"Atheism is inconsistent with science, says Dartmouth physicist Marcelo Gleiser "

[edhopper]

Another Templeton fail epic.

https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/atheism-inconsistent-science?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2ndQ9wSNToaCAlQfbg1wa61RICjtBco8NUjSh0BD7bnW0mSYAa2k7bEPg#Echobox=1562584787

"I think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It's a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. 'I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.' Period. It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations. We say, 'Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.' And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about."

Anybody outside of Atheist bashers know that atheism is simply not having a belief in God, NOT a statement that God does not exist.
Funny, he describes himself as an atheist similar to most atheists, but then goes on to say why atheists are wrong. Start with a false premise, move from there, collect a few hundred thousand in a prise $.

Sorry if this article has been posted before.

[Act_of_Reparation]

1. The hard atheism straw man is theists' go-to argument.

Hell, we see it here at least once a week.

[Major Nikon]

4. Then immediately followed by the assertion of rejection of faith is "faith"

Faith #1
A) I know a supreme being exists and I will name him "God"
B) Assuming A is true, I know God created everything
C) Assuming A and B are true, I know what God likes and doesn't like from his creations
D) Assuming A, B, and C are true, I know how God will reward or punish me for eternity based on C

Faith #2
Bullshit.

Ergo Faith #1 = Faith #2.

[DetlefK]

2. Yes, atheism is inconsistent with science. But so is the concept of religion.

Before we debate whether we can prove/disprove God's existence, shouldn't we ask whether God's existence is provable/disprovable at all?
How can we prove whether there is one god or several gods? Or is it even more complicated? How can we tell one god from the other? Is the god we are worshipping as God the real God? How would we even know? What is the difference between God and other gods?



Before we try to solve a problem, shouldn't we ask ourselves whether it's solvable at all?

[edhopper]

3. Given the complete absence of any evidence for a God

why should we consider one exists any more than any other mythological concept.

Should we talk about why we can't prove/disprove unicorns or dragons.

[DetlefK]

7. That's the difference between faith and knowledge.

One says "it exists until proven otherwise", the other says "it doesn't exist until proven otherwise".

As there are infinitely many things that could possibly exist, it makes more sense to go with "it doesn't exist until proven otherwise", because otherwise we would have to accept for fact the existence of infinitely many things that COULD possibly exist.

[edhopper]

15. Good point.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. "Shouldn't we ask whether God's existence is provable/disprovable at all?"

No, we shouldn't. Such a question presupposes existence.

[DetlefK]

9. While at the sime time pre-supposing God's non-existence.

Trying to solve a problem does not mean that a decision has been made beforehand what the solution will be.

Consider a system of mathematical equations that is under-defined or over-defined in conditions.
If it's under-defined you can't solve the system because there are infinitely many possible solutions, because there aren't enough conditions to narrow it down.
If it's over-defined you can't solve the system because there are no possible solutions who can match all the conditions at the same time.



"Does God exist or not?" How many answers does that question have? Infinitely many? One? None?

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. So, your argument is "I can't prove god exists because I don't know what god is"?

If you don't what god is, then why are we even having this conversation?

[DetlefK]

19. No, my argument is that we don't know whether the question even has an answer.

I hope I have successfully laid out my reasoning in post #12 why humans cannot on principle answer that question.

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. I could substitute "vampires" for "god" and using the same argument...

...reach the same conclusion.

I

[Major Nikon]

8. Actually you should first define your terms

The etymology of atheism does not require an assertion of nonexistence nor do most modern definitions. Historically the term has been in use in the English language for a bit more than 400 years to refer to someone who is godless or impious specifically to the local privileged religion even if they subscribed to other religions. It was much later when it was redefined in some dictionaries to describe someone who believes there are no deities (almost certainly by theists).

Modern US English definitions most often define it as lack of belief or a strong disbelief. All atheists have a lack of belief in deities. Some go one step farther and have disbelief in deities.

[SCantiGOP]

10. Define your terms!!

You are exactly right. Most arguments can’t proceed if you stop and make everyone define their terms, since that exposes the core of the disagreement.

