Sciences vs. Religion

[YesNo]

I'm not sure why you think a consciousness "making a choice" out of which the universe arose is NOT a question of the First Cause. Anyway, you'd have to demonstrate how a consciousness could be eternal or exist outside the bounds of spacetime, especially when we only know of/experience consciousness via spacetime and our material brains.

The reason I am not interested in a first cause is because the universe is not eternal and I am not promoting any particular theology. All I am interested in is the existence of a choice that was responsible for the initial expansion of our particular universe. Once I have that choice, I can assume there was a consciousness underlying it. That consciousness would be outside our universe. Since there may be many universes, this does not have to be a first cause nor be associated with any specific deity.

I think our particular forms of awareness are generated by the brain, but I don't see why our consciousness as a whole is. Nor do I think our consciousness is specific to each of us. My reason for thinking that is because of the existence of psychic phenomena. These should not exist at all, that is, we should not hear any reports of them, if consciousness were totally generated and hence individuated by each of our brains.

It doesn't halt anything. MW proponents would still be "questioning" a model for early cosmology, quantum gravity, and the origin of the Born probabilities. All QM interpretations lead to more questions; MW just leads to fewer that seem more solvable.

I view many worlds as a way to resolve the cognitive dissonance associated with the discovery of uncertainty at the quantum level. That discovery means that the project of materialistic reductionism failed.

Our existence isn't evidence for squat except that we exist. It's as much evidence for God as fire is evidence for phlogiston. And feel free to prove that atheistic metaphysics renders our existence impossible.

If I am right about atheistic metaphysics, that it cannot rely on choices, then there is no way for us to get here at all. Our existence, or the existence of anything for that matter, invalidates it.

What makes you say there's not enough time?

I haven't calculated the likelihood that by chance alone the universe could have gone counter to entropy and created more complexity rather than the expected less. I'll leave it up to you to provide the calculations that it is possible. What we know about the age of the earth and the universe is that this had to occur within a finite amount of time.

An atheist could be agnostic on the issue of possible agents outside our universe that aren't, in themselves, supernatural.

I don't know what "supernatural" means. From my perspective everything is natural. If something exists or happens, that's the way it is and we have to face the evidence and not try to cover it up because it doesn't fit our metaphysics.

The way I see it, if there are agents outside our universe, friendly or not, who make choices, then atheism is false. Atheism is not agnosticism.

Some atheists (Sam Harris, for example) even claim that we aren't agents, that our ability to make a choice is an illusion. My view of the matter is that the belief in determinism is itself an illusion generated by a need to resolve cognitive dissonance.

This is you being your typical non-sequitor self. It has nothing to do with what I said. Many Worlds is not pseudo-science. It's not even science; it's an interpretation of science. Scientists don't call it a theory or a hypothesis, they call it what it is, an interpretation. Like all interpretations, it fits the existing evidence. Like all interpretations, it creates other questions/problems that need to be addressed by science. The point, though, is that it creates FEWER problems than other interps., it is compatible with what else we know, and obeys Occam's Razor and other mathematical models for how we should treat competing interpretations that fit the evidence.

I don't think many worlds is an interpretation of anything, but it might be an example of cognitive dissonance. Rather than accepting the evidence from quantum physics, many worlds tries to rework that evidence to generate results that are more in line with its preferred metaphysics. That is how they try to resolve the dissonance.

You might want to consider chapter 13 of Bohm and Hiley's "The Undivided Universe". They present a detailed critique of many worlds. David Bohm had his own interpretation of quantum mechanics and, whether one accepts it or not, his take on other interpretations needs to be considered.

One of the conclusions is the following:

In view of all these unresolved problems we have been led to ask why the many worlds interpretation seems to be so attractive to some physicists.

I think the reason why can be obtained from social psychology which Bohm and Hiley weren't considering.

[MorpheusSandman]

The reason I am not interested in a first cause is because the universe is not eternal and I am not promoting any particular theology.

The first cause deals with, quite simply, the cause behind our universe's existence; whether that's God, quantum fluctuations, or your "conscious choice" by some unspecified consciousness is irrelevant.

I think our particular forms of awareness are generated by the brain, but I don't see why our consciousness as a whole is.

