The Atheist Blogger

Kraeg,

As ridiculous as it sounds, every open-minded person has to accept your theory as valid. However the same open mind allows us to reject it / disbelieve in it through the lack of evidence. Since by definition they are all possible and undetectable, how can they not be valid?

Only scientific hypotheses need observation before they become valid. Gods are not scientifically viable, I know that. However, the word “hypothesis” comes from the greek “hypotithenai” which means “to suppose”. To suppose anything you do not need any underlying evidence, you simply suppose it.

Likewise, a theory is completely different from a scientific theory.

I am free to suppose about gods, and you are free to suppose about them as well. I would never argue that my supposing is scientifically credible, and I thought I’d made that clear.

Perhaps in most debates stating a random concept doesn’t grant it credibility, but when you come to what is unknown (i.e. how everything started) then anyone can come along and say “It was God!” or “It was always there” or “Flying Spaghetti Monsters did it” and since none of them can be rejected outright (note that lack of evidence of something that is unknown doesn’t justify this) then how can you reject them and call them wrong?

I think you are mistaking arguments concerning the unknown with arguments concerning the known.

I would not say that 1 + 1 = 3 because I know by basic maths that 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 =/= 3. This is a postulate that contradicts known mathematics.

The concept of the beginning of everything is at the present time, a completely unknown concept. We have an idea of what happened (Big Bang) but only various theories as to why. We have no idea what happened before, or even if there was a “before” in terms of our understanding of time. Ergo, someone could tell me that a bunch of flying monkeys did it, and for I know, they could be right.

If you force the use of known concepts onto something unknown you are making the assumption that this unknown is affected and complies with the known concepts. I’m not saying this is wrong in any way (science is based entirely on this assumption), but I’m saying that if you allow known concepts to be used to explain unknowns, you must also allow for unknown concepts (i.e God) to be allowed to explain it. They might be right, they might be wrong. Only when a known concept fully explains something can the unknown concepts be thrown out the window.

Take for instance biogenesis, the origin of life. There is a theory (not a scientific one) that aliens came to Earth and started life. The origin of life is unknown, and there are a few known concepts that are trying to explain it (energy + matter etc), but the alien theory is an unknown. It’s also perfectly possible, although I agree, like God it just increases the problem (what was the alien’s origin?). The only way we will know for sure is if we find evidence for the theory, or if the aliens come back and explain everything to us, showing us suitable evidence.

The fact that this theory has no scientific basis, is so far unprovable, and has no real evidence behind us doesn’t mean that it can’t be “supposed” just as God can’t be “supposed” as a creator of the universe.

I think we really should just end this debate right now, because it is evident that nothing I say will sway your opinion, and vice versa. I just think we should have the freedom to suppose about things that we know absolutely nothing about. I fully support scientific research and I do hope that one day we can stop supposing about things and have the answers, but until that day, supposing is a perfectly valid way of explaining unknowns.

You took “Science is based entirely on assumption” completely out of context. I said “Science is based entirely on this assumption” (*this* being known concepts being used to discover unknown concepts) and it is. Science is developed by assuming that our observations are correct, and using them to theorise new ideas. We assume that our knowledge of gravity is correct and are able to make aeroplanes, rockets, etc. You have to realise that assumptions can have as much evidence as you like. It’s just something taken for granted. We have all the evidence to support our current understanding of gravity, and so we take it for granted.

“In truth – I don’t believe in the Big Bang. It has little to back it up.”

I’m talking drivel??? The Big Bang has a heck of a lot to back it up. Blue shift / red shift means that everything in the universe is moving apart from a point in space. Using out current theories about velocity and vectors, we can theorise that billions of years ago, all these objects were closer together, and something made them move apart. The Big Bang is probably more accepted these days than Evolution, and that is saying something (even with all of the evidence for Evolution).

I can’t believe I have to keep repeating this:

General Hypotheses DO NOT need evidence, neither do General Theories.

You keep trying to make this entire “god” argument about science, and everyone has already made it clear that god has nothing to do with science. I agree with you, scientific hypotheses need evidence, but look at any definition of a hypothesis (or theory) and it will tell you (amongst other things):

“a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.”

The argument is where everything came from. The hypothesis is God. It’s a proposition that if accepted can answer the argument. Again, I’m not saying it is a good hypothesis, or a testable or observable one, but it is a hypothesis none the less, and it is perfectly valid as one. VALID does NOT mean true.