[DetlefK]

12. I have seen both definitions used in practice.

Some atheists say that they haven't seen evidence and that they won't believe in him until they have seen credible evidence.
Some atheists declare that God doesn't exist, without clarifying how they came to that conclusion.

I'm an agnostic because of the philosophical/logical background that came with my science-education.
* I know that for simple mathematical reasons it is not possible to experimentally prove/disprove God, which means the only way to prove/disprove him is some sort of theoretical argument.
* And there can never be a theoretical argument why God does/doesn't exist until we perfectly understand the nature of reality and of our universe... which is in turn mathematically impossible as us humans are finite entities.

TL;DR Humans will never be able to either prove of disprove God's existence, because humans are finite and God is infinite. Only an entity that is infinite like God (-> another God) could actually find out whether there is a God or not.

[Major Nikon]

20. You can be both an agnostic and an atheist

Those are not mutually contradictory, unlike theist and atheist.

It's entirely possible to call bullshit on the existence of purple people eaters without building a scientific or even philosophical dissertation as a reason. Incredible claims require incredible evidence. Ordinary claims do not, especially when that ordinary claim is no more than the rejection of an extraordinary one. Logic has little value without reason. You could waste the rest of your life pondering an infinite number of unfalsifiable claims.

Meanwhile in practice the scientific community routinely rejects incredible claims all the time. Someone who presents an hypothesis without evidence will eventually lose credibility and will be ignored entirely.

[Mariana]

22. Any god worthy of the name

would be capable of making itself known to people. It could provide evidence for its existence, if it wanted to do that. This is especially true if it's an infinite god, but a finite god should be able to do it as well.

[Bretton Garcia]

40. Yes. Even the 1) Bible god hisself says we could and should look for proofs

Last edited Thu Jul 18, 2019, 06:31 AM - Edit history (1)

"Put me to the test, says the LORD" (Mal. 3.10). "Test everything"; "test the spirits." By "observ"ing the visible material fruits.

So the Bible actually suggested we could prove or disprove God. With science.

The problem was that 2) as soon as we test the more concrete promises of God, they clearly fail.

So? 3) Christians invented Metaphorical Jesus. And thousands of sophistical apologetics sermons. To insist that the old promises of physical miracles, were just a metaphor.

And 4) then even more modern liberal Christians like Guil, redefined God even more. To go past the Bible. To say God is real, but indeterminable, indescribable. So we allegedly can't prove or disprove him.

But? Even that modern god is clearly descended from the Bible god. Who did strongly support testing religion.

And any case, an indescribable god cancels himself out. Since we can say nothing very clear about him.

[Lordquinton]

44. About that last part

TL;DR Humans will never be able to either prove of disprove God's existence, because humans are finite and God is infinite. Only an entity that is infinite like God (-> another God) could actually find out whether there is a God or not.

How do you know god is infinite?

[edhopper]

46. Because we are finite and can't prove him

so he must be infinite. The very fact that we finite beings can't prove an infinite God proves an infinite God exists.
Because if he weren't infinite, we would be able to prove he doesn't exist. I mean how else would you explain this...
No God? Well that is just silly talk.

[DetlefK]

48. That depends on the definition of "proof".

I can make up a lot of things and you cannot prove whether they exist or don't exist. That doesn't mean that they do or don't exist.

[edhopper]

50. If those things

will never have any effect on the Universe, then we can assume they don't exist.
If you make the claim, it is up to you to provide the evidence.

[DetlefK]

47. There is a difference between finite and infinite gods:

If we look at finite gods, like the ancient european ones, then we have claims that can be adressed in experiments, that can be witnessed and proven or disproven.
"Does Thor actually fly through the air on a chariot pulled by two goats?"
That question can be answered by a simple observation.

The problem with the biblical God is however that he is defined as infinitely this and infinitely that. Whatever information we can get about him through observation is tainted by the fact that we can never be sure whether we have seen objective truth or whether God has presented us with a subjective version of himself he wanted us to see.

Plus, looking at this from the mathematical side, it's impossible to gain an infinite amount of information from a finite experiment. We would have to observe God with infinite accuracy for an infinite time if we want to know whether he really is infinitely wise and infinitely strong.

