Faith schools

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

This is precisely what I like about Hitchens's Razor - it helps provide some clarity of thought by reinforcing the notion that the onus of evidence is on that person making the claim. An atheist is simply saying "where's the evidence for a god's existence?"

As I said in my previous post, it's basically all about the "god of the gaps". Can't explain it - just say a god did it. And it gets particularly shaky when they try to force codes of conduct based on it across society at large. The Abrahamic religions are all notoriously bad at this although some wings are more tolerant than others.

Yes TGS - I've often thought if I had to invent a God  / Creator (I don't) - the Greek ones seem more 'human' to me. All flawed.

God(s) of the gaps seems an appropriate term for anything unknown - and of course the very human need to bias the laws of chance in our favour (better harvest and so on or somebody/thing else to blame when it all goes wrong). A belief or comfort to lean on.

[TheGunnShow 5,956]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes TGS - I've often thought if I had to invent a God  / Creator (I don't) - the Greek ones seem more 'human' to me. All flawed.

God(s) of the gaps seems an appropriate term for anything unknown - and of course the very human need to bias the laws of chance in our favour (better harvest and so on or somebody/thing else to blame when it all goes wrong). A belief or comfort to lean on.

Yeah, Birdie said something about curiosity, but I think it's more about how people choose to live with uncertainty and also lack of knowledge that is currently beyond our current scope/senses. I generally suspect religious people just "need" an answer much more than the non-religious.

My stance there is "we don't know at all, we're working on it, let's wait for more defined/definite answers and I can live with the uncertainty as it currently stands".

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

Your

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Atheism is a lack of belief in God (or God's as there have been around 300 so far). It simply rules out God, nothing else. You can try and make it mean something else but you'd be wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are trying to change the simple meaning of a word to support your own views. 

 

Lack of belief is agnosticism; atheism is a rejection of an idea, but goes beyond reflection of simply monotheism, but also polytheism and also non-theistic metaphysical ideas like Buddhism.

Edited April 18 by littleyellowbirdie

[hogesar 9,705]

I accidentally click Non-Football, read this thread, and immediately go back to football. It's so much easier 😄 

[dylanisabaddog 4,949]

23 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Your

Lack of belief is agnosticism; atheism is a rejection of an idea, but goes beyond reflection of simply monotheism, but also polytheism and also non-theistic metaphysical ideas like Buddhism.

Nonsense. We'll all club together and buy you a dictionary for Christmas. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

27 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

This is precisely what I like about Hitchens's Razor - it helps provide some clarity of thought by reinforcing the notion that the onus of evidence is on that person making the claim. An atheist is simply saying "where's the evidence for a god's existence?"

As I said in my previous post, it's basically all about the "god of the gaps". Can't explain it - just say a god did it. And it gets particularly shaky when they try to force codes of conduct based on it across society at large. The Abrahamic religions are all notoriously bad at this although some wings are more tolerant than others.

I think there's a big difference between using Hitchen's razor to put aside what we don't know and using Hitchen's razor to both pretend there's nothing to know and also discourage people from wondering about what we know simply because of an antipathy to organised religion.

In many respects also, the toxic parts of religion have nothing to do with the theistic elements of religion and more how it as an idea, can be corrupted as a political tool to manipulate people to your bidding. Communism, fascism, capitalism, all pretend to know all the answers by taking ideas that do work to some extend and then reaching beyond that to fill in the gaps to reject any other ideass.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

5 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Nonsense. We'll all club together and buy you a dictionary for Christmas. 

Maybe people should club together to buy you a guide on how not to be so obnoxious.

The muddying of the definitions of agnosticism and atheism is fundamentally disingenuous in my view and actually seeks to coopt agnosticism as an anti-religious idea for the benefit of atheists who want to pick a fight with religion like yourself.

Edited April 18 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,956]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I think there's a big difference between using Hitchen's razor to put aside what we don't know and using Hitchen's razor to both pretend there's nothing to know and also discourage people from wondering about what we know simply because of an antipathy to organised religion.

In many respects also, the toxic parts of religion have nothing to do with the theistic elements of religion and more how it as an idea, can be corrupted as a political tool to manipulate people to your bidding. Communism, fascism, capitalism, all pretend to know all the answers by taking ideas that do work to some extend and then reaching beyond that to fill in the gaps to reject any other ideass.

 

Agree with the second paragraph, but not the first - simply as by definition the second paragraph takes political and economic ideas that tend to exist as a form of spectrum, whereas theism is an either/or - there is either definitive evidence for a god, or there is not. You're either dead or you're not. You're either pregnant or you're not. There's either a god or there isn't.

I don't think Hitchens's Razor pretends there's nothing to know at all. It merely says "where's the definitive evidence?" It puts the onus back on the person making the claim, which is exactly where it should be.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Agree with the second paragraph, but not the first - simply as by definition the second paragraph takes political and economic ideas that tend to exist as a form of spectrum, whereas theism is an either/or - there is either definitive evidence for a god, or there is not. You're either dead or you're not. You're either pregnant or you're not. There's either a god or there isn't.

I don't think Hitchens's Razor pretends there's nothing to know at all. It merely says "where's the definitive evidence?" It puts the onus back on the person making the claim, which is exactly where it should be.