I also can’t believe I am saying this again:

“I think we really should just end this debate right now, because it is evident that nothing I say will sway your opinion, and vice versa.”

Don’t expect a reply from me again. I’m leaving it at that. This debate has gone from arguing over semantics to who uses the better dictionary, right back to semantics again. It’s completely ridiculous.

I think you got confused by whom I was talking about. You seem to be focussing on the scientific community in general, whereas I was talking about the entire global population. Let me put it this way. Most people who oppose Evolution do it because it goes against their religious beliefs that men were created as they are now. You are wrong when you say Evolution is a “fact” as it is both a fact and theory:

In science, a “fact” is an observation backed up by evidence. We see creatures evolve, so Evolution is a fact. A theory in science is an explanation of the observations, and “The Theory of Evolution” is our way of explaining how creatures can evolve into other species.

Back to the Big Bang. You will find that you do not need to understand Big Bang theory to accept it. I don’t understand all the concepts of Gravity and yet to my knowledge it has been tested and observed so much that I can accept it as true.

The Big Bang is similar. Every religion often starts off with “creation” of the universe, and when scientists first theorised it, a lot of religious institutions herald it as an explanation of “God’s” creation. Even Pope Pius XII supported it.

The thing I was trying to get across with my point was that Evolution isn’t supported anywhere in the scriptures (thus the I.D movement) and 50% of America refusing to believe in it. However, the Big Bang theory, whilst not directly supported by scripture has been viewed by many many religious believers as an advanced modern day explanation of Genesis.

“Don’t you get tired of being mistaken?”

Great, now we’re back to the petty comments again? If you actually let your opponents explain themselves properly you might excel at debates and discussions such as these. However you are held back by your inability to refrain from insulting and unnecessary jibes, and in the debating world the minute someone does that they often seem to lose all respect they had previously gained.

Where I get my facts? From peer reviewed research found at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_and_religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory

Check it out yourself if you really don’t believe me, or ask around your local church.

As for the poll, I thought as atheists we understand that the majority is not always correct? Certainly seems the case with religion wouldn’t you say? The poll is an opinion poll, used only to see how many people support each point. I believe I have already shown how every definition of the word “atheism” contains the words “disbelief” and “belief”.

As for writing drivel, it really is a matter of opinion as well. I’d say you’ve written some complete drivel so far in trying to argue your views. We have different minds. You tend to think like a scientist whilst I tend to think philosophically.

I wouldn’t ever call what you wrote drivel (until this point) since I understand how to debate properly and you only understand your own pompous opinions. As of now, this discussion is over for me. If you want to continue it with someone else, be my guest.

“You know, I don’t even want to get into how ridiculous you come across by citing your only source as a wikipedia entry. Almost as foolish as previously when you cited one of your own articles as validation for one of your own statements.”

If you actually read the wikipedia article you would see that attached are peer-reviewed documents and sources. Even if you might think that wikipedia is useless, the sources are accurate.

So now someone can’t back up their opinion by showing you where they have said it before? My own articles are all based on definitions and research, so anything I relate to them uses that definition.

I don’t think I wandered off at all. Looking back over the conversation the original point got dragged into arguments about simple semantics, where it has been ever since. As far as I can tell I haven’t missed a single point brought up.

My actual words were “Don’t expect” me to reply, but since you insulted my character, calling me a lunatic etc. I didn’t expect such behaviour from you, but there we go. Where I come from, you don’t just walk away from someone who is insulting you. Perhaps my anger did get the better of me, but I don’t see a bad reason for it doing so.

If you’d been following my actual points instead of just trying to get at me on semantics, you will see that I proved the belief / disbelief thing without definitions mathematically. Mathematics doesn’t need majority opinion to back it up, it needs a proof.

“you are wrong with your original premise”

Do you know what my original premise was? No, since you are not me. My original premise, as I have stated was to find out how many people agreed and how many people disagreed with me. The most I’ll admit to is that not many people agree with the statement “atheism is a belief”, however, as we have seen throughout history, majority support doesn’t mean a concept is correct.

The simple fact about validity is that as long as the premises are true, and the conclusion is true, the argument is valid, hence:

The universe as we know it, had a beginning.
We do not know what the cause of the beginning was, it is “unknown”.
“Gods” are unknown.
Therefore, “Gods” could have begun the universe.

A perfectly valid argument, and you can whine all you want, but it stands up to all definitions.

Ironic that I will now leave this discussion, content that you aren’t the open minded observer you so proudly believe you are.