Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

I have stated several times the total lack of evidence of any supreme being led me to the conclusion that there is no god. I was ultra-religious when I was younger (and can still go head-to-head with anyone quoting the Bible), then I started question my own religion based on my research of it, and eventually I started question the existence of god. I would have labeled myself an agnostic prior to the many boring and idiotic religious discussion on the boards (I was quite partial to Vonegut's statement "If God exists, he doesn't care") -- but those discussion have convinced me I am an atheist.

In these arguments (especially in this thread), a solid argument by an atheist is completely ignored by the religious members. Most pick and choose what they wish to bicker about instead of addressing all the points. The number of valid, unanswered points in this and other threads is staggering. It simply gets old (hence the name of the thread).

As I have said before, I've gotten involved because of ridiculous labels some people want to give others and the total lack of bending (and understanding) by the religious members to accept the way the atheists view themselves. Unfortunately I can relate to both side, I was just as stubborn with my view of religion when I was younger and I get the same treatment from my family at all gatherings (I'm the black sheep of the family ... and evil ... and a bad influence).

Atheism is a conclusion people have come to, not a system of belief. There is no faith involved in decision to not worship. There is no doctrine to preach in the non-existence of the hereafter.

 

In the logic or in the possible conclusions? Every conclusion makes grand assumptions, but that was my point.

This is a common criticism called self-sampling bias, but it only really applies to a multiverse approach (i.e. there were lots of tries, one had to be it, you're just the lucky one and if you weren't you wouldn't know it). In a single shot approach, that fails. In essense, the fact that it happened doesn't change the probability that it would happen.

Actually, most of the anthropic constants I've seen dealt with physics as a whole, such as the speed of light, the mass of a proton, the strength of Strong Nuclear Force relative to Electromagnetic, etc. These do indeed govern the formation of stars, planets, and galaxies. For example, if Strong Nuclear Force were just 2% stronger than it is, elemental hydrogen would fuse into diprotons, not helium and heavier elements. This would drastically change the nature of stars as well as almost eliminating the production of heavier elements, making planets non-existant. If you adjust the initial heat of the Big Bang slightly, you adjust the ratio of protons and neutrons that were created, which could either yield nothing but heavier elements (more neutrons) and no chance for life-giving fusion later in the galaxy, or not enough neutrons to allow fusion in any large scale, and the vast majority of the universe stays balls of pure hydrogen.

I've heard this stated many times, but I've never understood why. Could you explain why you believe this?

No, I meant a multiverse, with a multitude of simultaneous yet seperate universes. Your cyclical universe would not have different constants (as you said) and is also impossible, as it would have infinite entropy (and we don't).

Mind you, I don't see the Anthropic Principle as being proof of God, mearly a useful tool for nailing down the possibilities some. As I pointed out, it could be met by either raw chance (vastly unlikely, but possible) or a multiverse situation (completely unsupported by any evidence, but possible) of a deity of some kind (completely unsupported by scientific evidence, but possible).

Of the three, I think #2 is actually the weakest, and I don't particularly like #3, though not for any good reason.

There is a fourth option I forgot to mention, though, and that is that there is some underlying principle of this universe that forces these constants to be what they are, essentially that they aren't fine-tuned, they just exist. I put this on the same level as #1 and #3, however, as it's still placing faith in some completely unsupported and unproven concept.

So, basically you either place your faith in something unproven or assume you are a jackpot of literally universal proportions. No matter what, claiming any as absolute is a massive leap of faith.

Actually, no. Again, this is inductive reasoning, not deductive, which means an inherrant amount of choice or guessing is necessary. You may think one thing is vaguely likely (even though unproven) simply because it conforms to your perception of the universe, while you dismiss another because it isn't. That's not irrational, but it's still based on a huge assumption: that your current perception of the universe is accurate.

And again, this is a perfectly fine guess. It is, in fact, a favorite of many atheists, despite it's contradiction to materialism. As long as you admit it is a guess, there's no problem.

I'll agree that our understanding of #2 is incomplete. Top level physicists can't even agree on exactly how many such constants there are, but all agree that there are some, with 6 being the bare minimum I've seen. As for #3, though mathematics may explore the concept, it is actually impossible for science to do so. By the very nature of the topic, no falsifiable predictions can be made. That is to say, all testable predictions would necessarily be the same for all possibilities. For this reason, the 'theories' you're talking about (the 10 dimensions is M-Theory, by the way) are generally ridiculed by most scientists as 'theories'. Mind you, many may have favorites here and there, but they're not actually theories, just fanciful guesswork.