Consciousness has always been equated with awareness; I have no idea how/why you're separating "forms of awareness" from "consciousness as a whole."

My reason for thinking that is because of the existence of psychic phenomena. These should not exist at all, that is, we should not hear any reports of them, if consciousness were totally generated and hence individuated by each of our brains.

WHAT psychic phenomena?

I view many worlds as a way to resolve the cognitive dissonance associated with the discovery of uncertainty at the quantum level.

I know you do, but like with most everything when it comes to MW you're wrong. You missed the point again, however. You said MW halts the questioning process. This is demonstrably wrong. No MW proponent has halted anything.

If I am right about atheistic metaphysics, that it cannot rely on choices, then there is no way for us to get here at all. Our existence, or the existence of anything for that matter, invalidates it.

I'm simply not following your train of reasoning here: WHAT atheist metaphysics? What about it not relying on choices? What about choices being needed for us to get here?

I haven't calculated the likelihood that by chance alone the universe could have gone counter to entropy and created more complexity rather than the expected less.

Oh, I see, you're another one that has a complete misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. 2L says that entropy happens in a closed system over time. The universe as a whole is a closed system. However, there are systems within systems, and even if the TOTAL entropy of the system increases, this does not mean that a particular system within the system cannot generate more complexity. What is needed is, primarily, a perpetual energy source; we have one, it's called the sun.

I don't know how you think it's even possible for someone to calculate the probabilities that it's possible after it's already happened.

if there are agents outside our universe, friendly or not, who make choices, then atheism is false. Atheism is not agnosticism.

These agents need not be gods, though; at least, they need not be anything like the gods we've imagined. Atheism could still be correct in rejecting the man-made gods.

I don't think many worlds is an interpretation of anything

You're wrong. I don't know how else to say it. MW doesn't rework anything. It interprets the QM models that exist. It takes Schrodinger as real as takes Heisenberg as expressing our subjective uncertainty due, in fact, to the entropy inherent in QM.

You might want to consider chapter 13 of Bohm and Hiley's "The Undivided Universe".... One of the conclusions is the following:

In view of all these unresolved problems we have been led to ask why the many worlds interpretation seems to be so attractive to some physicists.

So what unresolved problems did they mention? The only one I know about is the Born Probabilities.

[Pendragon]

You're wrong. I don't know how else to say it. MW doesn't rework anything. It interprets the QM models that exist. It takes Schrodinger as real as takes Heisenberg as expressing our subjective uncertainty due, in fact, to the entropy inherent in QM.

How about "I cannot agree. IMHO, you are wrong."

The greatest statement on this kind of discussion was made by Charles Schultz through Snoopy. Snoopy is writing theological book and titles it "Has It Ever Occurred to You That You Could Be Wrong?"

You see when people ask for others to quit being close minded and consider something from another point of view, what they really mean is "Change over to what I believe."

There is a balance between science and religion in that both attempt to answer sometimes impossible questions.

Science want nothing that cannot be proven, even if that requires speculation, use of possible scenarios, and a lot of unsure statements such as "This MAY HAVE been the earliest ancestor of homo sapiens." They call it "Educated Guess" or drawing inference from known fact to postulate a theory, and a theory is just that, a theory.

Religion takes it for granted that God exists. From there comes everything, creation, evolution, space, the universe, man and beast. An all powerful God can do anything. I paraphrase here which I hope doesn't offend but Muslims have a saying I love: "As for Allah it is enough for Him to say "Be" and it is." Religion has an explanation for everything: God did it all.

The balance is that we who believe in God cannot prove to people who will not listen. that God even exists.
You who put your faith in science postulate things that no believer in God will ever accept.

Yet consider: Science has proof that the animals today evolved from animals long gone. I accept that. It doesn't mean I don't think God created everything. But he placed them here on earth and they continually evolved to survive an ever-changing environment. That is evolution from the original creation. It doesn't invalidate science at all.

Fossil remains show us that there were human-like creatures that evolved into homo sapiens. Consider: The Bible says "God created man from the dust." It never says what he looked like at the time.

Well, I'm not here to preach, so I will close.

