Gamma radiation was discovered in 1900 by Paul Villard. Of course it exisisted before the discoverary, but no one new of it. No one was standing on a street corner trying to convert people to it.

Gamma radiation produces a measurable effects. That's how we KNOW it's real. God, on the other hand, does not produce any measurable effect.

I can clam there's a tea pot orbiting the sun between the 4th and 5th planets and if you believe in it hard enough, you'll become rich and famous. But, you'd be a fool to believe me even though you cannot prove me wrong.

Look at it this way, if 1 is absolute faith in God and 10 is absolute disbeleif, then I'd put myself on that scale at about 9.99. I am open to the idea that I don't know everything. However, that doesn't mean I'm open to Santa, unicorns, garden elves or God. The odds are just too great. I live my life ASSUMING there is no God because the concept of a god doesn't make sense to me.

I think the point was: God may be producing measurable effects which we simply haven't yet measured/observed in a way that you have accepted as empirical.



Ah, damn. I thought you were the first true, absolute "strong atheist" to comment on this site. When it comes down to it, it looks like everyone is actually a weak atheist - its just a matter of degree.

No one at present can detect or prove the Higgs Boson exists, but all the models predict it. If and when it is proven to exist, I'm hardly going to stand on street corners and proseltyze for the theories it's going to validate. See, I think it's a mistake to conflate philosophy and scientific discovery with religion. Further, I think if science were able to detect, prove and explain an elementary intelligence existing in the warp and woof of the Universe, a godhead if you will, it would go a long way towards pulling the fangs out of religion.



Well, we sure know the _concept_ of god produces measurable effects on both history and the human condition. And a genius by the name of Leonhard Euler came up with a mathemeatical construct called the Euler Identity which links several important constants in a very unexpected way thought God was an important concept, so opinions vary.



Again, this argument is a straw man. It's essentially a meaningless caricature incorporating Ayn Rand's Argument from Intimidation that basically says "Believe me or I'll think you're a fool."



And I'm fully open to the idea that most peoples' concept of a god is based on human wishful thinking, mythology and just plain old human psychology. That does make sense.

But it's not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is that there are alternative explanations or possibilities that have NOTHING to do with the usual dogma/mythology/opportunistic anesthesia that mostly comprises human religions.


-Kerry O.

I feel it's foolish to make most any clame as being 100% true. That table over there COULD be imagined. But, I think it's very unlikely. Maybe I'm not really setting my drink on it, but everythinhg tells me I am. So. I go with the assumption that it's real.

Some of my assumptions are stronger than others. For example, I assume that when I get in my car I won't die in a crash, but I know it could happen. However, my assumption that God isn't real is as strong as any I make. It's as strong as my assumption that if I drop a hammer it will fall to the ground, as strong as my assumption that 2+2=4. I could be wrong about these things as well, but it's not very likely.

I tend to agree to a point. I think a lot of people who call themselves "atheists" are actually agnostic and just don't realize it.

I personally hold that all humans are necessarily agnostic in matters of the knowing the true nature of reality because no human can have that knowledge, and all agnostic means is "Without knowledge"

To claim to actually "believe" in atheism, would be to claim to actually "believe" that there is no God at all, IMHO.

(Of course many people will argue semantics there and offer their own personal definitions for the term "atheism" suggesting that it simply means. "Without a belief in God". However, I personally feel that's a bit trite, because many atheists I encounter often take the stance firmly that there is no God.

Anyone who's leaving the possibility open should consider themselves to simply be agnostic, IMHO. And that possibility includes and form of "spiritualism", and "mystical" ideas of reincarnation or anything like that are equivalent to believing in "god" as far as I'm concerned, even if the only "god" that exists in those beliefs is the actual entity that is being continually reincarnated.

These are just my opinions of course.

I personally tend to lean toward a "belief" in mysticism. However, realizing that I can't possibly know that it is true, even I confess that I'm ultimately agnostic.

I can say that with respect to particular mythologies such as Greek Mythology and the Abraham Mythologies of the Middle East. I am a complete atheist. Not only do I not believe in those descriptions of personified Gods, but as far as I'm concerned the fables themselves can be shown to be clearly false, and thus there is no reason whatsoever to believe in them and they can safely be discarded as poorly written man-made myths.

So with respect to things like Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and the myriad of confused sects of Protestantism I can safely say that I am a completely atheist.

