You're making a positive claim, you just don't realize that you are. — Jake

In other words, the absence of a person in a bank robbery, means that the person was actually at the bank robbery?

I think the analogy above closely matches your logic, and I hope you see how silly that logic is.

You're right: authority is neither required nor relevant. Justification is a different matter. To discard a theory or idea requires exactly as much justification as accepting it. No more, no less. ... If you're working with logic and reason, that is.... :chin: — Pattern-chaser

The absence of a crew member, that is, not being present at a bank robbery, does indeed require the crew member to do some reasoning. It still doesn't mean the crew member was present at the bank rubbery if indeed he wasn't there. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I think the analogy above nicely matches your grossly invalid logic.

Right, so how does that have any bearing on the necessity of God? The universe is suitable for life, I'm not seeing the need to explain that via a creator, it can either just be that way by chance or be the only one of billions that aren't that way. — Ciaran

The chances that a universe, picked at random, would be life supporting are very slim. So many things about our universe are 'just right' that it requires an explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

"They all go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature and density
— Devans99

Do they? How do you know this? — Ciaran

I'm using common sense (which cosmology could do with more of). All the universes are made of the same stuff and end up at a similar temperature/density so why on earth would anything be different about them. They all support life or they don't.

The chances that a universe, picked at random, would be life supporting are very slim. So many things about our universe are 'just right' that it requires an explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe — Devans99

Unlikely doesn't mean impossible.

You may want to check out Appeal to improbability fallacy, which you are committing to in your response above.

They all support life or they don't. — Devans99

Could you explain what you mean here? As well as provide citations for your claim?

Ok, so if one's atheism arises from the use of tarot cards, that's just as valid as any other method, and the difference between one chosen authority and another is irrelevant. There's no need to examine and question any particular chosen authority, because they are all equally valid, and how one arises at one's views, on any subject, is irrelevant. — Jake

It's not a matter of "valid" or not, whatever that would amount to in that context. It's just that "atheism" doesn't in any way denote how one arrived at a lack of belief in gods. The only thing it denotes is that one lacks a belief in gods.

Except for the blind faith in science itself. — Jake

Science was used to built your computers.



There are no scientific equations in bible that can help anyone to do anything sensible.

You may want to check out Appeal to improbability fallacy, which you are committing to in your response above. — VoidDetector

No I am not. I am not saying the universe is definitely fine-tuned for live; I'm saying it appears fine-tuned for life and any scientific explanation of the universe needs to explain the apparent fine tuning. That's exactly what the atheist cosmologists have done; they created the multiple universe theories to explain the fine-tuning. I'm merely pointing out instead of jumping through infinite mathematical loops of multiple universes there is a much simpler explanation.

They all support life or they don't.
— Devans99

Could you explain what you mean here? As well as provide citations for your claim? — VoidDetector

I can't provide citations because these are my opinions.

We have knowledge of what universes are like. We live in one. There is no good reason to expect other universes, should they exist, to be much different from this one. So statistically they should all be live supporting.

If you look at the multiple universe theories, say Eternal Inflation, it is one common mechanism that spawns all the child universes. That mechanism is the same mechanism we see at work in our universe; briefly:

- Universes are all made of the same basic material
- Universes all start with inflation
- Slowing down to regular expansion after a while
- All universes cool down to a similar temperature
- All universes end up at a similar density

So why should we expect the properties of matter/forces to be radically different in other universes? It does not make any sense. If the matter (which is the same matter for all universes) is at the same temperature/density then it is in the same state in all universes. IE life supporting.

No I am not. I am not saying the universe is definitely fine-tuned for live; I'm saying it appears fine-tuned for life and any scientific explanation of the universe needs to explain the apparent fine tuning. That's exactly what the atheist cosmologists have done; they created the multiple universe theories to explain the fine-tuning. I'm merely pointing out instead of jumping through infinite mathematical loops of multiple universes there is a much simpler explanation. — Devans99

See Cosmological Natural Selection for example, which is a scientific theory that explains fine tuning. it's basically much like biological natural selection. There were reasonably a large number of universes, each "successful" or occurring universe would reasonably contain black holes.

See Cosmological Natural Selection — VoidDetector

Well I read it but it sounds like another atheist pipe dream attempt to explain fine-tuning:

Black holes typically have a mass of a few solar masses on average. Our universe is utterly huge. If universes are caused by black holes, we should expect small universes of a few solar masses rather than utterly huge universes like ours. So the theory runs contrary to the physical evidence.

Well I read it but it sounds like another atheist pipe dream attempt to explain fine-tuning:

Black holes typically have a mass of a few solar masses on average. Our universe is utterly huge. If universes are caused by black holes, we should expect small universes of a few solar masses rather than utterly huge universes like ours. So the theory runs contrary to the physical evidence. — Devans99

You may want to spend more than 4 minutes to go over the data I presented to you. The difference between religious data and scientific knowledge, is that unlike religious texts, scientific data builds modern medicine, the computers you use etc. You can take a few more months to go over the data.

