h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh just a reminder, unlike many, I don't call *myself* 'atheist'. I just go on what the evidence suggests about reality.

Sorry if this is off on a tangent here, or already covered (that's some backlog!)

I was just watching the breakfast news about the discovery of a new and rare type of frog, which makes a noise like a chicken. And on QI last night they were discussing beetles, and the vast numbers of them that there were.

Did Noah take one of each and every type of beetle, frog etc on to the ark?

Hi Mikey,

A long post again, I'm afraid. However, at the end I have answered your question. (Or at least, *I* think I have - let me know whether you disagree.)

>Your statement that 'religion strives against learning/changing your beliefs' sounds like rather a broad brushstroke.

Well, yes, I guess. I am talking about 80% of the world's population, I can't really deny that I'm being a bit general! But fundamentalist Christianity in particular has that attitude, as does most organised religion.

>It requires one to think outside of the box when considering whether there could be a parallel or spiritual universe/dimension to existence. I have found there to be more than just a few encouragements to consider this very possibilty.

Hmm, well, there's a difference between 'thinking outside the box' and 'making stuff up'. If by 'a few encouragements' you mean actual evidence, could you explain what that is... and if not, could you explain why you believe in something for which you have no evidence?

>is it unreasonable to suppose that there is an unseen spiritual dimension. Can you deride the notion with a '*completely* clear conscience' as it were?

Yes, it is unreasonable. Reason tells us that if we start believing in things for which we have no evidence, we will quite literally believe anything, and we will almost certainly be wrong. So I can deride the notion with as clear a conscience as I could deride invisible pink unicorns, etc.

>Is believing in a Creator God really, really the same as believing in spaghetti monsters etc.? I'm sure you will answer that it is. *I* say that it is not unreasonable. At the very most, science must lead to a position of agnosticism on this question. You need then to take a leap of faith if you are to adopt the position of atheism...a leap of faith whilst blocking your ears and shouting "Jesus Christ didn't really exist... its all a hoax...answers to prayer are always coincidences, even healings...its perfectly possible for a vast universe to suddenly come into existence out of nothing...music and mathematical laws just happened to be latent in the universe from the big bang..."

What a jumble. In order, then:

Yes, believing in *anything* without evidence is really, really the same, whether it be God or spaghetti monsters.
Yes, I will answer that it is (because it is).
Yes, you say it's not unreasonable - but you can't say *why*.
No, science works on the principle of parsimony - if there's no evidence for it, we assume it doesn't exist. That's why science doesn't accept the existence of phlogiston or bodily humours.
No, atheism doesn't require a 'leap of faith', since it's perfectly rational not to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
No, I don't block my ears.
No, I don't deny that there probably was a person called Jesus Christ.
Yes, it is clearly possible for a vast universe to have come into existence from nothing (unless it came from something else, or has existed for all time) since one exists. As we've pointed out time and again, this is true *whether or not* you believe in God. I thought you'd accepted that.
No, music is a creation of the human mind, not 'latent in the universe'.
I have no idea where mathematical laws come from. It seems to me that they are the only possible way things could be, in which case the existence of God is, once again, irrelevant.

Key point to me is number 3: *why* is believing in God different from believing in spaghetti monsters?

>So answer me this: From a scientist's viewpoint, explain exactly how belief in a Creator is totally ridiculous and unsupportable.

Easy. Science is based on parsimony. If there's no evidence for it, it ain't science (and it *almost* certainly ain't true). There is no evidence for a creator - this is not a 'testable hypothesis'. Therefore, from a scientific viewpoint, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no creator.

Gif

Effers

>> There's no scientific evidence that God exists. <<

There's no scientific evidence that God doesn't exist, either.

I've told you why I 'promote God'.
Why does Prof. Richard Dawkins 'promote atheism'.

Is he trying to benefit anybody, apart from making a profit from his books?
Is he trying to create 'unity'? Does he agree with nationalism or fascism?

What's likely to be the result, if the world turns away from 'the Scriptures' ?
...

>There's no scientific evidence that God doesn't exist, either.<

Yes, excellent point. Just as there is no scientific evidencee that a 5 headed cross between a contextual 5 headed, 3 million and 37 blah blah blah, roundabout addicted zebra is pumping mr magoo round demark last wednesday.

Another point to bolster the theist position there, warner.

Christ we types that go on what the scientific evidence suggests, had better look out and up our game at this rate....

Hi warner,

>There's no scientific evidence that God doesn't exist, either. - Warner

>Science is based on parsimony. If there's no evidence for it, it ain't science (and it *almost* certainly ain't true). There is no evidence for a creator - this is not a 'testable hypothesis'. Therefore, from a scientific viewpoint, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no creator. - Giford

In other words, in science, absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence.

Gif

>>My request here is for respect for my opinion without derision.