[Bretton Garcia]

49. But? If an infinite god promises to deliver a billion pizzas at 10PM?

Last edited Mon Jul 15, 2019, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Then even that infinite god has made a very specific promise. One that can be pretty reliably observed to be true, or untrue.

God? Make mine with bell peppers and sun dried tomatos. Delivered one each to me, and every starving person in the world. Mon. July 15, 2019. 10:00 PM GMT.

[trotsky]

51. Thor does indeed fly through the air on a chariot pulled by two goats.

There is also a fire-breathing dragon living in my garage.

Additionally, there is a teapot in orbit around the sun, somewhere between Earth and Mars.

None of those statements can be completely disproven, even though the items/entities they refer to are decidedly finite.

[NeoGreen]

52. That fire-breathing dragon...

...is there a miniature version?

One I can take camping to light my campfires and stand vigil against the raccoons?

Granted, I'll likely have to upgrade the flame retardant on my tent. But, meh...trade-offs and concessions.

[Bretton Garcia]

54. Nothing is absolutely certain in an Infinitely complex universe.

But? 1) If dozens of trained observers with instruments visit your garage and find no evidence of a dragon, then our highly fruitful science tells us that most likely no dragon was there.

2) We coould argue all science is wrong. But then we'd reject a major pillar if our lives: a dangerous move.

3) It might be that the pizza God was using language metaphorical or something. But then! That most likely means that this God was deceiving us with trick language. He has not tried to speak to us in clear terms.

4) We cannot know whether anything is infinite.

5) But an infinitely complex universe in any case does not imply any recognizable god.

It may be that nothing is absolutely provable in an infinitely complex universe. But in that case, we should go with the most probable answers. Having no other even remotely solid seeming criterion of proof.

Even as 6) The Bible in any case, told those who follow IT, to look, test for proofs comprehensible to us.

[trotsky]

56. Well of course.

In the case of 1) you realize that "most likely" doesn't mean "proven." Did I mention that my dragon is invisible, weightless, and the fire he breathes cannot be felt? Checkmate, ATHESITZ!

[Bretton Garcia]

57. Yeah.

But since the dragon is invisible etc., his pronouncements should likewise be inaudible.

[Voltaire2]

53. Numbers are infinite.

We seem to have managed to know quite a bit about all sorts of infinite sets of numbers. It isn’t infinite gods that are unprovable, it is the ineffable quality the apologists tossed in to make up for the plain fact that their gods just aren’t here.

[Bretton Garcia]

55. In which case ...

... even if some kind of infinite universe exists, beyond merely infinite numbers, it seems we can't say anything definite about it. Or about an infinite god. Nothing negative - or positive either

And then? We can at least make out when apologists are makingly rational and logic errors.

[Zambero]

5. That's where the faith part comes in?

An atheist cannot prove the non-existence of a deity, nor can a believe prove otherwise. The latter relies on faith. The absence of faith does not prove the atheist to be incorrect, nor does form a basis for any scientific conclusion along those lines.

I've seen some baseless arguments, but this one from Gleiser takes the entire cake.

[Major Nikon]

17. That's really just where faith starts

If you define a god as some entity that exceeds the capabilities of humans, then I suspect most atheists would agree such an entity possibly if not probably exists or has existed in the universe. However, that's not the god in which faithers are referring. They are referring to a conveniently invisible interventionist creator god that prescribes a moral code for humans with the conveniently unverifiable promise of reward or punishment if that moral code is broken.

If you want to consider the question scientifically, it shouldn't be ignored faithers are making several claims here and while the first one is improbable each successive one which builds on the previous is exponentially less probable. Interestingly enough rather than call out those who are making absurdly incredible claims, Gleiser wants to single out those who are calling bullshit.

[Thomas Hurt]

11. How do you have a belief in disbelief?

[edhopper]

16. you don't

atheist simply have no belief in a God. Gleiser starts with a wrong premise.

[guillaumeb]

25. True.

But some insist that a belief in the non-existence of something is somehow not a belief.