Science was used to built your computers. — VoidDetector

I agree, and I think you are touching on the essence here. 'Rationality' is ultimately identified with utility and power in this appeal to technology. 'Knowledge is power' ultimately leads to 'power is knowledge.' The true ground of scientific authority (one might say) is white-washed with an ultimately religious talk about some kind of rationality apart from technical power. Science is the 'living God' because it actually performs miracles. In some sense, scientism just refers us to the correct and actual miracles, toward the living 'God' of man the engineer. As I mentioned before, scientism tends to repeat religious motifs.

Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the LORD’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God.” Then all the people said, “What you say is good.” 25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it. Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made. 27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” — 1st Kings

https://www.biblestudytools.com/1-kings/18.html

When Elija calls on his living God, the fire comes down as requested. And of course he has all the false prophets gathered up and slaughtered as superstitious corrupters of the body politic.

What for me is interesting here is that scientism ends up looking like its own stereotype of postmodernism, its bogeyman to the left. It seems to need a kind of religiously understood 'pure' rationality even as it leans on technology for its perceived dominance over a philosophy that still has the audacity to question its metaphysical presuppositions. Scientism can retreat from its 'religious' investment in pure rationality into something like post-philosophical prudence. It can then take the shape of a world-saving political program that understands power as truth. In this case can it explain its own concern with saving the world? Perhaps in terms of a social instinct.

A last point is that technology-as-truth just opens up the 'truth' in religion all over again. Religion can easily be framed as a social technology. Once science becomes instrumentalism, there's no clear line between technologies that work. A system of beliefs and rituals can be true in its effectiveness. If science builds cellphones, then religion builds empires (with the help of science, just as science has its ideological sources in religion).

The tension seems to be between power-as-knowledge and a warm and fuzzy feeling directed at the idea of gazing on nature without any kind of subjective distortion. This perception-without-distortion is valued for its own sake, which I'd say conceals the religious charge in scientism (the project of 'incarnating' Rationality both personally and as a community, which is more humanism, which itself is the critical purification of Christianity.)

In other words, the gap between scientism and religion is itself a religious concept. A power-as-knowledge conception leads pretty quickly to the effectiveness of religion itself as one more technology. Indeed, scientism itself (which is not science but a cheerleading of science as the replacement of both philosophy and religion) imposes itself as a social technology which hardly differs from religion structurally. If 'God' was always a 'fantasy,' then so is 'perfect rationality.' It's the actions and more concrete thoughts that have these 'fictions' as their center that shape the world.

It's just that "atheism" doesn't in any way denote how one arrived at a lack of belief in gods. The only thing it denotes is that one lacks a belief in gods. — Terrapin Station

Dictionary atheism, built by those lacking a common sense understanding of the subject. Not impressed.

You're making a positive claim, you just don't realize that you are. — Jake

Hence the need to examine critically. — karl stone

Right, we agree on this. But you appear to only be interested in critically examining other people's perspectives, never your own blind faith in science. So basically, you are in part an example of the very thing you reasonably object to. What I've been suggesting to you is that we apply the same critical eye to both religion and science, ie. intellectual honesty.

Having looked at the matter, I rather suspect it's those who believe in God who object to recognition of science, because it places an undue burden on religion to justify its claims, rather than the objection of scientists to the fact that people believe all sorts of things. — karl stone

Yes, I know your dogma, because you've shared it many times. However, what unsophisticated folks such as yourself (and most posters on every philosophy forum) don't seem able to get is that religion is not exclusively about ideological assertions. Religion is much more than wannabe science, no matter how much you wish to so define it.

Science is methodologically anti-faith — karl stone

Science culture is methodologically anti-faith, except in regards to itself. Your own writing provides a great example of that.

That is the "common sense" definition of it--which is why the dictionary reports the same.

Dictionary definitions of atheism are created by good folks such as yourself, who are constrained by a quite limited understanding of the subject.

The overwhelming vast majority of atheists arrived at their position through reference to human reason. To blatantly and repeatedly ignore this obvious FACT is equivalent to pretending that holy books have little to do with religion. To blatantly and repeatedly ignore the relationship between reason and atheism is to reduce the conversation to a level that would be unacceptable in a high school classroom.

The whole "merely lack belief" business is either a deliberate rhetorical scam (the desire to have no territory to defend), or more often, evidence of a very primitive understanding of the reality of atheism.

I apologize for my adamant stance, but I must admit that it frustrates me that this has to be explained to intelligent well educated people on philosophy forums over and over and over again, and STILL the "merely lack of belief" mythology continues to drag such conversations down to the lowest possible level.

It was probably said already, but science assumes methodological naturalism and actively tries to answer questions with natural explanations, but methodological naturalism is not ontological naturalism so I don't think it is correct to say that science is inherently atheistic; perhaps, it would be better to say that science is inherently non-theistic.

Non-theistic is precisely what Atheism is. It is not a claim that god doesnt exist. On atheism alone you aren’t walking around claiming god doesnt exist, that would be some sort of anti-theism. Many atheist are antitheists as well, and thats where people get confused. If I come to you with an idea about a new god, you are an atheist about that god until you become convinced my new god is real. If you are not convinced and you feel a conflict with something you know or accept as true then you might want to make the assertion that my new god does not exist, you would be some varaiation of an Anti-New God-ist.
These distinctions are the philosophical and common sense uses.

