Atheism, the discussion

[Ketraar]

- whether we know that a god or gods exist

This one is a very short conversation though, since we dont know. Its the whole point of most religions and no atheist worth their pizza would ever claim to know either.

- and whether we should worship one.

This will strongly depend on the interpretation of the word "worship".

If its the "light" version where everyone does their thing, then I'll say its like any other choice issue, where regardless of my opinion people should be given the freedom to choose.
Should it be the one where people take stuff literally and effect other peoples health because of it, its a hard no.

MFG

Ketraar

PS.: Solved religion conflict now, what to do for the rest of the afternoon?

[fiksal]

- whether we know that a god or gods exist

This one is a very short conversation though, since we dont know. Its the whole point of most religions and no atheist worth their pizza would ever claim to know either.

I know of this position but I think it's way too careful for the sake of being too careful only.

Only based on what we currently know so far, we know that the gods that humanity have been imagining do not exist. And I also by that, mean supernatural.

Perhaps later, with more knowledge we can expand on what else can not exist.

We shouldnt shy away from saying that, for the sake of covering infinite possibilities. To address that - my suggestion is to narrow down to the specific claims we all know that humans had written down and answer on them. And not instead trap yourself in trying to disprove a not specific and infinitely changing concept of a god.

In another example, I use Santa Claus. Exact same way that we can test any specific god, we can test Santa Claus for existence, and reach a definite conclusion, right this moment.

- and whether we should worship one.

This will strongly depend on the interpretation of the word "worship".

If its the "light" version where everyone does their thing, then I'll say its like any other choice issue, where regardless of my opinion people should be given the freedom to choose.
Should it be the one where people take stuff literally and effect other peoples health because of it, its a hard no.

The word worship is usually specific to each specific denomination of a church or religion.

It is indeed everyone's personal choice of who to serve.

My suggestion is always - to never worship and never serve.

PS.: Solved religion conflict now, what to do for the rest of the afternoon?

it is indeed quite easy)

[Ketraar]

To be honest I was being a bit silly and didnt mean my reply to be as deep, while still be true and honest. But since you tingled my inner philosopher I would like to answer in a more serious way.

In another example, I use Santa Claus. Exact same way that we can test any specific god, we can test Santa Claus for existence, and reach a definite conclusion, right this moment

Here I disagree. Let me explain my reasoning.

Decartes once said, cogito ergo sum (or the like, I dont do Latin). Implying a way to "prove" his existence. But he made a fatal error of thought, he assumed things. He assumed that thought was only possible by beings that actually exist. He was obviously oblivious to the notion of virtuality and simulation.

As such I'm of the opinion that we never will truly know anything conclusive. I think we will base our conclusion on our (limited) surroundings and experiences. Unless we find out the universe (or whatever holds it) is finite there will always be the possibility to discover new information, which in turn leaves room for doubt (as it should).

As such I find, like with Santa, its rather moot trying to prove the (non) existence of god(s). I would much rather people focus on how to understand religion and demystify them so that people can be allowed to freely participate in it without imposing it to others and or limit choices based on belief. Paraphrasing Stephen Hawking, God is not needed, and I would add, even if it exists it does not matter. Much like with climate change, if we do things that avoid it, even if it was a hoax, you benefit from it.

MFG

Ketraar

[fiksal]

Any reply is good

To be honest I was being a bit silly and didnt mean my reply to be as deep, while still be true and honest. But since you tingled my inner philosopher I would like to answer in a more serious way.

In another example, I use Santa Claus. Exact same way that we can test any specific god, we can test Santa Claus for existence, and reach a definite conclusion, right this moment

Here I disagree. Let me explain my reasoning.

Decartes once said, cogito ergo sum (or the like, I dont do Latin). Implying a way to "prove" his existence. But he made a fatal error of thought, he assumed things. He assumed that thought was only possible by beings that actually exist. He was obviously oblivious to the notion of virtuality and simulation.

As such I'm of the opinion that we never will truly know anything conclusive. I think we will base our conclusion on our (limited) surroundings and experiences. Unless we find out the universe (or whatever holds it) is finite there will always be the possibility to discover new information, which in turn leaves room for doubt (as it should).

Ah but you dont disagree, it seems. The universe if not infinite (and probably isnt infinite), appears to be quite large, so possibilities could be large (or could be zero).

Regardless, the important part is that we dont care whether or not Santa Claus exists in another galaxy somewhere, however unlikely. We can say with certainty whether he exists here on Earth, or could ever exist in the past.