If there is a spiritual essence to reality it is most likely described by Eastern Mysticism (and even then only by the purist philosophical ideals there too), and not any dogmatic versions of that which have arisen in Eastern Cultures too. Some of those cultures have created dogmatic version of mysticism which have also evolved to contain personified godheads.

~~~

Getting back to atheism

I meet a lot of people who believe that they have sufficient "scientific evidence" to make a sound and rational conclusion that pure atheism (no spiritual essence at all) is a reasonable conclusion.

Those people are indeed claiming that they do indeed have "sufficient knowledge" to conclude that no spirituality is possible.

I personally disagree with that view also on scientific grounds.

I feel that there is sufficient scientific knowledge to justify an Eastern Mystical view of life. Not necessarily conclude that it "must be so", but certainly sufficient evidence and knowledge to allow for the possibility.

In other words, I personally reject the notion that our scientific knowledge is sufficient to safely conclude atheism as an absolute conclusion.

Therefore, to be honest with myself, and with everyone, I must confess that I'm agnostic with respect to spirituality in general, and personally LEAN toward the possibility of a spiritual essence to reality over a non-spiritual or atheistic view.

I think the purist philosophical forms of Eastern Mysticism are the most likely candidate for describing the true nature of reality. But, I confess that we do not have sufficient knowledge to make this conclusion concretely.

So of the three; Atheist, Agnostic, and Theist (or spiritualist), I suggest that I'm an Agnostic who leans toward Theism in terms of the Eastern Mystical picture.

If you ask me what I believe in my "gut"' I would have to say Mysticism.

If you ask me if I believe in atheism on a purely intellectual grounds, I would have to say, no, not really. Atheism in its purest form makes no sense to me at all, not even intellectually. It doesn't 'explain' anything any better than mysticism does. It's all a mystery no matter what we choose to guess at. And mysticism only claims that life is a mystery. That's why they call it Mysticism.

Science cannot prove a negative. However, the question of God is, in my opinion, a scientific one.

For example, if God really does hear prayers, that would be a transfer of energy and we should be able to measure it.

It's my view that evolution goes most of the way to disproving the God concept. A being like God doesn't pop into existence out of nothing, but only comes about after a long evolutionary process, like our own. Therefore, the existence of God (as he is presented in the bible) is far less likely than our own.

As I've already stated, I do not say God is impossible. God is just as possible as unicorns, elves and fairies. In other words, not likely.

That's an interesting view. But I can't help but wonder whether it genuinely has merit though. The reason I say this is because according to the science of quantum mechanics, the question may not be within the realm of science.

Why do I say that, you may ask?

Well, according to quantum mechanics there are things that can have an effect on physical reality, but yet cannot be directly observed or physically measured prior to their effects. In fact, it is this very rule that is at the heart of QM. Break this rule, and QM fails.

Therefore, in a very real sense, QM is actually stating that there are things about the nature of reality that cannot ever be known by science without violating QM. And if QM fails, then our 'current scientific knowledge' also, 'fails' or at least 'changes'.

In other words, according to our current modern science knowledge (i.e. the science of quantum mechanics), it is basically telling us that the deepest secrets of reality are indeed out of the reach of the "scientific method" itself.

So in other words, as long as QM stands, the question of "God" may indeed not be a scientific question at all.

Therefore for you to suggest that the question of "god" is ultimately a "scientific" question, is to reject current science, or to simply hold out "Faith" that our current scientific picture thus far is wrong.




The biblical God? I agree.

Other possible concepts of "god"? Not necessarily.



Seems to me that assumes a lot about the nature of "god".



As far as I'm concerned the biblical stories of "god" are so utterly unwise, inconsistent, and ignorant, that no scientific reasoning is even required to recognize that the Hebrew folklore can't possibly represent the supposedly "All-Wise" entity that they claim their god is supposed to be. So the mythology flies it it's own face.



I also feel that the likelihood of a "god" is highly dependent upon how it is defined. I think if a "god" does exist, it's a concept that goes far beyond the physical.

Would the concept of a "god" be a totally miraculous concept that is far beyond human comprehension? I believe it would be.

Well, the concept of a bunch of space debris popping into existence from nowhere for no reason and just happening by chance to have the properties required to evolved into self-conscious thinking beings is itself an extremely miraculous and highly 'unlikely' event.

So to believe in that scenario doesn't make anymore sense than anything else.

In other words, at best, I think the concept of a "god" is on precisely equal footing with the concept of an "accident" popping into existence from nowhere for no reason.

Both are utterly impossible for me to comprehend. Neither has a foot up on the other, as far as I'm concerned.