I've never understood this kind of objection. *Why* do opinions have to be respected when they're based on clear fallacies?

>>Did Noah take one of each and every type of beetle, frog etc on to the ark?

Not frogs, surely? They can swim.

But he did take snakes. When the waters subsided, he took two of them, laid them on a table and said,
'Go forth and multiply!'
'We can't,' say the snakes, 'We're adders.'
'That's OK,' says Noah, 'It's a *log* table.'

Ba-dam TISH!

>In other words, in science, absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence.<

Yes Gif, I believe the same way of thinking underpins our judical system; eg if there is no evidence that a person was present at the scene of the crime, it is 'presumed' that the person was not present at the scene. Without this structure of thinking our judicial system wouldn't be able to function.

Of course in actuality the person may well have been present, just as they might have been present somewhere in the vicinity of Slough, but the evidence isn't there it is *presumed* they weren't there.

In the same way within the structure of the scientific method it is a *logical impossibility* to *prove a negative with certainty*, (Gods probably don't exist), so the mystery endures as to why theists keep making their utterly irrelevent cul-de-sac points.

It is a 'disease' I find truly awful but truly fascinating in trying to comprehend.

NOTICE
------

I have made myself quite clear, I think.
If anybody has any questions about my belief/faith, they are most welcome to discuss them with me 'at my home page'.

I will leave you all to your discussion about Dawkins book, and am leaving the thread. This is purely a personal decision and one made
rationally without any anger or malice.

warner. Yes I have left many times myself, but so far have always returned.

Best of luck wherever you may go, but you are always to be welcomed back anytime, as far as I'm concerned anytime.

>>Did Noah take one of each and every type of beetle, frog etc on to the ark?<<

Yes, and a pair of tapeworms too. I wonder where he kept those, though

As for frogs, who can swim, and fish generally (and whales): Noah actually had to take two of each in the ark. To kill off the remaining ones, since they couldn't be drowned, God decided to make a giant fish soup out of them. Lo and behold, this is why oceans are made of salty waters!

I took the Noah's ark question over to Ask, so as not to derail the good people here

Yes also.

I'm a good girl, I am...

Edward the Bonobo<>>My request here is for respect for my opinion without derision.

I've never understood this kind of objection. *Why* do opinions have to be respected when they're based on clear fallacies?>

Most of the stuff on this site is 'backing up the slating of unfounded opinions with proof'. Derision does come into when, after days and weeks of being balanced and offering evidence the reply is always blind platitudes, obsfucation, mental-body swerves, strawmen set-ups and the total blind refusal to answer or challenge statements or examples. The only way to then try to get through is by some derision...a textual slap around the face.

I would deride soemone who continued to say the world was flat after showig them video from space etc.

I am *STILL* waiting for Michea1 to give a reply to my Martin Ankers post last week but obviously he is ignoring it as he has no rational answer for it. warner tried but failed simply falling back to saying 'read about Job' which someone 'derided'...sorry, made a statement about why we have no need to read about Job.

I have been on this site and others long enough to almost predict the one-liners that will be posted by the religious when certain facts/points/arguments are given. warner/Michea1 are no different.

Replace 'derision' with the feeling of sheer and utter frustration at people ignoring the facts.

i am convinced that mathematical laws are merely the sum of all possible self-consistent laws.

not all mathematical constructs exist in reality; 5 -dimensional cubes would be an example.

science is the act of finding a mathematical construct that matches the physical system being studied.

>> warner/Michea1 are no different. <<

* warner's very happy *

Correct, that is how mathematicians work. Reading stuff on Timetravel in Einsteins universe at the moment the many hypothoses put forward have to be internally consistent and follow previously proven theory. It obviously doesn't mean it will be a reality but the mathematics show that it *could* be true/occur at some point.

And that's the crux. Religion doesn't even seem to be internally consistent...even religious books e.g. OT/NT are internally inconsistent and therefore 'theology' is used to try to make them externally consistent by...making sh1t up. The only starting rule for theology seems to be 'God exists' and this is taken as true (I can't remember the mathematical term for a basic rule e.g. two parallel lines cannot meet.). And yet the 'rule' God exists is totally unproven and therefore theology has know rational basis (as if we didn;t know).

>>i am convinced that mathematical laws are merely the sum of all possible self-consistent laws.

That's not what Bertrand Russell said, surely?

But I take your point about the rest. Another way of looking at it is that science is about describing the patterns in nature.

One slight query, though:

Science seeks to explain the universe by finding the mathematical construct that show how X leads to Y. Unfortunately, some of these constructs are damn difficult to understand and are tractable, if at all, only to a few specialists. (Quantum mechanics, etc?).

So would we Atheists agree that science isn't capable of delivering anything like an understanding of the universe. At best - bits of it can be understood by some people, some of the time.