As such I find, like with Santa, its rather moot trying to prove the (non) existence of god(s). I would much rather people focus on how to understand religion and demystify them so that people can be allowed to freely participate in it without imposing it to others and or limit choices based on belief. Paraphrasing Stephen Hawking, God is not needed, and I would add, even if it exists it does not matter. Much like with climate change, if we do things that avoid it, even if it was a hoax, you benefit from it.

It's possible someday people will see that it's not needed. Yet it seems to me people who are prone to be religious would expect something instead, and I am not sure there's anything else there that is equal.

[Chips]

Personally, I prefer to talk about Atheism in two distinct perspectives:
- whether we know that a god or gods exist

Real Atheism - we don't care.

Faux atheism - "Let me show you that god doesn't..."

[fiksal]

Personally, I prefer to talk about Atheism in two distinct perspectives:
- whether we know that a god or gods exist

Real Atheism - we don't care.

Faux atheism - "Let me show you that god doesn't..."

Neither of the above a definition I am familiar with.

The atheism one is a pretty simple definition itself.

[RegisterMe]

- whether we know that a god or gods exist

We do not know that a god or gods exist. Equally, even as an avowed atheist, I cannot say that god does not exist. What I can say* is that god is not necessary. Occam's Razor then applies. So I go from there to finding the notion of "god".... ludicrous. And, at the risk of offending people, I find the "structures" built around the belief in a god to be, on the whole, morally and intellectually repugnant. And... fraudulent.



* ie I "believe", because I do >>not<< understand the math - people I know who do understand the math are completely confident in it, even to the point of being confident in it enough that they are cool with the gaps - this obviously opens up this line of argument to the same one I frequently apply against religion about "belief", but you have's to pay your nickel, and you have's to take your chance .

[fiksal]

- whether we know that a god or gods exist

We do not know that a god or gods exist. Equally, even as an avowed atheist, I cannot say that god does not exist.

Why can't you?
I can think of several tests to disprove a Christian God specifically.

Can do the same with Norse.

If you don't see what I mean above,
The following I mean as a serious exercise, not as a joke:
can you say if Santa doesn't exist?

[Ketraar]

I can think of several tests to disprove a Christian God specifically.

I would be interested in those details. But I would think you too, like Decartes, would need to make a few assumptions, no?

Mind that from what I gather, even fairly tested and scrutinized scientific theories, dont assume to be final proof, as per their definition. I would come to the conclusion that any such test for a disproval would have at least the same reservation. Which, if the case, then leave just enough room "to believe" (not that its required in the traditional groups).

MFG

Ketraar

[fiksal]

I can think of several tests to disprove a Christian God specifically.

I would be interested in those details. But I would think you too, like Decartes, would need to make a few assumptions, no?

Mind that from what I gather, even fairly tested and scrutinized scientific theories, dont assume to be final proof, as per their definition. I would come to the conclusion that any such test for a disproval would have at least the same reservation. Which, if the case, then leave just enough room "to believe" (not that its required in the traditional groups).

Instead of assumptions, I would test specific concepts or parts of holy books.

Let's pick a big one, as a thought experiment. Forgive my non logical problems approach, I will need more time on that, if that's not convincing.

- The Christianity says there's a soul. That soul has numerous physical characteristics, including ability to talk and be heard. All humans without exceptions have a soul. Your soul carries cognitive functions with it, even more of your functions are there then in the brain itself. The soul is very durable as it can be considered eternal. It exerts force.

What we know so far:
- several people have looked for it. Correctly assuming that a soul would be made of matter, and have weight. All such observations turned negative.
- more so, modern biology, medicine, chemistry and physics can point out that no such exotic matter is found in human bodies. Nothing enters humans at birth, as we all seen, and nothing leaves it, and nothing is contained within, during life or after. Chemistry can run down the proton and neutron pairs of all possible elements and tell you nothing we have can exhibit behavior required by the existence of a soul.

There's no Christian God if the soul doesn't exist.

Do you disagree? Is there a soul?

[Mightysword]

Personally, I prefer to talk about Atheism in two distinct perspectives:
- whether we know that a god or gods exist

Real Atheism - we don't care.

Faux atheism - "Let me show you that god doesn't..."

That's a candid way to put it. Atheism is fine all, until it decided it needs to go after other religions, then Atheism itself becomes just another religion. I hold the view that religion/faith itself is not an issue, never was. Only problem when people feel they need to justify their religion to others, or worse, justify their belief "above" others.