Although having said that, I must confess that there is something that causes me to LEAN heavily toward the mystical side of things. And that is the concept of TIME.

We, as humans always think of TIME as being a linear "thing". Time travels from the "past" into the "future". In fact, we can't even imagine the existence of anything without asking the question "From whence did it come?" This is a question of TIME.

If it wasn't here "Before" then how did it get here "Now"?

However, maybe this is the whole problem right there. Consider the following:

There is no such thing as "PAST" or "FUTURE", all that exists is NOW.

An ever-changing now. Period. So a question like "From whence did it come?" becomes a moot question. It didn't 'come' from anywhere because there is no such thing as TIME.

Once this concept is accepted then it's easier to see that nothing comes and goes, but simply changes form in some mystical "now".

I think this is the true nature of "god" and we are this thing that always exists in various forms.

To me, that is the essence of Eastern Mysticism. It's not a matter of asking "From whence did it come?", but rather "What is it now?"

Just my thoughts.

I'm not going to get into arguing QM. However, I do want to discuss one of your points.

Simple things are much more likely to appear out of nothing than are complex things. Let's use the 747 argument:

If a tornado passed through a junk yard how likely would it be for the parts to land in exactly the right places to build a 747 jet airliner? I think we can agree this is highly unlikely. But, I can easily see the parts being thrown about into a giant mess easily.

In other words, I can see an atom poping into being from nothing, but not a complex being that creats universes, answers prayers and keeps things moving along according to its will.

God is the ultimate 747. That doesn't mean he cannot be, it means he needs the ladder of evolution to make the slow climb to complexity. That is the power of evolution and natural selection. It explains how simple things, over time, can become complex things by making small changes along the way.

I certainly see your points. I view things differently. I like to share my views in the interest of sharing, not meant to be 'argumentative'. Although, it may sound a bit 'argumentative' since I'll be giving 'reasons' for why my views differ.

To begin with you say, "Simple things are much more likely to appear out of nothing than are complex things."

I both agree and disagree with this notion. Yes, if you are viewing an atom to be far simpler than a 747 then you're obviously correct. However, an atom itself is far from a 'simple' object. It follows a whole host of 'laws'. In other words, it requires quite a bit of 'information' to properly describe the behavior of an atom.

Moreover I find the following observation to be extremely curious:

In the entire universe, as far as we can tell, there only exist a handful of atoms so-to-speak. There are approximately only 100 different kinds of naturally occurring atoms. Take that number and compare it with the number of atoms in the entire observable universe. I forget what that number is off hand, but I do know that there are believed to be 70 sextillion stars in the observable universe. That 70 thousand million, million, million stars. So obviously the number of atoms in the universe is a humongous number, even if I could recall what it was it wouldn't be meaningful because it a number far greater than any human mind can even begin to comprehend.

Yet, in all that "garbage" there are only about 100 basic species of atoms. We even know how they "came to be" in this universe. In fact, they are combination of what we believe to be even smaller things that have very specific properties. In fact, when we get right down to it this entire universe is made up of only about 10 or so actual "things". Quarks, Leptons, Bosons, and, well... that's about it isn't. Even though we only have 3 labels here, these are actually groups of things so we're talking about a dozen or so actual constituents that make up this entire universe. This even includes the forces that act within the universe according to "theory". Although I think the question of whether or not gravity is actually mediated by bosons is still an open question.

But the point is, that everything we see in this entire universe is basically made up of a about a dozen, very simple things, as you suggest.

So now we have huge collection of a very few very simple things. We can ask how they behave. Well, low and behold! They behave in a way that allow them to create stars, planets, and ultimately self-conscious beings.

Wow! If that's an accident, then that is one hell of a FREAK accident, IMHO.

Of course the argument given by the scientists is that there are probably infinitely many universes, and we just happen to live in one where these few subatomic particles just happen to have the properties that they have.

In other words, to dismiss the absolutely unrealistically unlikely event that this universe just happened to be the way it is, we must have Blind Faith that there exists infinitely many other universe that didn't turn out so well.

So, in a very real sense, your argument about the "unlikelihood" of a 747 just "popping into existence" actually applies to our entire universe far more than you might realize.

Our universe is extremely unlikely!

So much so, that they only way that scientists can "justify" this universe is to imagine that there exists infinitely many universes and our 'just happened' to be "just right" (just like in the story of the three little bears)

So when you talk about "likelihoods" or "improbabilities", our universe itself is an extremely improbably event if we are going to claim that it happened "just by chance".

