But seriously . . . atheism?

[TackleTheWorld]

I subscribe to some of Whitehead's philosophical system.  Whitehead stated that the senses are not our sole means of knowing, in fact they are not even the primary means.  The senses compose a part of what Whitehead called "prehension".  I don't recommend Whitehead's work Process and Reality, because it's very detailed, technical, boring, and frankly written poorly.  But David Ray Griffin's works explaining the process perspective are excellent, for those who are interested.

Again you have brought up rational arguments instead of appealing to emotion or revalation or faith.
You are ruining my fun, Caleb. I usually throw out some paradoxes about god and the average theist abandons logic and I giggle.
Now I have to learn the anti-sense data arguments before I can continue.

[TackleTheWorld]

Have you noticed that most arguments between theists/athiest collide not at the evidence or nature or of god himself, but philosophical things
- logic, epistemology, ethics, and the nature of time -
that don't even require supernatural explanations? 
Oh, is that the problem?  Theist have never heard the natural, reasonable, logical systems of philosophy? 

Hmmm.

[Michael Fisher]

Need to prove: String theory is a failed scientific theory.

Given: The point of scientific theories is to be able to apply them to make predictions and understand the control of variables given observations of certain phenomena.

Given: String theory is a deductive theory that should be able to explain and predict aspects of at least some physical phenomena.

Given: String theory has successfully predicted... nothing.

Therefore: String theory is a failed scientific theory at this point.

[David]

Good points Michael.  The ability to predict something is the most important way to prove a theory on something in physics, in the absence of a way to do a lab expiriment. 
I had the impression that string theory was gaining greater exceptance, it had been questioned from the beginning of its conception.  I have not read most of anything written on string theory or its critics.  Most of it is way over my head, and very incomprehensible.  That's why I called it my goofy theory. 
A good into to the theory is a pbs show called The Elegant Universe, based off a book of same name, by Dr. (Michael ?) Greene.  It used to be availabe on the internet. 

[Michael Fisher]

Thanks.

For a minute there, I thought someone was replying to my post on deism and comprehending the nature of God. I know it is a complex set of questions to answer, but I figured that there was no crowd better suited for it than this one: open-minded, brilliant, strong ability to consider theoretical concepts, etc.

Ah, well. I'll check back in a bit.

[Caleb]

Have you noticed that most arguments between theists/athiest collide not at the evidence or nature or of god himself, but philosophical things
- logic, epistemology, ethics, and the nature of time -
that don't even require supernatural explanations?
Oh, is that the problem?  Theist have never heard the natural, reasonable, logical systems of philosophy? 

Well, I think the problem that you are facing is that theism is the majority opinion; as a result, most people are raised theists, and since most people don't examine their underlying beliefs and assumptions until they have cause to doubt them -- then you find that most theists have never really rationally considered their beliefs.

Atheists, on the other hand, tend to have been "converts" to atheism, and therefore have at least given a cursory examination to the rational reasons for their belief.

This was not, interestingly, always the case.  In ancient Rome, it was the Christians who were in the minority; Christians, therefore, tended to be converts to their religion, and were the ones most likely to have examined their position rationally.  Hence, Christian philosophers were very well respected.

[Caleb]

For a minute there, I thought someone was replying to my post on deism and comprehending the nature of God. I know it is a complex set of questions to answer, but I figured that there was no crowd better suited for it than this one: open-minded, brilliant, strong ability to consider theoretical concepts, etc.

Your questions to Deists were thought provoking, though I don't necessarily agree with where they seemed to be leading.  I've often wondered how someone can subscribe to the most extreme forms of Deism (where God seems to simply be a watchmaker who sets the whole thing in motion, but doesn't want anything to do with it afterwards.)  Why would such a God have created it in the first place, if he intended only to abandon it?

I suspect that many who call themselves "Deists" are merely theistic naturalists (in the tradition of William James)

[eques]

I tend to wonder why "string theory" was popularized as a "theory."  If it can't be tested, isn't it still a hypothesis at this point?

From what I understand, the superstring hypothesis was developed because the mathematics worked.  Of course, the mathematical formulas may utterly fail to describe reality, but I highly doubt it was something that some physicist pulled out of his or her ass one day.

I'm reminded of a scene back a number of years ago.  I was in a bookstore somewhere, and I saw Hyperspace by Michio Kaku, some higher-dimensional physicist-type.  I didn't know much about the topic, but the book interested me.  I didn't really have my own cashflow at the time, so I presented the book to my father to purchase.  He disapproved, saying, "Why don't you study 'pure' science?"

Having my interest summarily dismissed, I didn't find anything else interesting that day.  I did end up buying the book later, and it's still interesting to leaf through, though I still couldn't tell you if the contents of that book make any real sense to me.

As for "pure" science, I ended up studying evolution (and realized that I had been lied to repeatedly by the sect of Christianity I was a part of).  I still don't know what he meant by "pure," though.  I think he would have had a similar reaction if I had picked up The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

Bah.  Now I'm remembering the unhappy crap.  It's time to go to bed, anyway.

[Rocketman]

For a minute there, I thought someone was replying to my post on deism and comprehending the nature of God. I know it is a complex set of questions to answer, but I figured that there was no crowd better suited for it than this one: open-minded, brilliant, strong ability to consider theoretical concepts, etc.

Your questions to Deists were thought provoking, though I don't necessarily agree with where they seemed to be leading.  I've often wondered how someone can subscribe to the most extreme forms of Deism (where God seems to simply be a watchmaker who sets the whole thing in motion, but doesn't want anything to do with it afterwards.)  Why would such a God have created it in the first place, if he intended only to abandon it?