I'm not sure how common the following saying is, I only spotted it during a visit to the social office and it was pinned at the work station of a worker who I assumed to be an Atheist, it makes a strong enough impression for me to remember:

- If there is a true god and he is just, then he will judge me on the merit of my life and not on my lip service to him.
- If there is a god, but he demands my homemade and worship rather than the merit of my life in exchange for his favor. Then such god is corrupted and I don't want anything to do with him.
And of course, if there is not god then it doesn't matter either way.

I'm not an Atheist (Buddhist), but in a way the above is similar to some of the oldest teaching in Buddhism. Why bother with such a question whether god exist, if he's the benevolence being we all imagine him to be, just live our life just and correct and we'll be closer to him. And if you don't believe in god, still live your properly anyway.

So I'll add one more to what Chips said:

- Why does it matter?

[fiksal]

- If there is a god, but he demands my homemade and worship rather than the merit of my life in exchange for his favor. Then such god is corrupted and I don't want anything to do with him.
And of course, if there is not god then it doesn't matter either way.

This last bit indeed touches on what I said - whether or not one should worship such being.

So I'll add one more to what Chips said:
- Why does it matter?

Depends on what you are asking here exactly.

If you are saying what does it matter to me? Then it's as simple as knowing an answer to a mathematical equation. If it has a solution I want to know it, and even if it doesnt, I want to know the approximation.
It affects other calculations that can be made in life.

Personally, I prefer to talk about Atheism in two distinct perspectives:
- whether we know that a god or gods exist

Real Atheism - we don't care.

Faux atheism - "Let me show you that god doesn't..."

I'll come back to this for a second. While there's more than one definition that varies in the degree of 'disbelief', the simple one, in my opinion, is still this one - "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
This isnt the same as "we don't care", and it doesnt conflict with "Let me show you that god doesn't"

The first fits more under Agnosticism :
"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

[Mightysword]

What we know so far:
- several people have looked for it. Correctly assuming that a soul would be made of matter, and have weight. All such observations turned negative.

And that's the thing, who determined that is a correct assumption?

- more so, modern biology, medicine, chemistry and physics can point out that no such exotic matter is found in human bodies. Nothing enters humans at birth, as we all seen, and nothing leaves it, and nothing is contained within, during life or after. Chemistry can run down the proton and neutron pairs of all possible elements and tell you nothing we have can exhibit behavior required by the existence of a soul.

There's no Christian God if the soul doesn't exist.

And here is the thing: you are assuming things such as "modern biology, medicine, physics" is a valid medium to verify the theories of soul. Someone can easily dismiss it as invalid as using one's skin color as the metric of the person's IQ. It doesn't matter how much you gonna break it down (photon this neutron that), you're still making the assumptions limited to the current understanding.

I mean ... even outside the religious context, within the scientific realms itself it happens often enough. That's why the phrase such a "physic as we know it" exists. There is a bunch of placeholder theories that are put in place currently in order for us to comprehend the existence of our universe "within the limit of our current knowledge", meaning those theories may very well be invalid if new relevance are discovered that can challenge the foundation of current science (i.e like the validity of the Relatively theory). So if this is a limit within science itself, it's not exactly a slam dunk case when you try to project that into a different 'realm' like spiritual. So if someone want to dismiss current science as the in-appropriate medium to validate the spiritual world, they have a logical reason behind them no matter how much unscientific that may sound to you.

If you go far into the philosophy direction, then there is even some mathematical theories to explain the existence of spiritual world, such as the concept behind 'dimensions'. Starting with the most simple 1 dimension -a number line, then 2 dimensions -flat plane, and 3 dimensions -real space- (eh putting aside the argument real space is 4D with time as the 4th axis for now). It's an accepted concept that a value/being can only see other value/being in the same dimension or lower. So a 2D value can observe or carry the value of 2D or 1D value, but the 1D value can't see or comprehend a 2D value, same thing with a value in 3D space can observe everything in 3D, 2D and 1D space, but those can not see object in 3+D space. Expanding this to the concept or "spiritual space" or "god realm", it can be theorized that those supernatural being exists on a higher dimension like 4D or 5D space. So they can see us, but we can't see them. Don't quote me on this but I'm willingly to bet, it's from these concepts that you see a lot of sci-fi/fantasy setting god or god realm is referred to as such (being on a higher plane of existence). We also have mathematical model to measure these higher dimensions despite not know if they actual exist or not. I don't know about other religion, but I have come across old Buddhism text that describe similar concept despite originated from thousands years ago.