God bless one and all

Pen

[MorpheusSandman]

How about "I cannot agree. IMHO, you are wrong.

Because him being wrong isn't my opinion, it's a fact. Saying "Many Worlds isn't an interpretation of science" is as much opinion as saying "the Earth is flat." I don't care if you phrase it "I think the Earth is flat." The Earth is not flat; Many Worlds is not not an interpretation of QM. YesNo has had no less than 4 different posters across multiple threads tell him he doesn't know what the bleep he's talking about, yet he persists in repeating the same falsities ad nauseam, even after they've been pointed out to him. He also has this remarkable ability of completely avoiding the points being made by other posters. Half of his responses are non-sequitors. He's every bit as bad as YECs arguing against evolution; just maybe slightly less abrasive.

Look, I know good and well the difference between opinion and fact. Me saying "Many Worlds is most likely true given the current state of evidence" is an opinion based on what I know of the matter; YesNo's "Many Worlds isn't an interpretation of QM" is a flat-out falsity.

The balance is that we who believe in God cannot prove to people who will not listen. that God even exists.

The problem is not that non-believers will not listen, the problem is that believers have a very tenuous grasp on what they think of as "proof" or even "evidence." Generally, the kinds of things believers accept as proof of God are things they wouldn't accept if a believer in a different God claimed as evidence as well. What's more, it tends to be the kind of evidence that is easily classified under various logical fallacies. It's also the kind of evidence that, when science DOES apply its rigors to it, falls apart completely, such as the major studies on intercessory prayer.

You who put your faith in science postulate things that no believer in God will ever accept.

I put my faith in science for the same reason I put my faith in the sun rising tomorrow; because it's proven reliable and consistent over time. Every time religion has had "God did it" as a cause behind natural phenomena, science came along and explained what REALLY did it. Science is batting 1000 right now; the supernatural is batting 0. You mention you accept evolution, yet The Bible says nothing about evolution. It says man was created fully formed from dust, not that we evolved from hominids going all the way back to single-celled organisms. What's more, if you believe that, you'd equally have to believe that God allowed his creation to wallow in mostly abject suffering for millions of years before he even chose to reveal himself or "inspire" man to invent things like modern medicine.

[Vota]

We know so much and yet so little.

Anyone claiming their way is the only way, or the best way, is the first person you need to be very wary of. Philosophers and scientists have been coming up with "theories" and debunking each others "theories" since the beginning of philosophical discussion. Many atheists, and many scientists are atheists(philosophers as well), say that religion is a joke. I find it a joke that neither of these two disciplines can provide a concrete, factual answer as to how we got here. Big Bang. You cannot create matter from nothing. Well, like uh, ya....grumble grumble, still better than that God idea. IS it? Let's use Occam's Razor. It seems reasonable to me that when you have to justify the creation of the universe, the earth, man, animals, everything, that God created it is the simplest explanation. Now I'm not saying I believe this, but science and philosophy is a never-ending rabbit hole of theories and conjecture. The ENTIRE foundation of philosophy and science rests upon first principles, axioms, whatever you want to call them, and yet they cannot explain this. In this sense philosophy and science are founded on their faith in the truth of first principles in which they cannot prove. Yet atheists and scientists recoil at the word faith which is EXACTLY what belief in first principles is. If you believe in science then you believe in first principles. If you believe in first principles then you believe in things which cannot be proven. You can try to escape the word all you want, but in the end its the same thing as believing in a God that created all and is all. Faith. Scientists have "faith" in the scientific method. Observation and experimentation. They also love to infer a great many things that they cannot prove. Trilobite evolution is a fun one.

At this juncture in my life I am skeptical of both camps. What I am willing to commit to, is the belief that it is the pinnacle of ignorance and vanity for anyone to think they have the answer, that they have the brain power and capacity in their feeble mind to truly understand the scope, the grandeur of design of this universe, or universes. I'm willing to say that better minds have tried and none have been up to the task so far.

I'm all for science. I like this computer. I like my car. I like all the things science has made possible, and I am very excited to see what scientists can come up with over the rest of my life. Space fascinates me. The idea of alien contact blows my mind. Quantum computers, etc. Yet, who knows? Nobody knows for sure. Maybe God knows. Maybe gods know? Who knows? I know one thing though, you don't. You, as in every other human being on this planet. Maybe I'm wrong thinking that. Like I said, you have to be wary of anyone claiming they have the answer to anything so complex as the meaning of life.