I suspect that many who call themselves "Deists" are merely theistic naturalists (in the tradition of William James)

Merely?  Yes, theistic naturalism would seem to be closely related to deism, if not a flavor of it.

[adamwruth]

I used to be an atheist, but I changed my title to agnostic after I understood the differences better.  From the dictionary:

Atheist:  the theory or belief that god does not exist.
Agnosticism:  an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

I could no longer claim to "believe" that there was no god, but I could claim to believe that no one knew there was.

It may be a subtle distinction, but I think there's a difference between "I don't believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god."

[d_goddard]

Did you hear about the plight of the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?












He stayed up all night wondering if there really is a dog.

[Raineyrocks]

Did you hear about the plight of the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?


He stayed up all night wondering if there really is a dog.

Finally a post I understand!

[Braddogg]

I used to be an atheist, but I changed my title to agnostic after I understood the differences better.  From the dictionary:

Atheist:  the theory or belief that god does not exist.
Agnosticism:  an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

Are you an "agnostic" to the proposition "There is an invisible elephant on your head"?  That is, would you say "There might or there might not be, but I doubt it", or would you say "You're a crazy bastard, get out of my house"?  Or how about if I pointed to a 10-year-old and said "Adam, go meet your daddy"?

[Caleb]

Are you an "agnostic" to the proposition "There is an invisible elephant on your head"?  That is, would you say "There might or there might not be, but I doubt it"

This is an atrocious analogy.  Not only is there no reason to suspect that there is an elephant on my head, but in fact an elephant on my head would produce certain effects, which I would be able to see, even if I could not literally see the elephant itself.  It cannot be claimed that God should "register" on instruments, or that he would produce any effects other than those which have already been posited.  And yet, when those "effects" (such as existence itself and consciousness) are brought up, we are informed that this is an "argument which appeals from ignorance" ... in other words, just because science and philosophy don't have an answer doesn't mean that the God hypothesis is the answer.

I've said it before:  extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary claims.  That extraordinary evidence is this:  I "live and move and have my being." (Acts 17:28)  Taking only time, space, matter, and energy into account, I cannot account for this evidence!  You must remember that for whatever else God is, he is also an explanation.

Atheistic naturalists like to assume that the universe is composed of four things:  Space, Time, Matter, and Energy (which I shall subsequently refer to as "the Big Four".)  The problem is, (as I have shown earlier) that there are philosophical and scientific reasons to reject the concept that the Big Four are eternal.

Philosophical reason:  Time cannot be infinite, because it faces a philosophical problem (known since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers) called "crossing the infinite."  Let me illustrate:  If someone told you to "count to infinity", you could begin by counting, "1, 2, 3 ..." as time went on you would get higher, "1,364,365 - 1,364,366 - 1,364,367 ..." but although you could count forever, you could not count to forever.  In other words, you would never reach the point at which you had finished counting to infinity - you would never "cross the infinite."  The significance of infinity is such that by definition an eternity can never be actualized, because you can always count one higher.  But if time had always been here, then that would mean that an eternity of time had elapsed in order to arrive at the present moment.  This would involve actualizing an infinity of second (or years, or days or months, for that matter.)  That is to say, an infinite number of years would have already had to have passed.

Can science help us out?  Well, let's see what my good old friend Stephen Hawking has to say:  "This means that even if there were events before the big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would break down at the big bang.  Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand.  As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe.  We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang." [emphasis mine] In other words, not only does science not have the answer, science will never have the answer because the answer is scientifically unknowable!

If then, the Big Four had a beginning, then they also had a cause.  And since no thing can cause itself, that cause must have been something other than the Big Four (ie, the cause was neither space, time, matter, or energy.)

Are we at a brick wall? Is the answer outside of our knowledge?

I contend that it is not outside of our knowledge.  There is, in fact, something in our experience that is outside of the Big Four (you might dispute with me on this one, but I am to show that it is reasonable to believe that it is, in fact, outside of the Big Four).

That "something" is consciousness.  Mind.

The traditional belief in atheistic circles is that mind is an emergent property of biological matter.  But that cannot explain many facets of consciousness.  For my purposes at the moment, I want to demonstrate that it cannot explain a single facet of consciousness as it relates to my argument:  namely that consciousness appears to exist independent of space and particularly time.

I make this argument because I believe that it is the only argument that explains how we can have a perception of the past.  If our "memories" were just stored chemical information, then when we recall, we should experience the information as a present experience.  But we do not.  We experience it as a past experience.  Memory, (a function of consciousness,) thus seems independent of time, at least to some extent.

Scientific data in the 20th century (particularly quantum physics) is also strongly suggestive of the contention that mind exerts a causal effect on matter, as observation (another facet of consciousness) seems able to collapse the wave function. This is also unexplainable in terms of consciousness as an emergent property of matter.

Mind, then, presents itself as a reasonable explanation for the cause of existence. 

[Braddogg]

Are you an "agnostic" to the proposition "There is an invisible elephant on your head"?  That is, would you say "There might or there might not be, but I doubt it"

This is an atrocious analogy.  Not only is there no reason to suspect that there is an elephant on my head, but in fact an elephant on my head would produce certain effects, which I would be able to see, even if I could not literally see the elephant itself.

Caleb, there's a reason I addressed that to an agnostic and a not a theist.  Namely, that adamwruth said it could not be determined if God exists or not.  He said he doesn't think there is a God, but he can't say for sure.  If he said he thought there was a God, then I wouldn't have said what I said.  Instead, I would have said "There is no God," and gone into that bit.