The chances that a universe, picked at random, would be life supporting are very slim. So many things about our universe are 'just right' that it requires an explanation: — Devans99

But we've not picked one at random have we? We're talking about the one we're in, which, by definition is the one that's suitable for life. Where does the picking one at random come from?

All the universes are made of the same stuff and end up at a similar temperature/density — Devans99

Are they? How on earth could you know what the temperature of an universe is? We don't even know if they exist yet?

But we've not picked one at random have we? We're talking about the one we're in, which, by definition is the one that's suitable for life. Where does the picking one at random come from? — Ciaran

If you think about hypothetical universes - all the possible universes we could of ended up with,
nearly all universes would lack cohesion; IE atoms and molecules (or similar complex structures) would not form. So the vast majority of hypothetical universes would not be life supporting.

The odds that our universe would be suitable for life are therefore probably millions to 1. So we have to answer the question why were we so lucky? The anthropic principle does not answer that question.

"All the universes are made of the same stuff and end up at a similar temperature/density
— Devans99

Are they? How on earth could you know what the temperature of an universe is? We don't even know if they exist yet? — Ciaran

Multiple universes, if they exist, must be generated by some mechanism. It seems very likely that the same creation mechanism would be used for all universes and the same material would be used to create all universes. The universes should all follow the same life cycle. So should they come out like ours.

The alternative of each universe coming out different I have yet to read any convincing explanation of how this could happen. In all the multiple universe models I've seen, each universe starts with an explosion of some sort (to account for our expanding universe) and then the universes expand and cool. All of the universes go through the same phase transitions and end up in a similar state. The fate of all expanding universes is identical.

If you think about hypothetical universes - all the possible universes we could of ended up with,
nearly all universes would lack cohesion; IE atoms and molecules (or similar complex structures) would not form. — Devans99

Multiple universes, if they exist, must be generated by some mechanism. It seems very likely that the same creation mechanism would be used for all universes and the same material would be used to create all universes. The universes should all follow the same life cycle. So should they come out like ours. — Devans99

Eh? Are all the other universes going to lack cohesion or come out like ours?

Eh? Are all the other universes going to lack cohesion or come out like ours? — Ciaran

I am trying to make two separate points here:

1. Hypothetical universes (generated by different mechanisms) that we can imagine in our mind nearly all lack cohesion. Take the standard model, makes a small change, and the resulting universe lacks cohesion. The strong nuclear force and electromagnetic forces have to be just right for atoms to hold together; if the forces were different, atoms would not form, or if they would form, it would only be the simpler elements (no carbon/silicon so no life).

2. Multiple universes (generated by the same mechanism as for our universe) should come out like our universe

Right, so you seem to be saying that the only possible way a universe could be, is to be like ours, and then you're saying it's unlikely that the universe is like ours. I don't quite see how that follows basic probability. If the only possible way a universe could be, is to be like ours, then that makes it a virtual certainty that any existing universe will be like ours.

1. If universes are generated via different mechanisms using different matter then they should come out different. So this applies when considering the weak anthropic principle and single universe models; it is very unlikely that a randomly configured universe would be life supporting, so we have to ask why our single universe is life supporting, IE it was probably designed to be live supporting.

2. If universes are generated via the same mechanism using the same matter, they should come out the same. This applies when considering the strong anthropic principle and multiple universe models. The claim that the presence of multiple universes would somehow lead to all such universes coming out with different configurations (of the standard model etc) seems at odds with common sense.

it is very unlikely that a randomly configured universe would be life supporting, so we have to ask why our single universe is life supporting — Devans99

No, we do not have to ask that. If our single universe were not life supporting we would not be in it to ask the question, so it's obvious that our universe is the life-supporting one (out of all the billions of non-life-supporting ones). It's like saying that a potter makes a billion pots, all but one of which has a hole in it. What's the chances that the only one with water in just happens to be the only one that is capable of containing water?

No, we do not have to ask that. If our single universe were not life supporting we would not be in it to ask the question, so it's obvious that our universe is the life-supporting one (out of all the billions of non-life-supporting ones). It's like saying that a potter makes a billion pots, all but one of which has a hole in it. What's the chances that the only one with water in just happens to be the only one that is capable of containing water? — Ciaran

But if you were to pick a pot at random, you would likely get a pot with a hole. So you have to ask why you were so lucky to get the pot without a hole. There are two possible explanations why your pot has no hole:

1) You hit a billion to 1 chance and got the pot without a hole
2) Someone selected an pot without a hole for you

The first explanation is incredibly unlikely the second explanation is much more likely.

Its exactly the same for the universe:

1) We got lucky by a billion to 1 chance our universe was live supporting
2) Our universe is life supporting because it was designed to be

The 2nd explanation is much more probable than the first.

But if you were to pick a pot at random, you would likely get a pot with a hole. — Devans99

But we're not picking a pot at random. In the example, we're the water. We could only be in the pot without a hole so why is it surprising that that's the one we're in?