movement to atheism

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Is your belief in a deity 'based on the desire' that it is true?

Part of it yes there is hope there cannot deny that is true. Its a part of it not the only part. Do you have an answer for my question? What is it about reality that you are aware of that points you to that belief you highlighted?

@wolfgang59 said
Grow up and educate yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Ever seen a snow-flake?
Ever seen crystals grow?
Ever seen a murmuration of starlings at dusk?
Ever seen the double-slit experiment?

Still not the fine tuning we see in the universe.

@wolfgang59 said
Luckily for you scientists are not so small-minded.

Billions of years have to be invented to fulfill the fantasies that cannot be reproduced in a lab.

@dj2becker said
Still not the fine tuning we see in the universe.

I was replying to your assertion that we cannot see order from chaos.
Do you now acknowledge you were wrong?
( I assume you do by changing the subject)

@dj2becker said
Billions of years have to be invented to fulfill the fantasies that cannot be reproduced in a lab.

Science you do not understand cannot be dismissed by calling it fantasy.

Fantasy is when you have no evidence, no explanation, no experimentation
to support an hypothesis. Such as "there is a god" ... that is fantasy.

@wolfgang59 said
Fantasy is when you have no evidence, no explanation, no experimentation
to support an hypothesis. Such as "there is a god" ... that is fantasy.

One can throw in some angels and demons, supernatural torture, human self-sacrifice, and immortality too ~ just for good measure.

@wolfgang59 said
Science you do not understand cannot be dismissed by calling it fantasy.

Fantasy is when you have no evidence, no explanation, no experimentation
to support an hypothesis. Such as "there is a god" ... that is fantasy.

Suggesting something isn't science because it has a supernatural element to is
also a fantasy, setting up the universe to only look one way by your own design
is ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

We either go to where the evidence takes us or we setup a blinders to ignore
specific types of evidence that may take you places you want to reject before you
get there. If you narrow down science to exclude the possibility of the supernatural
than the supernatural will always be excluded and it will never be seen even if it is
there right in front of you.

@kellyjay said
You have observed something to bring you to this, or is it something else,
massless particles and where proper time ceases? Even in this statement it isn't
something pronounced as true, it is just some argument that my not necessarily
indicate a beginning. What exactly is this based on, the desire that is it true or
some thing else?

Bump for Duke:

@kellyjay said
You have observed something to bring you to this, or is it something else,
massless particles and where proper time ceases? Even in this statement it isn't
something pronounced as true, it is just some argument that my not necessarily
indicate a beginning. What exactly is this based on, the desire that is it true or
some thing else?

@kellyjay said
Suggesting something isn't science because it has a supernatural element to is
also a fantasy, setting up the universe to only look one way by your own design
is ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

Science pertains to knowledge about the natural world. Superstition pertains to notions and ideas about supernatural causality as it is perceived to affect the world.

@fmf said
Science pertains to knowledge about the natural world. Superstition pertains to notions and ideas about supernatural causality as it is perceived to affect the world.

See circular logic.

@kellyjay said
See circular logic.

No. I don't think so. If "God" can't be explained by science, then so be it.

@kellyjay said
Bump for Duke:

@kellyjay said
You have observed something to bring you to this, or is it something else,
massless particles and where proper time ceases? Even in this statement it isn't
something pronounced as true, it is just some argument that my not necessarily
indicate a beginning. What exactly is this based on, the desire that is it true or
some thing else?

I have not personally observed anything Kelly to evidence an eternal universe. It is only the likes of Becker who has to see things visibly with his own eyes to accept them. (Excluding God of course). More often than not knowledge is based on the findings of more knowledgeable people than oneself.

Take for example the certain knowledge I have that the Earth isn't flat. Although I personally haven't observed the curvature of the Earth sufficient knowledge is available to convince me that it isn't flat. - The same applies to the eternal nature of the universe.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I have not personally observed anything Kelly to evidence an eternal universe. It is only the likes of Becker who has to see things visibly with his own eyes to accept them. (Excluding God of course). More often than not knowledge is based on the findings of more knowledgeable people than oneself.

Take for example the certain knowledge I have that the Earth isn't ...[text shortened]... ailable to convince me that it isn't flat. - The same applies to the eternal nature of the universe.

The findings on knowledge from more knowledgeable people? That isn't really a
clear cause is it? There has to be something more than that since none of us are all
that knowledgeable about many things, so how do you know which one do we
choose to believe in? Is it just the one that it is giving us something we want to
hear and trust just their knowledge, simply because they are itching our ears with
what we want to hear? If it is just what we want, than it simply goes back to our
desire to make things fit our wants, not so much as what is real and truth.

Another question on what he said, do you think an eternal universe is any less
supernatural than an eternal God?

@wolfgang59 said
I was replying to your assertion that we cannot see order from chaos.
Do you now acknowledge you were wrong?
( I assume you do by changing the subject)

I said order tends to emerge from chaos by means of intelligent intervention. (Especially the type of order seen in our fine tuned universe)

The couple of examples you gave do not indicate that the fine tuned universe we see today can emerge from chaos without intelligent intervention.

@wolfgang59 said
Science you do not understand cannot be dismissed by calling it fantasy.

Fantasy is when you have no evidence, no explanation, no experimentation
to support an hypothesis. Such as "there is a god" ... that is fantasy.

So do you believe the 'measurements' that date the age of the universe are fairly accurate and reliable?