[MorpheusSandman]

I find it a joke that neither of these two disciplines can provide a concrete, factual answer as to how we got here. Big Bang. You cannot create matter from nothing.

Science knows both how we got here as a species, how the universe got to where it is from the big bang, and how a universe can come to be from quantum fields (see Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing"). What has religion given us? A myth about man being formed from dirt and woman from a rib?

Let's use Occam's Razor. It seems reasonable to me that when you have to justify the creation of the universe, the earth, man, animals, everything, that God created it is the simplest explanation.

No. It may SEEM like God is a simple explanation, but that's because linguistic simplicity covers up ontological complexity. See this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/

What we see in nature is complexity coming from simplicity; whether it's in the form of evolution creating the diversity it did, stars/planets creating galaxies, or particles becoming atoms becoming molecules. So, given this "simplicity to complexity" paradigm, the notion that a complex being outside spacetime (how does consciousness function outside of space and time, btw?) created something also complex like the universe is a direct violation of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor would favor a theory such as the universe coming into being out of a quantum field fluctuation, which we know can happen, given the qualities quantum fields possess. What's more, we also know quantum fields exist, and that they are incredibly simple in and of themselves. So, if we're talking Occam's Razor, quantum fields slit God's throat with it.

science and philosophy is a never-ending rabbit hole of theories and conjecture.

The difference is that science progresses in measurable ways, while philosophy (and religion) arguably don't progress at all. In fact, the only way philosophy progresses is when it incorporates the advances of modern science. There is no "rabbit hole" of science. It answers certain questions definitively and then moves on to the next one. We have a complete model of how most all objects move/behave via Einstein, and a complete model of how incredibly small objects move/behave via Schrodinger. Are there lingering mysteries? Yes, but the lingering mysteries are things that philosophers and religions didn't even know existed until science answered the questions that philosophers and theologians spent centuries pondering.

Yet atheists and scientists recoil at the word faith which is EXACTLY what belief in first principles is. If you believe in science then you believe in first principles. If you believe in first principles then you believe in things which cannot be proven.

The problem is that you can't lump every kind of "faith" under one category and try to equalize it. Me having "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow is not the same as me having "faith" a fairy is going to land on my nose within the next 10 seconds. One is based an absolute consistency of sense experience, the other is not. Similar, when you say "faith in science," it's having faith in something that's proven time and again its value in answering basic questions about how reality functions in provable ways.

Are there are always unprovable first principles? Yes, but even some of these are more sensible than others. Me believing that rockets have been to the moon because I've seen them take off, land, seen pictures taken from space, seen astronauts talk about what it's like, etc. is all predicated on me trusting my senses; but that's really what all "first principles" come back to. On some level, we trust what we sense, and, further, we trust that our senses interact in particular ways with reality that by asking certain questions we can answer them by seeing how our senses change. EG, to believe "light interacts with my shoelaces and enters my eye and tells me "my shoelaces are untied,"" we can take away any of these elements--light, eyes, tied laces--and see how our senses change. With no light and no eyes we see nothing, with tied shoelaces we see tied, rather than untied, shoelaces. This changing perception by changing various elements about ourselves/reality are the kind of "first principles" we put "faith" in, and it's very different than the kind of "faith" religious believers have. Religious believers are usually very good about doing their darndest to make their "faith" unfalsifiable, which is the exact opposite of science.

What I am willing to commit to, is the belief that it is the pinnacle of ignorance and vanity for anyone to think they have the answer, that they have the brain power and capacity in their feeble mind to truly understand the scope, the grandeur of design of this universe, or universes. I'm willing to say that better minds have tried and none have been up to the task so far.

I think the pinnacle of ignorance is for someone to say we understand EVERYTHING, yet, no scientist or atheist I know of says this. Rather, it's usually the theists that are both supremely ignorant about what we DO know, and supremely confident that, somehow, in some way, God is behind it all. Great minds have certainly "tried," but each generation of great minds build off those of the past and make distinct progress. The problem is that a great many (most?) are unaware of that progress. Just like you saying that you can't create matter from nothing. Well, yes you can, in a way. Quantum fields, which have no matter, merely potential energy, can, indeed, create matter, gravity, time, and space. Does this change what you think about needing God to create a universe? Probably not, if you have the mind most believers possess. Most believers, when such scientific revelations happen, will merely say "but you don't know where the quantum fields came from! Ha! God must've created that!" so it becomes the classic "God of the gaps" game.

[Vota]

You seem pretty convinced that you have the answers.

I don't have a better reply, than more power to you.

[Frostball]

So, if we're talking Occam's Razor, quantum fields slit God's throat with it.

This gave me chills. Spectacular wordplay.

[Pendragon]

People who believe in Science have to accept many things they have never confirmed for themselves as fact because someone with a lot of degrees at the end of his or her name said so. Have you ever seen what they refer to as "The God Particle?" The scientists aren't even sure they have but believe it. If science always is to be trusted remember "Piltdown Man?" That a dinosaur skeleton in the Smithsonian went over ninety years with the wrong legs? That they cannot cure the common cold? That they now have decided that Pluto isn't a planet after all? You have to accept what you cannot confirm for your self and sometimes what cannot be reproduced because it was discovered by accident and they haven't found where the deviation is that allowed their discovery in the first place. I'm not saying science is wrong, I'm saying some things science teaches must be accepted without proof positive. Sometimes they keep at it and right the errors, sometimes the error is just accepted until some person most of the scientists think is a screwball manages to catch the error.

Religion is hard to deal with because there is no proof. I'm a minister, and I say that right up front. I cannot prove God exists or heaven (or hell) is real.

Science is something that has a mass effect on us all. The laws of nature apply to everyone. The discoveries of today will affect the world for years to come.

Religion is personal. I can preach to a crowd of 250 people but unless they experience something that convinces them personally of a need for God in their life, nothing I say or do will make a difference. So I preach for the ones who have had that experience. In the average 250 people in a congregation two thirds are just there to say they attend church. So I preach for the one third. I am concerned about even a single person.

Science writes you off it you don't agree as ignorant, foolish, etc. Not all of us. I know the failures of Religion, the many arguments over whose God is God, etc. But like I said, it's personal. Thomas Jefferson said, "“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Likewise it does me no injury if the people who put their faith in science abound. It doesn't change my beliefs or make me a fool.

God Bless

Pen

[Vota]

It was late last night where I live, so I did not feel the inclination to field a systematic response to your post against mine Morpheus, but having some free time today I decided I would.

1. "Science knows both how we got here as a species". The Theory of Evolution is still a theory. There are no cat-dog hybrids. There is a great deal of variation within species, but each species is still recognizable what it is, and not something new. Evolution seems to have a really hard time dealing with this. Also, when you go back to Trilobites, people ASSUME that they evolved from arthropods, and yet considering the hard shell, complex eye structure of the trilobite, we should have some sort of evidence of an arthropod/trilobite mix. As far as I know we do not. I am only just delving into this so if you have a Definite proof that there is I would encourage it.

2. "What we see in nature is complexity coming from simplicity". Do we? The Trilobite is a very complex animal with no "Direct precursor" that can be adequately proven.

3. "how does consciousness function outside of space and time, btw?" I wouldn't know and with my feeble understanding of this universe and it's overriding laws I am willing to admit my ignorance and would not claim to have an answer to this, but neither does any scientist.

4. "quantum field fluctuation, which we know can happen, given the qualities quantum fields possess"-QFT, emphasis on the T, Quantum Field "T"heory. Also there are many criticisms such as the problem of quantum gravity, why the constants of cosmology have the values they have. One must also consider that QFT omits gravity, which is a GIGANTIC gaping hole in the theory. General Relativity and Quantum Theory don't sync up nicely which leads to string theory and other theories. So what you have is an unproven theory that people are trying to shore up with other theories. This is not convincing and certainly not simple.