That all depends on the truth. If there are no gods, then it may well be unknowable. If there are gods but they conceal themselves, it is likely unknowable. If there are gods but they have any intention of ever revealing themselves in any way, it is knowable, and arguably will be known at some point.

I believe the other myths and legends were actually inspired/driven by demons posing as deities. I guess that makes me atheistic to them, since I don't think they're really gods. As for why I believe, I have evidence through personal experience. I have seen miracles and I have experienced God, specifically the God of the Scripture. In such a discussion this evidence is nothing more than anecdotal, but for me it's highly conclusive. As for #2, again, this is inductive reasoning, not deductive. Why do the researchers at SETI believe in extraterrestrial life and not Bigfoot? Why do some Wiccans not believe in aliens? Concluding in favor of one does not require concluding in favor of all. It's just a matter of what your personal guess is.

Rereading his statements, I think it's you who needs to reread things. He never claimed that you had to defend your non-belief. In fact, he seconds your non-belief himself and doesn't defend it. Instead, he says you have to defend you claims of non-existence. Again, there's a huge difference between 'I don't believe it' and 'it doesn't exist'.

 

NOG, I can't help but think you're continually grasping at straws here. The anthropic principle(s) are not widely accepted and are generally thought of as a lazy way of explaining things (and one step removed from intelligent design). People often quote Douglas Adams when referring to this:

I think an excellent rebuttal to anthropic views is:

 

Ummm... OK. Wow. I wasn't quite expecting that. Dare I ask if you have any evidence or personal experience to support this... or at least why you believe this?

You have related some of these personal experiences in previous threads. Unlike Dr. Skepticus, I do not dismiss them entirely. While anecdotal information will do very little to convince others of anything, it can go a long way in explaining why you believe what you believe. However, what makes you sure it was the God of Scripture you were experiencing? How old were you when that took place? How many other religions were you familiar with?

Sorry if I seem like I'm pestering but I think you're an unusal case. It is not often that you find someone who is as young as you are, is devout, and apparently has well thought-out reasons for being devout. Most devout people who are many years your senior simply just parrot away things they heard in church. And sorry if that came off as a back-handed compliment.

 

There are so many manifestations of the general Anthropic Principle that I think we need to nail a few down. The Weak Anthropic Principle basically just says that the constants and laws of our universe must be such as to allow our existence, since we do exist. It is considered an axiom, though not a particularly useful one. It can be useful in guiding some research, however, and a classic example of this exists with respect to an energy resonance with C-12 in stars. It was postulated because it would explain the prominence of C-12 on Earth, necessary for life. It was looked for, and behold, it was found. That being said, this isn't actually what I was talking about.

A few manifestations of the Strong Anthropic Principle go to the ridiculous extreme to say that any universe, ours or another, must be such as to allow sapient life to develop in it. There's no real reason to believe this must be so, though. As a guess, it fits in with #4 in my list of possibilities, but it is far from a given.

What I was actually refering to was rather the general observation that numerous constants are extremely finely tuned to allow life in this universe, something which we have confirmed. This much is a given. We know it. Either this is by chance, it is by design, or it is by some as-of-yet unknown law of nature.

The problem with this is that it's a small-picture view. They say the entire universe isn't habitable, therefore our universe must be poorly designed for life. What it neglects is the fact that the very processes which must be used to produce the materials and facets for life to exist are also quite dangerous to said life. Life can't exist in a star, yet we need stars to have life. If the entire universe were in such a condition that life could safely live there, there would be no chance for life to develope so that it could live.

Given the words of the Bible, I think it's a fairly logical conclusion. If there is one true God, and there are demons that oppose him, and there are numerous religions that don't follow this one true God, it is a logical guess that these religions were founded by demons opposing this God. Not necessarily all, as I wouldn't be surprised to find a few simple religions that people just made up on their own, but the complex ones with names for their deities, rituals, celestial heirarchies, myths and legends, and the like probably are.