Just to be clear: I'm not advocating God exists, I'm in the camp of "it doesn't matter". Buddhism doesn't have a god, and AFAIK we don't explore the concept whether one exists either.

Do you disagree? Is there a soul?

I had mentioned before in this topic but my mother side of the family used to ... eh... do things on that side of the world. To me it's not a question of belief. Asking someone like me such a question would be similar asking a normal human do they believe blood run through their vein. I know I can not convince anyone who had not experience such things, but I know for sure I can not describe what I know about it using the current science as a base.

[RegisterMe]

- whether we know that a god or gods exist

We do not know that a god or gods exist. Equally, even as an avowed atheist, I cannot say that god does not exist.

Why can't you?
I can think of several tests to disprove a Christian God specifically.

Can do the same with Norse.

If you don't see what I mean above,
The following I mean as a serious exercise, not as a joke:
can you say if Santa doesn't exist?

No, I can't say, categorically, that Santa doesn't exist. I can say that the chances of Santa existing, as with pixies at the bottom of the garden, a marshmallow dragon orbiting Jupiter, and any kind of god you like existing are so preposterously small as to effectively mean that they don't exist.

(Not taking into account my normal get out about the possibility of us living in a simulated universe).

[fiksal]

Sorry for the long post...

can you say if Santa doesn't exist?

No, I can't say, categorically, that Santa doesn't exist. I can say that the chances of Santa existing, as with pixies at the bottom of the garden, a marshmallow dragon orbiting Jupiter, and any kind of god you like existing are so preposterously small as to effectively mean that they don't exist.

(Not taking into account my normal get out about the possibility of us living in a simulated universe).

There's of course a huge difference between zero chance and infinitely small.

Just to be clear, you are saying there's a non zero chance that Santa (with its whole mythology: with elves, building toys, on the North Pole; and delivering presents to every kid) can exist on Earth right this moment?

Not taking into account the "not real" / simulated universe

What we know so far:
- several people have looked for it. Correctly assuming that a soul would be made of matter, and have weight. All such observations turned negative.

And that's the thing, who determined that is a correct assumption?

The religion that defines the concept does.

And here is the thing: you are assuming things such as "modern biology, medicine, physics" is a valid medium to verify the theories of soul.

It's not an assumption. The mathematical based and scientific based sciences have proved themselves capable of the job describing our world. We literally have nothing else that can equally accurately predict or describe the world.

Someone can easily dismiss it as invalid as using one's skin color as the metric of the person's IQ. It doesn't matter how much you gonna break it down (photon this neutron that), you're still making the assumptions limited to the current understanding.

That is not applicable to mathematics.

"within the limit of our current knowledge", meaning those theories may very well be invalid if new relevance are discovered that can challenge the foundation of current science (i.e like the validity of the Relatively theory).

I dont want to sound like I am teaching you something, but bear with me. That's not how this works, and I mean it. You are without a question correct that the knowledge is never complete and is expanding, but what we've learned and proved to be true, does remain to be true within the constraints of the problems they were addressing.

Our knowledge currently had surpassed our mythologies, at our finger tips right now we have all you need to disprove any relatively old religion. Modern religions can side step some of this if they want to.

Further discoveries in Quantum mechanics, or Gravity are not going to change the solutions to issues on this specific scale. [1]

If you think for yourself that Science is not appropriate for your religion, that is fine as well. It's incorrect, but it's fine.

So if someone want to dismiss current science as the in-appropriate medium to validate the spiritual world, they have a logical reason behind them no matter how much unscientific that may sound to you.

Indeed, that's how it sounds

If you go far into the philosophy direction, then there is even some mathematical theories to explain the existence of spiritual world, such as the concept behind 'dimensions'.

I am aware of what you are referring to as dimensions. There's a thought experiment that describes something like this, with a fish in a shallow pond.

However, this isnt how it goes in physics, - the extra dimensions can be considered as a purely mathematical concept to ease our calculations; this is a man made concept.

However, if we talk about them, this isnt a sci fi concept when one can step in and out. Dimensions project onto lower dimensions resulting in fixed and repeatable behavior.