[edhopper]

34. Because it's not a belief

I don't accept the existence of a God. It is not a belief.

Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

[guillaumeb]

35. I accept that this is your view.

But I insist on my own view as well.

[trotsky]

36. Yes we know you insist on defining atheism for atheists.

Despite screaming at everyone else that they aren't allowed to define religious belief.

That's where the hypocrisy part comes in, and it's why no one takes you seriously.

[guillaumeb]

37. No, I insist on defining what it is.

[NeoGreen]

38. You seem to have fallen into a neverending Arguement Sketch...

You're sure getting your 8-pounds worth of a 30-minute arguement.

[trotsky]

39. Pretty much.

You just gotta remember with guillaumeb, it's rules for thee, not for he.

[Major Nikon]

41. The best part is he defines himself as both a deist and a theist

Which are mutually exclusive terms according to the very definition he produced. Then he claims the definition for atheism found in all domestic US English dictionaries isn’t correct.

[NeoGreen]

14. 'god' is the proffered hypothesis...

...the existing data set, as accumulated over the last 200+ years, does not support this hypothesis.
Occam's Razor (simpler answers, as derived from direct observation and empirical data) reduces the proffered hypothesis to a few remaining gaps in human knowledge.

The hypothesis is rejected as proffered.

[edhopper]

18. Yes

no need to disprove something for which there is no evidence. We don't need to disprove cold fusion,homeopathy, N-Rays or the Ether, they were never supported by any evidence.

[uriel1972]

23. only need to disprove them to the extent..

that there is/was belief in them and that belief can be harmful to all concerned.

[guillaumeb]

24. True.

Any assertion that is unprovable is inconsistent with actual science.

But some prefer to cloak their opinions in the robe of science, feeling that it proves that they are more logical.

[edhopper]

27. Why is God unprovable?

[guillaumeb]

28. Ask God.

[edhopper]

29. If I could ask God something

then he/she would be provable. If the answer is the same, whether a God exists or not, why accept one?

I love the concept of a deity that has no verifiable presence in the whole Universe.

It is the Ultimate McGuffin.

[guillaumeb]

30. One might be able to ask, in a sense,

but one might not understand the answer. Or recognize that an answer was given.

For Christians, Jesus represents the answer from the Creator. For Muslims, Mohammed provided the answer.

[edhopper]

31. The unclear

all followers disagree answer?

And that begs the question, for which there is no evidence and much counter evidence, that they were sent by God.

The counter evidence BTW is that both of their books are full of contradictions and false history.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. How convenient. A one-time answer in the form of a human before the first camera was invented.

Or... just a regular mammal who lived and died.

[Major Nikon]

42. Substitute purple people eater for god and the circular logic works the same

[edhopper]

43. Only the one eyed, one horn, flying variety

[Moostache]

26. Such a boring argument in the abstract...

Pick a "god" from the pantheon...I'll start...Zeus.

"King" of the gods, ruler of Olympus, father of many demigods (Perseus among them) and so on and so forth...

Now, the fun part:

When Zeus was atop Mount Olympus he was appalled by human sacrifice and other signs of human decadence. He decided to wipe out mankind and flooded the world with the help of his brother Poseidon.

NOW....prove to me that Noah's flood story is more factually based than Zeus' flood story and kindly use footnotes and citations of evidentiary findings supporting your claim...or don't, because really can't people find ANYTHING more worthwhile to do???

(MY claim? ALL religious stories from EVERY era and EVERY tradition are simply poorly aged attempts of man's feeble intellect to deal with things beyond his mental reach; and as such, none are any more or less "true " than another, but all are patently false in the objective sense of observable reality.)

[enki23]

32. Sure. And not believing in the fucking easter bunny is inconsistent with science.

It is logically possible that some sort of undefined wonder-whatever is actually true. Therefore it is a grave error of logic if you don't believe some of *this* crazy bullshit. The bait and switch never changes.

[Lordquinton]

45. I get this feeling when theists try to talk science

It's the same feeling I get when nerds argue over venomous vs poisonous, or *shudder* seagulls...