Judaism, Hinduism, Islam to some degree, Buddhism, Shintoism, Wiccan, Druidic beliefs, several Native American religions to some degree, the beliefs of the Norse, Greeks, Romans, pre-islamic Arabs, Incans, Aztecs, Chaldeans, Egyptians, pre-Abrahamic Arabs, and others. Theology and mythology are something of a passion of mine. As to how I know it's Christ, well, aside from Christian worship prompting these experiences, the experiences themselves are only really consistent with the Christian God. As for how old I was, I've had numerous experiences of numerous types from when I got saved at 3 years old until just yesterday during choir practice. They aren't all blinding lights coming from the heavens, nor people raising from the dead or the like, but they're all drastically inconsistent with my experience of ordinary life. Enough to warrant attention and examination.

Don't worry about the backhanded compliment or the pestering. It's nice to be honestly questioned instead of blindly attacked. I'm happy to provide the answers.

 

But for the mast majority of time when these ancient religions were being practiced, Christianity did not even exist as a concept. Judaism was alive and well (although not widely practiced outside of the Middle East), but Christianity as such (and as the name implies) did not happen until after Christ was born. Also what about those other Abrahamic religions? Are Jews and Muslims praying to the same God you are?

 

It is a common Christian belief that our religion is a continuous extension from Judaism; that, in effect, we are the new Jews (by belief, not heredity). Beyond that, I'd suggest you study the Old Testament's account of history. While there isn't a discrete, formalized religion around God until the Jews leave Egypt, He is an active force in the world from the beginning and continuously throughout. I do believe Jews worship the same God, and that they are still, in some sense, God's chosen people. As for the Muslims, given what I know about the religion, I don't believe it is the same God, but rather a pretender who decieved people. I'm sure many if not most Jews probably see Jesus and the Christian God similarly.

 

Umm, no ... just ... no. That's not what she's saying at all. She's just saying observations do not support anthropic principles (weak or strong) and that anthropic principles are not necessary to explain life and the universe. And actually she doesn't narrow the scope of science at all, she's very big picture here.

 

Ok, T2, we must be talking about very different anthropic principles. Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) is not only absolutely true, but self-evidently so. The logic simply goes:
Any universe that supports life must be capable of supporting life.
Our universe supports life.
Therefore, the laws, variables, and constants of our universe must be such that it is capable of supporting life.

All observations support this, and I'd be genuinely worried if they didn't.

Beyond that, though, what I was referring to was just the observation that there are constants that are not predetermined by any laws (currently known) which are also exactly what is needed to support life. Basically, it's the collected observations in support of WAP.

To claim that anthropic principles are not necessary to explain life in our universe is like saying that you don't need to be able to make bread in order to make bread. It's ridiculous.

I'm not saying she's narrowing the scope of science here, just of her view of the process. It's something a lot of scientists do. I've noticed only engineers are really reliable at seeing stuff like this (may have something to do with it being our job and all). Now, if she wasn't actually talking about what I thought she was (and that sounds to be the case), then I was wrong about her. It's just other people who do this.

This statement, though:

demonstrates a vast misunderstanding of most manifestations of the Anthropic Principle. They don't generally claim in any way that our universe was created for our benefit.

 

What are you talking about? It defies belief that the Christian God was an active force in the world and that this was known by all. To use one of my above examples, I'm sure the ancient Norse people praying to their Norse gods had no concept of what Judaism (or even a Jew for that matter) was. Same goes for the Celtic people of Britain, to say nothing of those living in the Far East and the Americas. The Greeks certainly knew OF the Jews, but the average Greek didn't know anything about Judaism. The only point I will concede is that the Romans certainly did have knowledge of Judaism, and eventually converted to Christianity.

The only reason I brought up Islam and Judaism is that large parts of the Torah, Koran, and Old Testament contain the same material. This is just another example of how our views differ greatly on religion. I see Judaism as the parent religion of both Christianity and Islam.

 

In terms of philosophy and even some theology, I see Judaism as the parent of Christianity, and Christianity as one of the parents of Islam (if I understand my history properly). As far as spirituality and truth, though, I cut it off at Christianity.

Beyond that, though, I'm not sure what your point is with bringing up other religions and cultures. I've heard a number of arguements start with that, but you haven't actually started any of them yet.

