The Glade 4.0

The line between agnostic and athiest is similar to the one between scientific theory and scientific law. I would characterize someone who feels there is sufficient historical data that what first is assumed to be miraculous later is found to have rational explanations to potentially be in the catagory of Athiest.

Except, if you actually examined things, you would realize that being secure requires answering those questions. For example, if we take rigid determinism controls the universal through fundamental laws that everything obeys, that leaves no question for free will. Your life, human history and the entire universe would be the playing out of sub-atomic particles. A giant pool trickshot lasting billions of years, and all you are is one deflection of the cue ball by a tiny particle of felt on the pool table.

Great, who cares right? Except, without free will, most of the basis of your life would be moot, no matter what your philosophy. Your choices and actions that demonstrate what kind of individual you are suddenly have no meaning, without free will. Love means nothing, nor does hate, war or anything else.

Science doesn't answer these questions because that's not the point of science.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Rafael - being secure does not in fact require those decisions. One can leave them on the back burner or simply not consider them and still live a happy, secure life.

Free Will is simply another thing for us to tackle. Explaining it away with magical men in the sky is simply not rational.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Security is an illusion. An illusion I'm very fond of mind you --

but I know the answer to the question "what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?"

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Yet. Science didn't know the answer that the world was not flat, and eventually showed that it wasn't. Despite all the faith and belief to the contrary, science eventually uncovered the truth.



Yet.


While there *could* be some entity that exists in the manner in which man, in our tiny little corner of an unspeakably vast universe, has defined it, the chances are bloody slim. However, atheism includes that idea. There is no compelling evidence that such an entity exists, and until such evidence is presented or discovered, it is irrational to conclude that such an entity exists.



This is simply not true. It's not a 50/50 coin flip as to weather or not a god exists. The burden of proof for the existence of such an entity rests with those that assert that entity's existence as fact. There is no such evidence to support that assertion, outside of our own lack of understanding.




There is no evidence of that god.



Ah, but faith is not the same thing as belief in a god. I have faith that when I step out my front door, my porch will be there. I have faith that I will be teaching again this semester. I have faith that my girlfriend loves me. However, none of those things have anything to do with a deity. Faith and God are not one in the same.



I am certainly not a scientist, so I'm not the best source for that information. I do, however, trust the scientific process to deliver significantly more rational information, over the long term, than any holy book or deity.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Basically you are saying that even though nothing you do is of your own accord (since Science has not the answer to that) everything is peachy. That's called forced self-delusion. And what "decisons" are you talking about? I never mentioned anything about "decisions". You can't decide to have free will, or decide the concept of free will into existence. What in the blue hell are you talking about?

Your posts about science uncovering fundamental universal truths, the nature of which are not science in the first place, demonstrats your perception of science to be very immature.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

If you changed "support" to "prove" you would be correct. Supporting is what evidence does and that support is either sufficient or not.

However, you didn't say that. You're just shifting the goalposts. You said that you "realized" there "is no God". You didn't. You simply have drawn that conclusion.



Yes there is. There is documentary evidence from people who interacted with said diety in a variety of ways. What you mean is that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a diety.

Evidence exists. Period. Claiming that none exists is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

you're all arguing semantics without a common frame of reference. Until you postulate (and agree) on a definition of "God" you cannot argue about whether or not it is provable.

Since I find it highly unlikely you're all going to agree on a definition of "God" this argument is rather silly.

Someone post a list of qualities that such a Being would exhibit, and then we'll talk about how one proves, disproves or conjectures about its existance or lack thereof.

I'd just like to point out that this isn't "faith." We observe the universe appearing to work according to consistent "mechanical" methods. Unexplainable? Perhaps, only due to our limited capabilities of observation; i don't know. Our capacity to observe and explain increases constantly.

We do make certain assumptions. For instance, we assume that the universe must all follow the same laws as what we can observe. We also assume those laws have remained consistent over time. Do not mistake this for belief. For all we know, the universe has changed the rules of the game several times over the last several billion years, and may change them again. Such speculation is pointless, however, much like trying to determine the existence of a creator. There is no evidence of such changes, and if they happened, there is no way to determine what they were before. So the only possible lines of investigation involve following those assumptions.

To make a simple analogy: You are a predator following your quarry through a tunnel. Having come to no intersections, you must make the assumption that your quarry has continued straight, and hasn't suddenly acquired the ability to phase through the wall. This is not faith -- there is no evidence it has suddenly acquired that ability, and no precedent for other creatures doing this -- so you are simply following the only meaningful path, especially in light of the fact that you yourself cannot phase through the wall to investigate that possibility.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

There is evidence to suggest that certain scientific constants, like the gravitation constant "G" (capital, not lower case), the electric permittivity constant, and the magnetic permeability constant, are not actually constant, but have changed over the course of time.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Which just means they are likely variables dependant on other factors. It does not necessarily mean the rules that the universe appears to follow have changed.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Actually, it means exactly that. The rules that the universe appears to follow may have changed. What it does not necessarily mean is that the rules the universe actually follows have changed.

Although as an addendum, we currently have a point in the history of the universe where the rules appear to have undergone a major change. The sudden existence of time radically altered quite a number of physical laws, who's previous interaction we still do not yet understand.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

You misunderstand my comment. I said "appears to follow" because we do not know for a fact that the universe consistently follows any rules. Our observational capabilities are limited. Nevertheless, our only option, scientifically, is to proceed with the assumption that it does indeed follow rules...and that assumption has worked out pretty well so far, as it pertains to scientific and technological advancement.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

You are correct, except that the scientific laws as we currently state them are only the laws the universe appears to follow. No claim is made that those definitively the rules that the universe actually follows. In fact, we further state that those laws are merely the laws that the universe appears to follow at that particular location relative to other objects in the universe.

So, when a law appears to change, it means precisely that the laws the universe appears to follow have changed.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Your definition makes it sound like the rules themselves are changing though, which is probably wrong. And in reality, with your scenario, the rules the universe appears to follow have not changed, since those "constants" do not appear to be constant. Therefore the rules the universe "appears to follow" have not changed. It just appears that the rules are different than someone earlier thought they were. In short, the rules don't appear to be changing, but rather our understanding of the rules are changing.

You're playing sematic games that just obfuscate the issue, especially when you're saying the same thing as me, but arguing about it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Science is real.

_________________
"I've got twenty ways to tell you shut the f*ck up / nineteen of them are twenty-four bars long / the other one goes: SHUT THE F*CK UP" - Aesop Rock
"There is no God higher than truth." -- Gandhi
Formerly: Tulamian

So it would seem.

Of course, we could all just be in your head, your entire existence could be manufactured, your brain floating in a big jar being fed images and experiences, one big solipsistic fantasy.

Or science is real.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That never happens here...

What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can hear, what you can smell, taste and feel, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

They might be giants told me so!

_________________
"I've got twenty ways to tell you shut the f*ck up / nineteen of them are twenty-four bars long / the other one goes: SHUT THE F*CK UP" - Aesop Rock
"There is no God higher than truth." -- Gandhi
Formerly: Tulamian

Uh.. so? That's simply tautology.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Thank you Matrix. (I guess I'm condemned to merely pointing out when someone makes a pop culture reference)

edit: after I tried to post I saw DE's comment added - funny that he interpreted you literally (though I know what's going to be said now)

I was pretty sure it was a Matrix comment. I'm really not impressed with Matrix as some sort of philosophical commentary. It's a highly original action series.. and that's about it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And Keanu's hot...

That's true, they may someday find the answers. Until then, you can just take it on faith that they will.