And we indeed have many if not infinite dimensions:
- 3d space
- temperature
- scale
- time
- or time space as a single dimension
- color can be considered as a dimension (for some set of problems)

Just to be clear: I'm not advocating God exists, I'm in the camp of "it doesn't matter". Buddhism doesn't have a god, and AFAIK we don't explore the concept whether one exists either.

I understand.

Do you disagree? Is there a soul?

I had mentioned before in this topic but my mother side of the family used to ... eh... do things on that side of the world. To me it's not a question of belief. Asking someone like me such a question would be similar asking a normal human do they believe blood run through their vein. I know I can not convince anyone who had not experience such things, but I know for sure I can not describe what I know about it using the current science as a base.

Ok.

Not to insult anyone, just a thought experiement - Do you think Santa Claus exists?





[1] I can think of two closest examples.
1) the Ether; where the whole field was proposed then considered invalid. What didnt happen is that it didnt take any previous calculations with it, because as the field was considered invalid it was also considered inconsequential. It didnt matter if it existed, and because of that, it didnt exist. When things in physics dont matter, they literally dont exist.

2) the Newton laws. The Newton laws of motion are wrong. Scratch that, they are inaccurate. They are accurate only at the scale that they were observed and proven. Einstein's equations (and others) are more accurate than of Newton. In Quantum mechanics, Einstein's equations do not make sense (none of them, as I am vaguely aware). Whatever the new theory of Gravity that will come out of Quantum mechanics, will not obliterate Einstein's equations, and still will not obliterate Newton's laws. Even though they are "wrong".

[Ketraar]

It's not an assumption. The mathematical based and scientific based sciences have proved themselves capable of the job describing our world. We literally have nothing else that can equally accurately predict or describe the world.

Possibly repeating myself here, but again this train of thought is based on a assumption, we assume mathematics is "true". Sure it fits well to describe our "world" and experiences, but it also was made up to do just that. mathematics is incapable of addressing things "outside" of our scope. Not saying there is, but if there is some sort of "external place" where the rules of our current understanding are different, would it not be possible for an entity to exist that would qualify as god? Saying that mathematics can disprove the existence of a entity that is said to work OUTSIDE of our rule-set. Since we already "know" that there has to be something beyond big bang and we cant know what it is, its impossible to (dis)prove anything beyond that.

Now religion is different beast, since they set the(ir) truth to be a given, but it rarely has anything to do with "god" and more with dogma.

Santa is easier to disprove since it is supposed to work within the rule-set of our earth, even with some magic added (which does not exist).

MFG

Ketraar

[fiksal]

It's not an assumption. The mathematical based and scientific based sciences have proved themselves capable of the job describing our world. We literally have nothing else that can equally accurately predict or describe the world.

Possibly repeating myself here, but again this train of thought is based on a assumption, we assume mathematics is "true".

In that case I am not following by what do you mean it is "true". Do you mean the basic axioms that we assumed true to make math work?

or do I guess it correctly in the answers below?

mathematics is incapable of addressing things "outside" of our scope. Not saying there is, but if there is some sort of "external place" where the rules of our current understanding are different

The existence of "external place" needs some proving however. We cant say math doesnt work there until we prove that it exists in the first place.

We indeed created math to describe the world. But math is never wrong not because we invented it that way, but because that's what our reality made it to be. If our reality showed it to be different, the current math, in its entirety, would not exist.

would it not be possible for an entity to exist that would qualify as god?

When asked this specifically, then the answer is yes.

Saying that mathematics can disprove the existence of a entity that is said to work OUTSIDE of our rule-set.

There's a concept in physics. I always forget what its actual name is, if it has one specific name. If something is proposed to exist, but has otherwise no effect on the world; and "no" meaning literal "zero" then this thing can exist or can not, it doesnt matter to anything in reality. Therefore it can be considered not to exist, as we'll never be able to interact with it and it with us.

A god who can not interact with us, and we with it, can exist or not. And if it exists, as you said, outside of our rule set, he is not Christian god, or any god of any known religion.

Since we already "know" that there has to be something beyond big bang and we cant know what it is, its impossible to (dis)prove anything beyond that.

No, we dont know that either. Nothing may every well be before or beyond. The idea beyond or before the Big Bang may fall into what I described above.

Now religion is different beast, since they set the(ir) truth to be a given, but it rarely has anything to do with "god" and more with dogma.

For the sake of this conversation I am only talking about a god specific to existing religion.

Santa is easier to disprove since it is supposed to work within the rule-set of our earth, even with some magic added (which does not exist).