 

Anthropic principles are "truisms or tautologies, that is, statements true solely by virtue of their logical form (the conclusion is identical to the premise) and not because a substantive claim is made and supported by observation of reality. As such, they are criticized as an elaborate way of saying 'if things were different, they would be different,' which is a valid statement, but does not make a claim of some factual alternative over another."

I am a man, therefore I am a man. Big whoop, not really very explanitory.

Aldeth, from my youth we had similar beliefs. A popular belief was that other cultures were tempted by the devil. Just because they had no knowledge of the "true god" does not mean they were not influenced by the raging war of good versus evil. Satan tempted them by giving them false gods which they worshipped. The sole goal of Satan is to tempt man a lead him (or her) away from the "true path of righteousness." Satan work on that goal continuously and has since the beginning of the mankind.

Obviously I don't believe that, but it's a prevailing thought that allows members of a religion to ignore history and repaint it with their own opinions.

 

T2, yes, WAP is automatically true and largely useless, though not entirely. It's deductive reasoning can be applied to the scientific method to guide research, as I pointed out with the C-12 resonance.

Still, the various constants that are being talked about are there, they are uniquely suitible for life within a vast range of non-suitible values, and there is (as of yet) no known reason why they are what they are.

 

I brrought it up because of a comment you had made previously. Specifically:

I was pointing out that throughout large chunks of history, the people following these "demons" as you refer to them, had no concept of Christianity, and unless they happened to have had contact with the Middle East, Judaism. If they had never even heard of this "one true God", why would demons, who you say are interested in opposing God, go after people who have no conception of Him?

You never really answered that question, but Judaism and later Islam came up as a discussion of who this one true God really is, and if all three of the Abrahamic religions simply interpret the writings of their holy books differently, and that in reality they are praying to the same God.

 

The Hoyle state (the C-12 resonance you mention) was discovered long before anthropic principles were around (at least 15 or so years). WAP, SAP, or any other AP had no impact on the discovery, nor did it have any impact on the interpretation of the Hoyle state. Your example for the "deductive reasoning ... to guide research" is false. It did not guide research at all.

Aldeth, I don't think you're going to get any different answer than I gave in my previous post.

 

dmc, I know your question wasn't directed at me, but I'm gonna give you the answer that my faith has to that question. I could do a long winded Gnarff-ish answer, but I'm gonna go for the Reader's Digest version.

LDS members* believe that either in this life or the next, every single human being will be given a fair chance to accept Jesus Christ as their saviour. The choice will be theirs, but it will be a fair, informed one.

I hope that helps.

BTW, I didn't know you were raised Jewish. I have great respect for the Jewish faith.

* There's nothing wrong with the term "Mormon" per se, but it's not really accurate and can cause confusion. So I'm gonna use LDS members from now on.

 

Ah, sorry for missing that. In response, the answer is rather interesting, and I thought a direction you were going. You see, the Bible says that those who never heard of Jesus aren't hopeless, but rather that they will be "judged by what they know", suggesting that those who ardently pursue a life of goodness and truth, even if they don't know about Jesus, may be saved. For this simple reason, demons would seek to pervert the lives of anyone they may. Looking at many of those religions, you see many religious rites filled with lust, gluttony, human sacrifice, and various other things the Bible teaches are sinful. I think this also addresses DMC's question. I don't pretend to know what these standards are, but I'm sure they're fair (because I believe in a fair God, so they must be if this God exists at all).

Hoyle himself said that he looked for this resonance state, where no one else would have thought of it, because of the prominence of C-12 on Earth. It wasn't at all necessary from what we knew, but he guessed a larger, more wide-spread prominence of C-12 across the universe, and this would explain it.

Anyway, I never said that a formalized Anthropic Principle did guide his research, just that the WAP could guide research in exactly such a manner. If the facts of life (literally) require a particular principle to be true, which no one supposes through the evidence of math and science, then it's worth looking into.

 

He shoots ... he scores!!! [rrraaahhh ... the crowd goes wild] Yes, T2 has done it again!

NOG: Anthropic principles are simply circular reasoning. Using circular reasoning is not the way to solve scientific problems. We had that a long time ago when scientists were required to prove man was the center of the universe -- the orbital trajectories of the planets (circling us of course and not the sun) were truly amazing. And on paper it worked.

Anthropic principles are the modern day equivalent to prove man is the center of the universe.