~~~

Now as far as a God who answers prayers, I've never seen any evidence of any such thing.

My only conclusion is that something truly mysterious is going on, but that doesn't mean that fables of Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, or Odin are true.

Ah, the anthropic principle.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Originally the "Anthropic" principle was the idea that the universe contains human life, therefore it must have been "Designed" for human life.

I don't go anywhere near that far. Human life is merely one possible thing that can evolve in this universe and therefore there's no reason to believe that human life was necessarily a "goal" of the universe anymore than throwing a 7 on a pair of dice was the "goal" of the dice.

I was just responding to your notion of 'likelihoods', you dismiss a "god" as being highly unlikely, yet you seem to neglect the fact that it would also be 'highly unlikely' that a pure chance universe would pop into being in such a way as to be able to evolved into such highly sophisticated things as sentient conscious beings.

Even cosmologists confess that if our universe is merely random chance it's highly unlikely that it would have the properties that it has. Forget about humans. Just think in terms of stars being able to form and maintain a long burning time that is extremely stable in most main sequence stars. That 'balance' of forces and atomic behavior is in an extremely narrow range.

So if you're going to say that it's highly unlikely for a 747 to just pop into existence. And you're going to dismiss "god" as being just as unlikely, then that argument also applies to this universe. It's just as unlikely that this universe would just "pop" into existence with the characteristics that it has as well.

So if your argument against something is based solely on an idea that something is highly unlikely, then it doesn't hold much value because you only need to look around and recognize that this universe is highly unlikely too, yet here we are!

Thus highly unlikely things evidently do HAPPEN.

i'm an atheist and proud of it

So far as we know, there iz no other way for a universe to be.

What I am saying is it's more likely that simple things pop up than it is for complex things to pop up. Protons and quarks are more likely to come from nothing than are 747s.

My point about this is that a god is a complex being, more complex than we humans are. Therefore, the idea that god was here before anything and made everything out of nothing just doesn't hold water.

If, on the other hand, you want to talk about a god that evolved from lower life forms and became god like, that's a very different thing and, as far as I know, isn't discussed in any faith.

Yes, there had to be a first movement that got everything started, but there is nothing that says the first movement had to be from something intelligent.

Yes, life may be a highly unlikely event. But, it only had to happen once. Given the length of time the universe has been around simple life forms happening once doersn't seem all that unlikely to me.

However, complex life, like god, still seems highly unlikely even given the time involved.

There are a few ideas about where life may have come from that are very interesting and worth looking into. One is from clay, another is from crystals. These are both things that are not living beings, but behave in many ways as if they were alive. Maybe life didn't just pop into being, but it was a slow evolution from something like clay into the first life forms.

I guess you're right. As long as you are going to think of "god" as a complex human-like being then nothing I say will be meaningful to you.

Reading your words above have made me realize that the discussions of "god" or "a spiritual essence to life" are always going to be tainted by people trying to imagine God to be a Zeus-like character.

Most people probably aren't geared toward a 'mystical' concept of "god". In fact, the very word "god" is a misleading word because most people think of "god" as something other than themselves. A being that is "external" to their experiences and existence.

In Eastern Mysticism "god" or "spirit" may very well be the simplest thing you can imagine. God may not be "complex" at all. And therefore there is no reason to even speak about a god "evolving".

In fact, if "god" needed to evolve, then it could never be complete because it would also be in a state of evolutionary change.

One fundamental philosophical principle about a 'god concept', is the idea that god is 'unchanging' and always the same eternally. Therefore any idea of a god that evolves is already a notion that defies what the underlying concept 'god' should be.

So now we come to the technical question, "What is God?"

If you ask people who believe in the Mediterranean myths they will tell you that God is basically a personified being that is very much "Zeus-like". He, (and god is usually referred to as being a male gender in these fables), has human characteristic and thoughts. He's jealous, he becomes angry, he loses his temper, he makes commandments, he demands to be obeyed, he punishes people, he makes plans, etc.

This is a very complex picture of "god", and one that I personally don't buy into.

However, if you ask an Eastern Mystic what God is like they will tell you. Be quiet. Quiet your mind, let go of all your thoughts until you cling to none at all. Let go of your physical sensation until your body seems to dissipate into nothingness and you are no longer aware that you even have a body. Now, in this state of being aware of nothing what are you? That is God. "Tat t'vam asi", You are that.

So now when you speak of 'god' where is the need for anything 'complex'?

God, or 'spirit' (which is your ultimate essence) is simplicity beyond comprehension. It's eternal, unchanging, and has no need to 'evolve'.

The inquiring scientist within you asks, "But what the hell is it?" What makes it work? From whence does it arise? What perpetuates it? And so on.

That's the mystery. This is why Eastern Philosophy is called "mysticism". The buck has to stop somewhere and it stops with YOU and your ultimate spiritual essence.

What's the alternative view?

Well, the alternative view really isn't much different at all. The alternative view is the atheistic view. The atheistic view simply accepts that some "non-spiritual" stuff exists for no reason and without any comprehensible explanation at all and over time evolves into a state where it is able to briefly become conscious of it's existence momentarily before passing out again into oblivious dust.