Are you sure that Santa is supposed to work within our rule set? Who ever claimed it? One can equally claim that Santa is a god like creature, who laws of math and physics dont apply to. Who does indeed deliver presents to every child on December 25th, without fail.



(I feel like the format of chat would be better for this than posts...)

[Mightysword]

It's not an assumption. The mathematical based and scientific based sciences have proved themselves capable of the job describing our world. We literally have nothing else that can equally accurately predict or describe the world.

our world: as defined by our 'limited' knowledge. And I would like to point out, is wholly insufficient at the moment. Not in term of your daily life, but in term of explaining something like 'existence'.

We literally have nothing else: does that means nothing else exist? Including things that we don't yet know?

You are making assumptions, a lot of them.

I dont want to sound like I am teaching you something, but bear with me. That's not how this works, and I mean it. You are without a question correct that the knowledge is never complete and is expanding, but what we've learned and proved to be true, does remain to be true within the constraints of the problems they were addressing.

Except when science itself admit it has barely any knowledge on the problem it tries to address?

For example: the missing mass of the universe problem. Right now, base on our mathematical models, base on understanding of physics, base on our science, we can only explain the existence a fraction of the current observable universe. The amount of missing mass is about 10 (ten) time more than the one we can calculate. So the dilemma is this: if we stick to our gun and believe our current mathematical model is correct, then the universe should have break a part. The fact it doesn't forced us to admit we're not able to account for things we're missing. So we theorized/invented this thing call "dark matter" as a mere place holder to plug the hole in our current equation. Whether dark matter is simply a missing variable in our current equation or it's something that will just flat out invalid our knowledge, nobody know.

Another one is matter-antimatter when it comes the existence of the universe. Most scientist agree in principal they should be created in equal amount and thus nullified each others ... aka we shouldn't exist. But something happen/intervene in that process that make some matter (aka us) survived that process. Whatever that something is, science still can't explain it. It

Our knowledge currently had surpassed our mythologies, at our finger tips right now we have all you need to disprove any relatively old religion. Modern religions can side step some of this if they want to.

Again, that's only because you only accept the limit of our current knowledge as the pinnacle of sufficient to explain/disprove things it may yet qualify to. I said before I do believe (rather - know) the spiritual/supernatural world exists. But that does not necessary mean it has to be tied to religious concept. It can simply means they are entities that we (and by we I mean our science) have not yet reach a point that it can give sufficient explanation.

Like I said, I'm someone who poccess an experience you don't. I can not explain my experience using the current science (maybe simply due to it's currently insufficient), that doesn't mean they don't exist. The question to you is that how willingly you will be to accept alternate method of explanation, or you will only accept things that fit your model and assumption. Maybe one days those models will improve to a point that it can explain my experience in its own term, but that time is not now. Basically, I view spiritual world is the same as the missing mass problem, it's there but we can't explain it ... yet.

And when that happens, it could be the moment religion and science simply merge together.

Not to insult anyone, just a thought experiment - Do you think Santa Claus exists?

I'm not a Christian.

As a human, I would put someone like Santa in the folklore category. My culture has several similar figures and I bet many other cultures do to, and they do not neccessary tied to religious concept.

In fact, I think the whole discussion can benefit or at least, more open to accept/understand alternate theories if you can conduct it "outside" of the concept of religion rather limit it to a "Religions vs Atheism".

[fiksal]

It's not an assumption. The mathematical based and scientific based sciences have proved themselves capable of the job describing our world. We literally have nothing else that can equally accurately predict or describe the world.

our world: as defined by our 'limited' knowledge. And I would like to point out, is wholly insufficient at the moment. Not in term of your daily life, but in term of explaining something like 'existence'.

Sure lets go piece by piece. When I say our world I mean our reality, not just the planet.

Are you making assumption that it is not sufficient? I dont see why it isnt sufficient, what's missing?

We literally have nothing else: does that means nothing else exist? Including things that we don't yet know?

You are making assumptions, a lot of them.

Some things I say are assumptions. Some things arent assumptions, as they've been proven, results repeat during experiments, and can predict future behavior.
If I mis-state which is which, I can correct myself.

Are you asking if something except for math can exist to describe the world?

Yes, in my opinion (and just as an assumption), a system that employs cause and effect, along with determinism and probabilities can describe the world as well as mathematics can. They would be equivalent, both equally true, though not necessarily equally easy to use. I could be wrong on that, but it seems like a good guess.