5. "science progresses in measurable ways, while philosophy (and religion) arguably don't progress at all"-keep in mind that science and philosophy were indistinguishable in the beginning. Science would not exist without philosophy. Science is awesome, no denying that, but science still cannot answer the most fundamental questions. Why are we here? There are no definite answers, no observable proof based on the scientific method. There's distance and time, and theories, but that's what they are, theories. What is consciousness? What is moral? Science is amazing, but it isn't the end all be all and does not disprove of the existence of God or gods nor answer the fundamental questions. You can say what you want, but all you will produce are theories, many with gaping holes in them.

6. "We have a complete model of how most all objects move/behave via Einstein"-The Theory of General Relativity is still a theory. If it wasn't it would have been renamed The Fact of General Relativity. Also, why the probs with QFT?

7. "One is based an absolute consistency of sense experience"-our senses are horribly inconsistent. What we see, or think we see can be terribly inaccurate. What we hear, taste, touch, feel are all subjective. Science by it's very method is subjective relying on observation and experiment, which means that it fundamentally has the weakness of sense bias and inconsistency. Science has proven how woefully inadequate are senses are in knowing the truth, and what's ironic is that science is limited by the very limitations we all inherently possess. It was created by people with woefully inadequate access to the truth of what things really are. This gets really complex.

8. "I think the pinnacle of ignorance is for someone to say we understand EVERYTHING, yet, no scientist or atheist I know of says this." No, they only imply by saying there is no God which is the same as stating that you "know" God does not exist. Atheists by this very declaration imply that they have access to 100% empirical proof of the nature and origin of the universe which would disprove the existence of a creator, which they do not. Having this sort of proof is the only acceptable answer to the question of "Does God exist", and presently no such factual data, evidence, or theory exists. How can one make such a claim without proof? It comes down to "beliefs" that are based on science. Science doesn't have ALL the answers and many would say it still can't answer the most important questions.

9. "Rather, it's usually the theists that are both supremely ignorant about what we DO know, and supremely confident that, somehow, in some way, God is behind it all."-I could flip this, "Rather, it's usually the scientists and atheists that are both supremely ignorant about what we DO NOT know, and supremely confident that, somehow, in some way, theories are behind it all".

10. "Just like you saying that you can't create matter from nothing. Well, yes you can, in a way. Quantum fields, which have no matter, merely potential energy, can, indeed, create matter, gravity, time, and space."=I already mentioned the various issues with basing anything off QFT. Until the issues are resolved you cannot claim this. Also, QFT has a gigantic problem with vacuum values.

11. "Does this change what you think about needing God to create a universe? Probably not, if you have the mind most believers possess. Most believers, when such scientific revelations happen, will merely say "but you don't know where the quantum fields came from! Ha! God must've created that!" so it becomes the classic "God of the gaps" game."

You insult people that believe as having someone how a weaker or incorrect mind or belief system. There are many scientists, doctors, and even philosophers that believe in some sort of higher power. It's just as feasible that God created everything, as it is feasible that one in countless theories might be the correct explanation "of it all".

I would add that I consider myself an agnostic because I am not convinced by either side. Both sides have their positive, strong points, but neither side can claim they are necessarily right or that the other is wrong.

[Frostball]

I really can't help but address some of these points.

God Particle isn't what physicists call it, it's the Higgs Boson, and it has nothing to do with god at all. It has to do with physics.

Piltdown man was a hoax, yes, and for a time the scientific community accepted it. And so what? It was a short time, and who was it who figured out it was a hoax? Priests? Nuns? It was other scientists. The only cure for bad science is good science. Mistakes are inevitable. The same goes with the dinosaur. It's not as though all fossils come in neat packages with instructions. It's incredibly difficult, and mistakes are bound to happen. Once again, who finds these mistakes? It's the people who spend their lives studying the subject.

There is no such thing as a single 'common cold'. It's a virus that's constantly changing. As yet, there aren't any cures for any viruses, period. There are preventative measures, and we can help the body's own immune system to fight them off. But you know what? Science is working on it. In a race between prayer and science to find a way to cure viruses, I know who I'd put my money on.

The reason Pluto's classification changed is because we discovered other objects that are nearly the size of pluto and have elongated orbits just like pluto. Faced with these discoveries there were two options, either call these new objects planets, giving us something like 15-20 planets, or classify pluto along with them, as dwarf planets. It's not like Pluto changed, this is just a naming system--a nomenclature.

