regarding whether he believes his friend has gold, would reply that he can say nothing one way or another as he has never seen it himself.

Exactly. An atheist would also say that. Neither an atheist nor an agnostic has any knowledge if the gold exists. Until they see it and can say for sure one way or the other, they're both non-believers.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I don't believe he's lying, I don't know one way or the other, but I can't be considered a believer until I see it.

That wasn't the question.

Do you recognise the fact that: not konwing and not believeing are two different positions?

 

[Pattonias]

Exactly. An atheist would also say that. Neither an atheist nor an agnostic has any knowledge if the gold exists. Until they see it and can say for sure one way or the other, they're both non-believers.

Since when was not being a theist being an atheist? You are obviously having trouble grasping the definitoins that I have already laid out. I think I already made my point.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Since when was not being a theist being an atheist. You are obviously having trouble grasping the definitoins that I have already laid out. I think I already made my point.

I told you, he either really can't see the difference. or is trolling the hell out of us.

 

[Borek]

As an agnostic, I say that I will try to follow the evidence as it is given to me.

Do dragons, unicorns, mermaids, elves and centaurs exist?

 

[Pattonias]

Do dragons, unicorns, mermaids, elves and centaurs exist?

Maybe, just like there might be a flying-speghetti monster.

 

[jackmell]

Assuming that a god didn't set "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence" " into motion.

Not exactly. Here's an excerpt from that site:

"An emergent behavior or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective . . . The complex behaviour or properties are not a property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities:"

In the context of the question I addressed, the emergent property is the knowledge the Atheist has about the non-existence of God.

And therefore, the answer to the question, "Why Not God?" is simply "there is none". And that answer is based on emergent properties of knowledge.

 

[Pattonias]

Not exactly. Here's an excerpt from that site:

"An emergent behavior or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective . . . The complex behaviour or properties are not a property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities:"

In the context of the question I addressed, the emergent property is the knowledge the Atheist has about the non-existence of God.

And therefore, the answer to the question, "Why Not God?" is simply "there is none". And that answer is based on emergent properties of knowledge.

Oh, I see what you were saying. clever

 

[xxChrisxx]

Do dragons, unicorns, mermaids, elves and centaurs exist?

Why the loaded question? You must know the answer that most people will give anyway.

I do not believe they exist. Becuase I weight up the likely probability that something that has never been recorded existing. There is no evidence for it, and the claim is quite fantastic. So rationally I am disinclined to believe.

I cannot say for certain that I know they don't exist. As I know that rationally I have not experence everything in the universe.
Conclusion: agnostic amythical creatureist. Just like my position on a supreme being.I have no knowledge either way, yet the fantasic nature of the claim in comparion to what I see around me makes be disbelieve anyway. And that is the key. Deductive abilities allow us to make a 'guess' either way in the absence of evidence to either position.

Those who flat out refuse to take a position without knowledge are agnostic.
This is where leroys argument breaks down. He is saying that if you don't believe the positive, you must neessarily believe the negative. However this is not the case, it is infact a false dichotomy. You can believe neither position and take a middle or no ground based on the lack of knowledge

 

[Borek]

Maybe, just like there might be a flying-speghetti monster.

At least you seem to be honest

Occam's razor says "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". As long as they are not necessary to explain the world, there is no need to assume dragons, unicorns, mermaids, elves and centaurs may exist. The day one of these will be caught I will immediately change my opinion.

 

[jackmell]

Oh, I see what you were saying. clever

One final comment Pattonial.

There is a way to obtain this knowledge the Atheist has but I prefer to leave it as a riddle. It can be summarized in eleven words. Surely others here know them (I'll not come back and tell you):

____ ______ ___ ___ ____ ____ __ ______ _ ____ ____.

Edit: changed "only" to "a" and leave as a riddle, just for fun :)

 

[Pattonias]

One final comment Pattonial.

There is only one way to obtain this knowledge the Atheist has but I prefer if someone else tell you. It can be summarized in eleven words. Surely others here know them (I'll not come back and tell you):

____ ______ ___ ___ ____ ____ __ ______ _ ____ ____.

I'm not exactly sure what to make of this, but I guess I am dependent on someone else for the answer.

 

[Pattonias]

At least you seem to be honest

Occam's razor says "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". As long as they are not necessary to explain the world, there is no need to assume dragons, unicorns, mermaids, elves and centaurs may exist. The day one of these will be caught I will immediately change my opinion.

I can identify with that in a way, I'm an aspiring engineer and I don't really need to know where the Earth came from in order to use it to make my machines. Why should I make assumptions?

 

[Gokul43201]

I have no knowledge either way, yet the fantasic nature of the claim in comparion to what I see around me makes be disbelieve anyway. And that is the key. Deductive abilities allow us to make a 'guess' either way in the absence of evidence to either position.

Those who flat out refuse to take a position without knowledge are agnostic.

I'm a little confused here - are you saying you consider yourself an agnostic or an atheist?

A person says that he does not believe in the existence of a god/gods.

Would you call that person an atheist or an agnostic?

 

[xxChrisxx]

I can identify with that in a way, I'm an aspiring engineer and I don't really need to know where the Earth came from in order to use it to make my machines.

Thats the spirit! "good enough for practical purpose".

I don't care where stuff came from, so long as it works well enough for me to make powerful engines and fast cars, I couldn't give a hoot.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'm a little confused here - are you saying you consider yourself an agnostic or an atheist?

A person says that he does not believe in the existence of a god/gods.

Would you call that person an atheist or an agnostic?

It's all part of the spectrum of knowing and believeing. You can be BOTH. As the two words define different things. One defines the knowing aspect, the other defines the belief aspect.Someone who does not belive in a god is an atheist. Thats comes from the etymology of the word. From the greek (i tihnk):
a - without theism - belief in god

Agnosticism comes from:
a - without gnosis - knowledge.As knowing and belieing are two different things, that are not necessarily mutually exclusive you can use both words to define a persons position.

If you had to split it up into three distint positions you have:

Don't believe - Atheism
No position - agnostic
Do believe - Theism

However, you can blur the lines between the three to create a spectrum that goes from athist >>>> agnostic>>>>hardcore believer. Splitting the aboe 3 into 5 categories.

Strong atheism - They claim that that at the existence of at least one god exists is false. ie no gods.
Agnostic athist (weak atheism) - Lack of belief believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false.
Agnostic - 50/50 or no position at all
Agnostic theist - doesn't know god exists, but choses to believe anyway.
Theist - claims to know of gods existence. (any hardcore religious type)

 

[Gokul43201]

It's all part of the spectrum of knowing and believeing. You can be BOTH. As the two words define different things. One defines the knowing aspect, the other defines the belief aspect.Someone who does not belive in a god is an atheist. Thats comes from the etymology of the word. From the greek (i tihnk):
a - without theism - belief in god

So, about the person I described in my previous post, you'd call him an atheist (since he claims to not believe in the existence of a god).

What do you call yourself? (not trying to make this personal; just trying to better understand your earlier post)