Religious implications of not being able to test whether or not there was a creation event

[Genghis]

If we analyze the "process requirements" in the scientific method, it is my contention that atheists have more faith than theists.

 

[NobleSavage]

Where is faith required in this process?

 

[Genghis]

Here is my line of thinking. Step 1.

How was the universe created?

 

[NobleSavage]

Here is my line of thinking. Step 1.

How was the universe created?

The word "created" is loaded. It implys a creator. How about the universe came into existence at the moment of the big bang. There is no "before" the big bang. Time did not exist yet. Still no faith needed.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here is my line of thinking. Step 1.

How was the universe created?

The Science answer to this starts with something like "We still have a lot to learn and we don't know with certainty, but the evidence we have so far is the following, and it leads us to the following theories..."

A stark contrast to the religious and faith based explanations that usually go something like "The following is what happened. We know this because it was revealed to us by our great and powerful God. Don't question it, for if you do, you will be punished".

 

[Genghis]

How did the big bang happen? The word created is de facto because we have, in fact, been created.

- - - Updated - - -

Correct, for some people at least. If we were pursue the science further, however, and attempt to use our method to explain how the universe got here, we quickly realize that neither God creating or "nothingness creating" can be scientifically tested.

 

[bigfield]

How did the big bang happen? The word created is de facto because we have, in fact, been created.

The Big Bang is not accepted as fact: it is merely the most popular theory (or model) for explaining the observable behaviour of the universe.

Suppose that we do not accept, out-of-hand, your claim that the universe was created: how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Genghis]

Correct. I did not come to any conclusion. My path we're going down here is to determine how we can most appropriately start to even apply the scientific method to a certain belief system.

 

[bigfield]

Correct. I did not come to any conclusion. My path we're going down here is to determine how we can most appropriately start to even apply the scientific method to a certain belief system.

It would be better if you simply make your argument in full, which is what you should have done in the OP.

That is, list all of the reasons why you have concluded that atheists require more faith than theists. Then we can get to debating the soundness of your argument rather than trying to figure out what your argument is in the first place.

 

[Genghis]

OK. If we analyze the "process requirements" in the scientific method, it is my contention that atheists have more faith than theists.

Neither atheism or theism is 100% scientifically testable, but one is more testable than the other.

The one that's testable is theism/creator-creation events. Scientists create this parallel lane of thinking every time they use the scientific method which implies (but does not confirm) intervention. An example would be creating a single celled organism, or any type of nuclear test.

Without anything, however, there is no test. Hence there is no testability. Hence one who somehow believes that all the results IMPLIED are somehow representative of the exact opposite of all the other implied test's conclusions relies on what I refer to as "super faith."

So a religious person, regardless of doctrine, relies on faith. A true atheist who honestly applies the scientific method to the universe's creation or even existence (and therefore cannot even have an entity present to conduct or even observe an allegorical test) relies on super faith.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Here is my line of thinking. Step 1.

How was the universe created?

A Basset Hound Burped it out. How was the Basset Hound created? A mother and father Basset Hound. It's turtles and Basset Hounds all the way down.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[Genghis]

All righty then....

 

[bigfield]

Thanks for that, but I need clarification on a few points before I can address your argument.

The one that's testable is theism/creator-creation events. Scientists create this parallel lane of thinking every time they use the scientific method which implies (but does not confirm) intervention. An example would be creating a single celled organism, or any type of nuclear test.

Is it your position that man-made nuclear fission and man-made prokaryotes are evidence that the universe was also created?

What lane of thinking do scientists create? And what is it parallel to?

Why does the scientific method imply intervention?

Without anything, however, there is no test. Hence there is no testability. Hence one who somehow believes that all the results IMPLIED are somehow representative of the exact opposite of all the other implied test's conclusions relies on what I refer to as "super faith."

No test of what?

Results of what?

What other tests are implied?

So a religious person, regardless of doctrine, relies on faith. A true atheist who honestly applies the scientific method to the universe's creation or even existence (and therefore cannot even have an entity present to conduct or even observe an allegorical test) relies on super faith.

You haven't addressed the possibility that an atheist may not consider the universe to have been created at all.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Here is my line of thinking. Step 1.

How was the universe created?

It doesn't really require faith for an individual to say they do not know. The starting point of human observation is actually more or less the present, not 'creation'. It requires no faith to say we exist and that the universe exists. Defining the exact nature of that existence or proving it could lead to some philosophical problems, but in practical terms if those two observations are false, this exchange of ideas is not happening anyway.

As we expand our observations outward from the basic starting point of our own existence, it eventually does take us backward in time (not literal time travel, of course). I know the beginning of the universe -- assuming for a moment the universe has one -- may seem like a more logical starting point given how we like to arrange things in chronological order, but if observation is the first step in our process, the beginning of the universe is so distant from us that our current powers of observation and reason start to fail before making the trip all the way back. Past a certain point, we don't quite know what lies beyond, though we have some rather clever ideas about it.

Point being, we don't need to know definitively how the universe began to know we exist now, neither do we need faith to know in our scientific observations thus far, no gods have been revealed or revealed themselves.

 

[dystopian]

How did the big bang happen? The word created is de facto because we have, in fact, been created.

The words you use are just words; just because you refer to something as having been "created" does not mean there is a "creator" responsible for it; it just means the particular language you're using is either insufficiently diverse enough to have a proper word for what actually happened, or the proper word is one you're not using for some reason.

As for how the big bang happened, the most common hypothesis is that the big bang resulted from random quantum fluctuation; no creator is necessary for this method and we know that it makes mathematical/physical sense for it to have happened this way. Do we know for certain? No. It is however, the only plausible explanation we have.

Correct, for some people at least. If we were pursue the science further, however, and attempt to use our method to explain how the universe got here, we quickly realize that neither God creating or "nothingness creating" can be scientifically tested.

Presently, this is true. However, this is irrelevant. The two are NOT on the same footing here. "God did it" is a non-scientific "explanation" that doesn't actually explain *anything*. You could replace 'god' with anything and the explanation wouldn't change. You could just as easily say the primordial carrot had a bad hairday and as a result cosmic bunnies started eating different foodstuffs instead, allowing the carrot to grow to such vast proportions that it started breaking down under its own weight, resulting in the big bang. It works out exactly the same as saying 'God did it'.

Science, on the other hand, comes up with explanations that while currently untestable, *do* in fact explain the how and why of the big bang. Furthermore, there is a non-zero chance that our technology might one day become advanced enough to test the hypothesis.

Neither atheism or theism is 100% scientifically testable, but one is more testable than the other.

The one that's testable is theism/creator-creation events. Scientists create this parallel lane of thinking every time they use the scientific method which implies (but does not confirm) intervention. An example would be creating a single celled organism, or any type of nuclear test.

Without anything, however, there is no test. Hence there is no testability. Hence one who somehow believes that all the results IMPLIED are somehow representative of the exact opposite of all the other implied test's conclusions relies on what I refer to as "super faith."

So a religious person, regardless of doctrine, relies on faith. A true atheist who honestly applies the scientific method to the universe's creation or even existence (and therefore cannot even have an entity present to conduct or even observe an allegorical test) relies on super faith.

You don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between theism and atheism then, or for that matter, the nature of 'faith'. Or you know, science. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god. Whether or not it's 'testable' has no more relevance for atheists than for people (such as yourself, presumably) who do not believe in unicorns.

Faith is defined as the belief/trust in the absence of solid evidence or proof. By contrast, rejecting a belief in the absence of evidence either way, can by definition *not* be an example of faith (or 'super' faith).

Secondly, the scientific method does in fact have evidence as to the origin of the universe (there is overwhelming evidence that the big bang happened), and as for what caused it, there are at least plausible scientific hypotheses. Yes, these hypotheses are currently untestable. However, that is irrelevant since atheism itself doesn't concern itself with the topic to begin with, and irrelevant since atheists themselves who *do* concern themselves with it are generally not likely to *believe* (ie; have faith) these hypotheses to be true, but merely ascribe various degrees of probability to them. In other words, they can not be claimed to have 'faith' in any of it.

 

[fast]

Here is my line of thinking. Step 1.

How was the universe created?

The word "created" is loaded. It implys a creator. How about the universe came into existence at the moment of the big bang. There is no "before" the big bang. Time did not exist yet. Still no faith needed.

The word, "created" is ambiguous, so as such, the word has multiple lexical meanings. Although I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the creator implication, there do seem to be usages that don't share that implication.

... the forces created an opening in the ocean floor ...

The question now becomes, "in what way is he using the word(?)."

 

[bilby]

The real key here is the word 'universe'. If it means everything that exists, then the answer to 'what created the universe' is, by definition, 'Nothing'.

If you posit a God that existed and created the universe, then that God is part of the universe, and an explanation is needed as to what created God. Whatever created God - Metagod - also needs a creator.

Ultimately either something has always and eternally existed - in which case the question of what created everything is moot; or something came from nothing - with no creator needed.

If something has always existed, why not the stuff we can see? Why posit an invisible God? Let's just go with 'the universe always existed in some form'.

'God' is no answer to any questions. Literally. In this context, 'God' means the exact same thing as 'I don't know'.

 

[DBT]

If we analyze the "process requirements" in the scientific method, it is my contention that atheists have more faith than theists.

Sorry to tell you: No, it does not.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Also, you are tying atheism to cosmology, which is unnecessary and misleading. Atheism is, purely and simply, the position that deities are imaginary. It doesn't have an auxiliary arm in any discipline, although it may suggest a logical approach to other sorts of knowledge. And when it comes to other sorts of knowledge, I would take measurements from Hubble and dating of meteorites and the measurement of light years over ancient tales of talking snakes and the Hebrew war deity (excuse me, love god.) (Yes, snark rules in atheism -- maybe that's our auxiliary branch.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

If we analyze the "process requirements" in the scientific method, it is my contention that atheists have more faith than theists.

Lots of people tell me this.
It's usually followed by either incredibly poor math, pretty stupid physics, or a word game.
Creation does need a creator.
But Universe doesn't need a universer.
Mankind doesn't need a mankinder. (Although Man could always use more Manners.)

How about, if you believe the universe has a creator, you try to show some evidence to think that's true? That would be part of the scientific process, nu? I mean, even if you can disprove every medical theory that isn't germ theory, that doesn't exactly establish that germ theory is the truth.

And even if you could totally prove that 'Atheist shave more faith than creationists' you're still not offering any evidence that atheists are wrong, or that creation is true. It seems to just be an effort to taunt atheists.