As far as I'm concerned these two views of reality are equally absurd, and equally mystical. So since they are on precisely the same footing why not opt to believe in the mystical spirit rather than the mystical 'dust'.

One says that I'm the eternal consciousness of the cosmos, and the other says that I'm a mere passing cerebral fart.

In all honesty which of these two scenarios is more attractive to you?

I mean if you could choose between them which would you prefer to be true?

Keep in mind that intellectually speaking neither has a leg up on the other. Why would inert dust that has no reason to exist in the first place, have any more merit as an explanation for true nature of reality than a spiritual essence that has no reason to exist in the first place?

They're on precisely the same footing. Neither one makes any 'sense' to our ideals of 'logic'. So pick whichever one you LIKE the best, because there's no intellectual reason to chose one over the other. They are both equally absurd.

That's all I'm saying.

If you like the dust picture better than the spirit picture, more power to you. But if you say that it's more "likely" I'll just roll my eyes.

Why should the mystical existence of a complex quantum field be more 'likely' than anything else?

It's a "mystery" either way. You can't tell me where the quantum field "came from" anymore than I can tell you were spirit "came from". In both cases all we can suggest is that they are probably eternal and have always existed.

And maybe the quantum field is the 'essence' of spirit. Who knows? Sounds plausible to me.

Well yeah, when someone sayd "God" to me I assume they are talking about a being that listens to prayers, sends sinners to hell and changes the universe according to his will among many other things. I think that is what most people mean when they say it.

As for your mystical force, there's still no evidence for it. If it is a force we should be able to measure it. For example, we knew there had to be black holes long before anyone found one. The laws of gravity said it had to be real and many years later one was found.

That is the power of science. It tells us thing no one ever thought about.

What knid of universe do I find attractive? It doesn't matter. Finding it attractive doesn't make it real. My idea of the universe is there is no meaning in anything. We live, we die and we're forgotten. There is no life after death to fear or look forward to. Nothing matters. Does that seem bleak to you? It does to a few people I know. They dislike the idea that all of this is meaningless, that there's nothing to look forward to. But, I'm looking forward to a wonderful evening with my girlfriend. I find that to be more than enough.

It's more than just a 'force', it's the very essence of our being. And we do measure it. Constantly every moment of our lives.



You don't need to tell me about the power of science. I've been a scientist all my life. Either working in research labs, or teaching courses in colleges. That's what I did.

Exactly what is it that you think you should be able to measure?

If you could come up with something definite that you should be able to measure, and you can't measure it, then you'd have good reason to dismiss it.

HOWEVER, don't forget about thinks like neutrinos which are exceedingly difficult to measure. And how about "dark energy" and "dark matter"? We haven't been able to measure those directly either, we only believe that they exist because we measure the behavior of other things and then postulate that these unmeasurable things are the most likely explanation. We don't even know if that conclusion is true yet.



Well, if you have several possible scenarios to choose from, then why choose the one that you don't like?



I'm not so sure that I would even want eternal life to be honest about it. That all depends on what it might be like.

As a romantic I confess that the idea of some sort interesting mystical answer to existence would be more exciting than to discover the bleak picture you've just describe. I think you can see that such a picture is bleak too. So why not hold out hope for a more exciting answer?

Especially since we haven't yet been able to actually rule it out.

Why the rush to rule it out?

That's what I don't understand.

Ah, but don't you see? Evolution is a very exciting answer. So is string theory. We live in a marvelous universe. The more I learn, the more excited I become. I have no need of any mystacal force or god to be behind it all. I am amazed at the universe itself. I have a very romantic view of things.

Think about it, every atom in your bady was once part of a star. What could be more romantic than that?

I don't rule anything out. However, I do feel that some things are more likely than others. We cannot detect dark energy yet, however what we already know about the universe tells us it must be there, unless we are wrong about what we think we know. Therefore, it makes sense to look for dark energy and a way to measure it.

There is nothing to suggest there is a god or other "mystical" force, so believing in it doesn't make sense to me.

Not true. An atheist denies the existence of God. An agnostic does not deny the existence of God. Therefore, the two are totally different.

Goto Gnosticmedia.com and watch "The Pharmacratic Inquisition"

Hey HappyDude111! Welcome to the site. Was 'HappyDude' (no numbers) seriously already taken?

Ah, semantics! Many modern atheists would say: 'strong atheists deny the existence of any God, while weak atheists do not deny the existence of some God'. Therefore, there is an overlap between weak atheist and the common use of agnostic.