Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?

Hi Bluejay,I don't believe there is such a concept as "sin" at all, nothing can convince me otherwise, there is no clue(not even a part of clue) that something is forbidden in this world.Anyway, here is a short rundown on my situation.I feel under pressure because of the infinitely dense wall that the singularity poses. There is a limit to our knowledge, we are bounded or caged in a way and I don't think this will EVER change. I feel like a soul that's looking for a way out to the ultimate truth of reality, that meets a fence that no human can ever cross. Yes, the cage is pretty big by any human standards, but it's a cage there is no way to the truth. You either have to accept that everything is a chance(whatever chance means) or accept the possibility that this dream(real or not) might be caused by a greater force than us, that did not want us to find the ultimate truth of reality. Coming down from an ape-like creature, we may not even understand this truth of reality(if there is one and we are presented with it), so maybe the wall is there for a reason.IMO, the new "religion" - that of Michio Kaku, A.Einstein, Stephen Hawking, etc. which i share so adamantly, is the melting pot of science, atheism and creationism. It's the best description of reality that fits both science, the good points that atheims raises and the fundamentally unanswerable questions that creationsm covers. It also kind of gives you a new look on reality, you can't take life and what happens in it too seriously when you share those views.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

I have asked on what basis you judge one piece of subjective "knowledge" to be more reliable than another and your answer effectively amounts to "I just know".In effect two people debating on the basis of subjective "knowledge" is as futile as two people debating whether chocolate fudge cake is "better" than strawberry cheesecake. Or whether red is "better” than blue. It is a matter of personal preference and nothing more.Faith that God exists, or any other subjectively derived "knowledge", is no more or less valid than the statements that "cheesecake is better than fudge cake". Such statements tell us nothing about the objective existence of God. Or the relative non-subjective merits of cheesecake and fudge cake.Which pieces of subjective experience we choose to consider important or meaningful and which we disregard as of no consequence are a matter of personal subjective preference.That is fine. On one level such choices are incredibly important because they largely define who we are as individuals.But when theists claim that faith is "evidence" or that they subjectively "know" something to be true they are confusing and conflating the level of personal importance such choices have with an indication of meaningfulness in more objective terms.Such preferences are not "evidence" or "knowledge" by any meaningful definition of either term. So let’s not pretend otherwise.I guess that if one places such phenomenal importance in an unverifiable subjectively derived personal preference such as which God to worship then it is kind of difficult to acknowledge that this choice has no more objective validity basis or meaning regarding the external world than ones choice of dessert.But it really is no different at all.

Sorry for pounding atheism for the umpteenth time, but how can anyone believe that DUMB energy can construct an universe, an Earth, living organisms and the computers you're using, by CHANCE??? Does energy have a mind of its own?Are you all serious or is this just a silly joke that i don't comprehend? Atheists are supposed to be smart, right?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Hi Bluejay
Firstly I would like to say that was a really really fine post.It sounds like a quite a journey you're on. Whilst I don't think I envy you that journey it sounds to me as if wherever it is that you end up the journey itself will have been worthwhile. If your eventual position is as well considered as your account suggests it will be then whatever conclusions you eventually make are going to be the right ones for you personally. And you will have the added depth, empathy and understanding that can only really be obtained from having seriously considered the alternative and opposing views.I too have a little son. He is two years old. Like you I marvel at the way he asserts his little independent spirit on the world and never cease to be amazed at the way in which his personality is developing before my very eyes. Whilst I don't think there is much danger of me converting any time soon, I do sometimes wonder if the love that I feel for him and the joy that I get from his life suggests that there is something more out there. His existence has caused me to question my own, at times overly rational and unwaveringly physicalist, stance. It is funny how similar experiences have led us both to ponderings that are so at odds with our initial starting point and yet so completely different in direction to each other.But I guess that is all part of the human condition. The need for meaning and the ability to ask questions that we are destined to be unable to adequately answer. Education, especially scientific training, I think leads to a questioning style of thought that just further highlights these inherent dilemmas.Whether 'thinking theist' or 'thinking atheist' the key word is 'thinking'. It seems that that you are in little danger of abandoning that principle. On that basis I would be optimistic for the future of both you and your son whatever eventual position you take.

Don’t worry about pounding atheists, we’re a resilient lot - it’s not us who require the emotional crutch after all!

Hi, Agobot. Well, you're never guaranteed that. Unlike religions, they/we'll let anybody in!

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Here’s the thing. If I take a vast amount of water to the top of a mountain, a couple of hundred miles from the ocean, and invite the world’s finest scientists, with the most powerful supercomputers, and some of the most eminent theologians, who may ask for divine guidance, to predict the course the water will take to the ocean when I release it, my hunch is that neither group is going to come close . yet that dumb old water will just keep on rolling until it gets there.