Except when science itself admit it has barely any knowledge on the problem it tries to address?

For example: the missing mass of the universe problem. Right now, base on our mathematical models, base on understanding of physics, base on our science, we can only explain the existence a fraction of the current observable universe. The amount of missing mass is about 10 (ten) time more than the one we can calculate. So the dilemma is this: if we stick to our gun and believe our current mathematical model is correct, then the universe should have break a part. The fact it doesn't forced us to admit we're not able to account for things we're missing. So we theorized/invented this thing call "dark matter" as a mere place holder to plug the hole in our current equation. Whether dark matter is simply a missing variable in our current equation or it's something that will just flat out invalid our knowledge, nobody know.

Dark matter is indeed a concept used for macro scale. I have a counter question to you - does this invalidate Newton's laws? Does this invalidate conservation of energy?

Another one is matter-antimatter when it comes the existence of the universe. Most scientist agree in principal they should be created in equal amount and thus nullified each others ... aka we shouldn't exist. But something happen/intervene in that process that make some matter (aka us) survived that process. Whatever that something is, science still can't explain it. It

That's incorrect. In the experiments we know we can create pairs.

We can guess, that there was a lot of anti matter in the beginning. If the assumption there is correct or proven, then it's valid to say there was less of it than matter. I dont think any of this was observed or proven.

Therefore I dont think most scientists agree on that.

We can probably say that a lot of anti matter had probably existed.

Our knowledge currently had surpassed our mythologies, at our finger tips right now we have all you need to disprove any relatively old religion. Modern religions can side step some of this if they want to.

Again, that's only because you only accept the limit of our current knowledge as the pinnacle of sufficient to explain/disprove things it may yet qualify to. I said before I do believe (rather - know) the spiritual/supernatural world exists. But that does not necessary mean it has to be tied to religious concept. It can simply means they are entities that we (and by we I mean our science) have not yet reach a point that it can give sufficient explanation.

We'll agree to disagree on that.

Not to insult anyone, just a thought experiment - Do you think Santa Claus exists?

I'm not a Christian.

As a human, I would put someone like Santa in the folklore category. My culture has several similar figures and I bet many other cultures do to, and they do not neccessary tied to religious concept.

In this case I dont necessarily mean the St Nicolas, so we can pick another version of such character if you like.

Do folklore characters exist then? How do you know if they do, or if they do not?

In fact, I think the whole discussion can benefit or at least, more open to accept/understand alternate theories if you can conduct it "outside" of the concept of religion rather limit it to a "Religions vs Atheism".

We can, but it's a discussion that will not have a resolution.

I claim that I can disprove any existing God, only because of the rigid constructs of religions.

If as above I am asked, can a "god like" creature exist somewhere in the universe, there's no way to prove or disprove that, as the definition itself is ambiguous. Hopefully it's clear that when I say that, this isnt a god that we have documented.

Thankfully, religions are all but ambiguous, especially the older they are.

[Ketraar]

A god who can not interact with us, and we with it, can exist or not. And if it exists, as you said, outside of our rule set, he is not Christian god, or any god of any known religion.

The whole premise of a "abrahamic" god is that it only interacts when it wants and then makes up their own rules. My point is that given this premise and our limited understanding of the universe there is (currently at least) no way to factually disprove this type of entity, as its existence is basically made by "magic".

Since we already "know" that there has to be something beyond big bang and we cant know what it is, its impossible to (dis)prove anything beyond that.

No, we dont know that either. Nothing may every well be before or beyond. The idea beyond or before the Big Bang may fall into what I described above.[/quote]
But we do, even if its nothing. but we clearly have 2 states, one before and one after the big bang, thus creating at least 2 "containers".

Are you sure that Santa is supposed to work within our rule set? Who ever claimed it? One can equally claim that Santa is a god like creature, who laws of math and physics dont apply to. Who does indeed deliver presents to every child on December 25th, without fail.

Well if Santa can travel near the speed of light time would not be much of an issue to visit all (though I have not made the calculation tbh )

(I feel like the format of chat would be better for this than posts...)

Indeed.

Whether dark matter is simply a missing variable in our current equation or it's something that will just flat out invalid our knowledge, nobody know.

Dont think that discovering what "dark matter" (really bad name since its not matter at all) is will radically change our understanding of physics, more like expand on it, similar to what relativity did to newton's laws.

MFG

Ketraar