"Theory of evolution is just a theory." Give me a break, hasn't everybody learned this by now? When will people stop saying this? A scientific theory is an explanation that has withstood the test of time and countless attempts to disprove it. Theory is the ultimate pinnacle of a hypothesis; it doesn't get any better than that. There is nothing higher than a theory. Evolution is a theory, and a fact. The theory of a heliocentric earth is "still" a theory. Gravity is a still a theory, and a fact. Einstein's laws of relativity are, yes, "still" theories, yet if we didn't account for exactly what general relativity explains in our GPS satellites, GPS would not work. So it's not as though we aren't sure this stuff is really true or not. When scientists use the word theory they aren't using it in the colloquial sense that people often use it, the way that is something like a hunch, or a guess. The closest thing to that in scientific terminology would be a hypothesis.

The great, great, majority of atheists do not claim to know there is no god. It is almost always the case that an atheist posits that there is not enough evidence to justify a reasonable belief in god. Absolute certainty is generally the realm of "true believers".

These are the points I just had to speak to. Really, they were low hanging fruit.

[Vota]

If you aren't aware of the conundrums inherent with the theory of evolution then you really should become acquainted with them, and if you are, then you believe a theory is a fact that has some glaring inconsistencies.

"There is nothing higher than a theory."-no, give me a break.

"Einstein's laws of relativity are, yes, "still" theories, yet if we didn't account for exactly what general relativity explains in our GPS satellites, GPS would not work." Gps satellites and the creation and existence of this universe are two different things. How do you account for the glaring problems with relativity and QFT? The issues with QFT in and of itself?

"It is almost always the case that an atheist posits that there is not enough evidence to justify a reasonable belief in god."-definition of atheist, Merriam-Webster: one who believes that there is no deity. Wikipedia definition: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

So what we have here is a case of you misusing the term atheist, or confusing it with agnostic, or willfully creating your own definition for atheist/atheism. Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists. Period.

"Really, they were low hanging fruit."-here's a stool for ya.

[Frostball]

I can give you a break, but really, there isn't anything higher than a theory. What would it be? A super theory? Theories never turn into laws, that's just now how it works.

The fact that you talk about cat/dog hybrids shows a great ignorance of what evolution is, and how it really works. Everything we have ever discovered fits in perfectly with evolution. There are countless intermediate species between every species, and more are found all the time. Every time an intermediary species is found evolution deniers just point and say "Look, now there's TWO gaps".

I didn't say anything about QFT and I don't know enough about it to speak on it. Einstein's theories have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. I was merely showing yet another example of a theory about which there is no doubt to it's truth. A hypothesis only finally becomes a theory when every scientist in the field has tried as hard as he can and failed to disprove it, and when it makes useful predictions.

The entire reason it's done this way is because there is no such thing as being absolutely certain, so science never says "This is 100% correct" but can only say that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for something, that it has led to a great many useful predictions, and that if it were found to be incorrect it would be worldview shattering. That's about as strong as science can ever get on something, and that's the level things like heliocentrism, evolution, and atomic theory are all on. Yes, the earth could be flat, we could be wrong and all our senses could have been lying to us all along. I don't know about you, but I don't think that's the case. I can't be certain, but certainty isn't important.

Ah, great, your dictionary definition proved me wrong. I guess you just win, then. But really, if you go out and talk to atheists, or even take a poll, I assure you, the great majority of people who identify as atheists are agnostic atheists--that is, they don't believe in a god but don't claim to be certain about it. Dictionaries might need to catch up to how people are using the term. Dictionaries don't decide the definition of words as if they are an authority proclaiming them. Rather it's how people use words that dictionaries base their definitions on. You're putting the cart before the horse.

[Vota]

It's pointless arguing with you.

[MorpheusSandman]

You seem pretty convinced that you have the answers.

I don't know what you mean by "the" answers. I have "some" answers, just like science has "some" answers. Only religion claims to have "the" answer in the form of God. To believers, God is THE answer to every major question. Science is pretty clear about what answers it has and which it doesn't have.

This gave me chills. Spectacular wordplay.

Thank you.