Hi, Straggler.You know, speaking as one who has spent a lot of time trying to think my way through this problem, the only conclusion I can really make is that critical thinking cannot, in any way, really answer the questions of whether God exists, what He expects of me and whether I should devote any significant amount of time or effort to following Him.It seems (to me) like you almost have to refuse to think to actually get an answer, either way, as to the existence of God. After so many opinions from so many people, and so little for me to use to discern between them, the only rational choice I can make in the end would just be something that is "the right one for me personally," as you put it. In other words, I can pretty much believe whatever resonates with my personal feelings, and it wouldn't be my fault if I got it wrong, because that's how God told me to figure things out.In the end, a purely rational, thinking personal becomes functionally atheist, essentially going at each problem as if he is not going to get any divine help, even if he believes that divine help is possible. The Mormon church has a well-known quote that comes up in at least a few meetings each year: "Pray as if everything depends on the Lord, then work as if everything depends on you." To me, that's functionally atheist: I don't even have to acknowledge that God is doing anything to apply that wisdom.-----From now on, I'm going to be both theist and atheist on this forum, because I could count as both under the above logic. This way, I can be purely a scientist and logician, and I can still pretend to be offended when people say things about Mormons.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Well I can't speak for all atheists, but I do not believe that and I'm sure that many others will disagree with it.The universe, the Earth and life were all formed due to the action of non-random physical forces. There certainly would have been a large random element in the exact configuration that the Earth took and the exact forms that species took (I wouldn't like to speculate about the universe in this regard), but that doesn't mean that pure chance is responsible.Given the amount of matter in the universe and the effects of gravity, it is inevitable that Earth-like planets would form somewhere. Indeed, we are now able to detect them for the first time. What exact balance of elements the planet is composed of, how large it is, how close to it's sun it is, etc., may all have been random, but that planets should form at all is not. It is an inevitable consequence of physical laws.Much the same is probably true of life. Given the right conditions, life may be inevitable. With life, the role of cumulative chance can't be disregarded either. An elephant springing into existence would be absurdly unlikely, but the chances of the earliest forms of proto-life arising from chemical reactions would have been far more likely. The life we see today is a result of billions of events, unguided, but restrained in their scope by physical/chemical laws. Each event would have been reasonably probable when considered on its own.As for the unverse itself, it may be that only one set of physical laws is possible for a universe; there is only one way for a universe to be. Or it may not. Either way, I don't see what benefit is gained by injecting a creator/designer entity, since this raises more questions than it answers. Atheists are not supposed to be anything. That's rather the point.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Well from a debating point of view it sounds like a winning formula!!! Personally I do find the whole God concept so improbable that I really am an atheist. Functionally and literally.But I have also concluded that even if there is a God there seems no real way for me to ever actually know that. There is no form of God that requires me to worship that I would actually want to worship. There is no form of God that would require faith of me that I would want to have faith in.If such a thing as God exists then to be the only sort of God that I could have any respect for he would have to be the sort of God that let me make the choices I have made with the tools he has provided me with without reference or fear of him.So if I did ever conclude that God exists then, as you suggest, I would still be a "functional atheist". As I think the relevant conversations in this thread, this whole forum and the wider world generally show there is ultimately nothing else to base such decisions upon.But that really need not be as damning as it maybe initially sounds.It is only a problem for believers if they deny to themselevs that this is the case or, even worse, if they need there to be more.It is only really a problem if you consider it a problem*(* Other than being a potentially difficult position to present and justify on debate forum that is )

Well see, science tells us there was a singularity that was unstable(supposedly it existed in the uncreated between t=0 and t=10^-44 sec.). Then the energy contained in its zero volume burst all the energy out into the uncreated(or rather started expanding very rapidly, FTL). Then if you wind the clock forward you'll notice that that the energy of the Big Bang created an undescribably by any human means complexity, a fully functional infinitely intricate and complex universe with stars and planets and life. How could you believe this? How does it make sense to you when you read atheistic fairy-tales of the sort - it was inevitable, it was random, there are other universes without life, it was a coincidence or luck that energy managed to construct a universe for us.In the end the question remains open - does DUMB energy possess the greatest mind and intelligence that anyone could ever imagine?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Hi Straggler, But that is exactly what you have done.You used your intellegence and made the decision God was not worthy of your respect, belief and support.He didn't stop you, He didn't hit you with a bolt of lightning and get your attention. He let you make your own decision.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

"Fully functional"? I would quibble with that. That seems to assume a function, which in turn suggests intent. Besides, the universe took a long time to cool down, develop heavy elements, form stars and planets, etc. In it's earliest stages, it was far from being as "functional" as it is today.I don't see the problem though. Why would it be difficult to believe? The evidence for the Big Bang is, I understand, extremely strong. You don't seem to have an objection to that evidence, you simply seem to be objecting on the grounds of personal incredulity, which would be a waste of time. In my view you are making a basic error. You are assuming that the universe should make sense. Further, you are assuming that it should make sense to you specifically. There is no reason to suppose that the universe should make sense. Something can be true and yet be so anti-intuitive that it appears to us to be absurd. Your own interest in matters quantum should be enough to tell you this. Of course it doesn't. We both know that. The problem is that such a question assumes the need for intelligence. There is no basis for such an assumption, so your question is irrelevant.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Got a busy day but I will get back on the thread soon, just wanted to leave a quick comment. We as humans are limited in our understanding of intelligence because the only model we have fo intelligence is ourselves, therefore it is impossible for us to know what are the potential limits of intelligence. Can energy be intelligent? By all observable models, no.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

You don't want to answer because you'll have to assume intelligence and so you wipe the uncofortable question under the carpet as if it doesn't exist. Why is there no need for the assumption that only energy cannot create the universe we are in? Because it's against the atheistic dogma? Where did the gravity emerge from after the BB? Did energy set the four fundamental forces by itself within itself just after the BB, so that matter could somehow later arise and exist? Or was it a coincidence that such forces would arise at all? Why would the early universe be homogeneous at all? So that galaxies could form? No everything is random, right?All the theories of elementary particles predict that all protons and neutrons will eventually decay making life impossible. But as extreme luck would have it, the decay of protons is so slow that it has not yet been observed.
But that's not all.
Then particles, being formed by energy and the lucky coincidence of the fundamental forces, somehow spontaneously organised into RNA and later into people and other incredible beings, while still being nothing but an infinitely complex arrangement of energy. All this governed by the Pauli Exclusion Principle that emerged from somewhere(maybe it was again luck) that allowed the formation of all the elements in the Periodic Table from energy.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein