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

[sdelsolray]

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.

Please define "faith".

 

[fast]

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.

Please define "faith".

Why? Whatever he may so happen to mean by his use of the term doesn't change what the word means.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Please define "faith".

Why? Whatever he may so happen to mean by his use of the term doesn't change what the word means.

Plus, it probably means two things. 1 for when the Theists are described, 1 for the atheists...

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

Then before your step one, there should be other steps. WAS the universe created?
Was the universe's beginning a beginning-from-nothing or was it something that previously existed changing format?

Or is the universe just eternal?

Wouldn't those have to be before your starting point?

 

[Underseer]

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

How much faith does it take to not believe in faeries?

It is my contention that it takes just as much faith to not believe in faeries as it takes to believe in them.

How much faith do you use to not believe in faeries?

How much faith do you use to not believe in elves?

How much faith do you use to not believe in vampires? Or trolls?

Your lack of belief in those things is just as irrational and requires just as much faith as people who believe in those things.

In all seriousness, we believe in the Big Bang because it is supported by evidence. It doesn't really matter what came before the Big Bang (at the moment we don't know if it even makes sense to talk about a "before" the Big Bang) because we can show that the Big Bang happened through evidence.

I know that you regard it as irrational to accept conclusions just because it is supported by evidence.

I know that you regard conclusions arrived at without evidence to be inherently superior to those arrived at through evidence.

However, your whole epistemology does not produce ideas that map well to reality.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Would this thread be better moved to the Religion Vs. Science forum, since it's directly comparing the two as a means of discovering truthiness?

Or would Genghis' grasp of the topic make it better suited to the pseudoscience forum?

 

[DBT]

The person who looks at the universe and attempts to reconcile it with established scientific laws (not theories), however, incomplete, requires less faith than someone who choses to ignore those laws.

You use the word 'faith' as a blanket term in reference to anything that'll suit the purpose of justifying beliefs that have no justification. Faith is a belief held (a firm conviction) without the support of evidence. An hypothesis, for example, is not a belief or a firm conviction but a narrative that attempts to explain a body of information...which can be modified to suit new evidence, or scrapped altogether.

This is a far cry from faith based religions. There is no comparison.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The person who looks at the universe and attempts to reconcile it with established scientific laws (not theories), however, incomplete, requires less faith than someone who choses to ignore those laws.

As I understand it, we use the universe to validate the laws and theories, because they are human artifacts.
So if someone were to pronounce a 'law' that, say, 'nothing comes from nothing,' then we find that nothing does produce things, that law has to go, not the universe. Or maybe there are just limits to the law, places where it does and does not apply.


Or maybe it was never really a 'law' in the first place.

One would have to wonder where the framers of that sort of law would find sufficient 'nothing' to observe and how long they'd have to observe it, in order to state it as a fact....?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

It requires more faith to not believe in what has not been observed?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

It requires more faith to not believe in what has not been observed?

I think Genghis believes that scientific 'observations' require eyewitness accounts of the event under scrutiny. Which would make some unknown author's account of what some god allegedly told Moses about the creation the only valid science 'observation' of where the world came from.

Which, if true, would mean they need to revamp the CSI tv shows. All the science that leads to thinking there's a case against suspect A is meaningless if we can have a séance and the show's professional medium can get a ghost to say that suspect B was the killer. I mean, if the medium can channel the victim's ghost, that ghost could be expected to know who did it, so it's an eyewitness 'observation.' At least, as long as the audience can see the medium talking to the right ghost, there should be no objection to such testimony, right?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

The supernatural is beyond the ability of science to prove or disprove. The nature of science is to seek naturalistic explanations for the universe, to reduce, restrict and avoid supernatural explanations.
To discover answers like 'static electricity' rather than 'Thor.'
Or 'bacteria' rather than 'demons.'
Or 'fusion' rather than 'a sun god on a chariot.'

Exactly how would science, then, be useful to evaluate or test a supernatural explanation and be MORE useful than in investigating a naturalistic explanation? That's going to be like trying to take a baby's temperature with a wind gauge. Totally the wrong tool for the matter at hand.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I think Genghis believes that scientific 'observations' require eyewitness accounts of the event under scrutiny.

Oh? I thought he was just pulling the ol' Kalam Cosmological Argument on us, or something rather similar. More accurately, rather than making the argument, he seems to be arguing some form of cosmological argument requires less exceptions for the scientific method than an atheistic paradigm. I could easily be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting thus far.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think Genghis believes that scientific 'observations' require eyewitness accounts of the event under scrutiny.

Oh? I thought he was just pulling the ol' Kalam Cosmological Argument on us, or something rather similar. More accurately, rather than making the argument, he seems to be arguing some form of cosmological argument requires less exceptions for the scientific method than an atheistic paradigm. I could easily be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting thus far.

Could be, but I was trying to decipher

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.

And his apparent need for an observer to be in place to conduct any tests.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It's hard to parse, but that's the only reason I find it entertaining.

 

[funinspace]

Here is my line of thinking. Step 1.

How was the universe created?

Well “Step 1” is a really poor question, as you have already made an assumption that it was created. We have strong evidence that the expanding universe as described in the Big Bang Theory is the most reasonable explanation of how the universe got to its current state. As Wiki reasonably states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity and thus, all the laws of physics. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch.

So the proper question is: What was happening prior to the Planck epoch? A reasonable answer by a non-theist, is that we simply don’t know. We didn’t know what caused lightening 300 years ago, but assuming it was daemons/magic didn’t really work out. There are various guesses on what happened prior to the Planck epoch, but most non-theists understand that they are simply guesses/constructs. No faith required. And therefore, so crumbles your lame “faith of atheists” argument.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A reasonable answer by a non-theist, is that we simply don’t know.

Well, plenty of theists also investigate the question. They have basically the same answer. God did it, but we simply don't know how He did it.

 

[Underseer]

Lucky for us, your non creating nothing didn't create anything, which, if we're to gauge the value of something using a human medium of exchange, is the only thing more worthless than a sucky book. At least a sucky book can be used as a paperweight, or a tool to inspire others to write better books because they're so saddened by the book's level of suckation.

You're just playing the "god of the gaps" game.

The problem with this game is that the gaps keep shrinking. Face it, your god is running out of pockets of ignorance to hide in.

 

[sdelsolray]

Please define "faith".

Why? Whatever he may so happen to mean by his use of the term doesn't change what the word means.

Well, i would like to know how Genghis defines "faith". His definition may be different from what you deem "faith" to mean, but I'm not interested in your definition, just Genghis' definition. That's because Genghis is using the word "faith" in many of his posts, and you aren't.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why? Whatever he may so happen to mean by his use of the term doesn't change what the word means.

Well, i would like to know how Genghis defines "faith". His definition may be different from what you deem "faith" to mean, but I'm not interested in your definition, just Genghis' definition. That's because Genghis is using the word "faith" in many of his posts, and you aren't.

If there's a list going around, i'd like to add what he genghis means by "process requirements" in quote marks.

 

[DBT]

The word 'faith' for theists who hope to establish its validity, can mean any damn thing they want it to mean.