 

Science is a subset of philosophy. There are assumptions in the scientific method itself that we are required to make for the scientific model to work. Science is good, functional, and useful. I love science; that's why I studied it at uni. Hitchen's razor takes the principles of science of working with what you can establish scientifically as a complete philosophy, which maybe could be regarded as sciencism.

Edited April 18 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,956]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Science is a subset of philosophy. There are assumptions in the scientific method itself that we are required to make for the scientific model to work. Hitchen's razor takes the principles of science and asserts them as a philosophy, which maybe could be regarded as sciencism.

I'll just have to ask for evidence on that bit in bold. 😉

However, it's digressing away from the fundamental use of the razor, namely putting the onus of evidence back on those making the claims. For that alone, it is an extremely good tool for creating clarity and seeing which points in discussion are more informed after analysis of evidence that is proffered.

EDIT: It should go without saying that this is meant not just in religious terms, but in any discussion, regardless of topic.

Edited April 18 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

I'll just have to ask for evidence on that bit in bold. 😉

However, it's digressing away from the fundamental use of the razor, namely putting the onus of evidence back on those making the claims. For that alone, it is an extremely good tool for creating clarity and seeing which points in discussion are more informed after analysis of evidence that is proffered.

I'd suggest that if you're presenting Hitchen's razor as the ultimate definitive approach to reasoning, then the onus of evidence is on you to show that's correct.

[TheGunnShow 5,956]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I'd suggest that if you're presenting Hitchen's razor as the ultimate definitive approach to reasoning, then the onus of evidence is on you to show that's correct.

I like the attempted twist in there, but then it invariably brings up the question of what use is an unsubstantiated claim regardless of the field of knowledge in which it is made? You could basically say anything with no evidence and expect it to be treated as seriously as anything that is thoroughly justified, observed, and evidenced.

That brings it back nolens volens to your fair point about science also needing some assumptions to function, but you'd surely agree that minimising them as far as possible (and particularly on foundational matters) is a reasonable enough starting point? 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

17 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I like the attempted twist in there, but then it invariably brings up the question of what use is an unsubstantiated claim regardless of the field of knowledge in which it is made? You could basically say anything with no evidence and expect it to be treated as seriously as anything that is thoroughly justified, observed, and evidenced.

That brings it back nolens volens to your fair point about science also needing some assumptions to function, but you'd surely agree that minimising them as far as possible (and particularly on foundational matters) is a reasonable enough starting point? 

It's not a twist. Science can't exist without unsubstantiated claims. Every new model in science is an unsubstantiated claim until it has been substantiated. You can't use it or apply it without substantiating it in a scientific context, but that doesn't amount to dismissing the idea itself, only dismissing it as an idea to use within the context of existing scientific models as 'true'. Dark matter is a recognised scientific term for something that has been inferred must be there but to this date hasn't been observed. The scientific conclusion of that is either we just can't see it or there's something fundamentally wrong/incomplete with our models. People continue to search for dark matter to vindicate scientific models Either way, the anomaly that it seeks to resolve can't and isn't dismissed as something to expend considerable thought on.

Hitchen's razor would dictate to simply forget about Dark Matter and carry on regardless, killing a whole area of legitimate, and possibly important, scientific inquiry.

 

Edited April 18 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,956]

11 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not a twist. Science can't exist without unsubstantiated claims. Every new model in science is an unsubstantiated claim until it has been substantiate. You can't use it or apply it without substantiating it, but that doesn't amount to dismissing the idea itself, only dismissing it as an idea to use within the context of existing scientific models as 'true'. Dark matter is a recognised scientific term for something that has been inferred must be there but to this date hasn't been observed. The scientific conclusion of that is either we just can't see it or there's something fundamentally wrong/incomplete with our models. People continue to search for dark matter to vindicate scientific models Either way, the anomaly that it seeks to resolve can't and isn't dismissed as something to expend considerable thought on.

Sure, no dispute at all there regarding unsubstantiated claims being a fuel for the scientific process, but the point here is which claims/models are given more credence at the time the question is posed, and a mental tool is useful for helping sift through various models at the time. And I would say that science has the habit of eating its young (revising what was previously considered correct when new evidence comes to light) as part of its progress or indeed if previously undiscovered weaknesses in methodologies come to light (the social sciences are particularly vulnerable there).

If we bring it back to religion though, as I like to jocularly put it, we've been waiting 2,000 years to watch a god walk on Doffcocker Lodge (a local beauty spot).

Edited April 18 by TheGunnShow

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not a twist. Science can't exist without unsubstantiated claims. Every new model in science is an unsubstantiated claim until it has been substantiate. You can't use it or apply it without substantiating it, but that doesn't amount to dismissing the idea itself, only dismissing it as an idea to use within the context of existing scientific models as 'true'. Dark matter is a recognised scientific term for something that has been inferred must be there but to this date hasn't been observed. The scientific conclusion of that is either we just can't see it or there's something fundamentally wrong/incomplete with our models. People continue to search for dark matter to vindicate scientific models Either way, the anomaly that it seeks to resolve can't and isn't dismissed as something to expend considerable thought on.

The simple fact that makes science so successful is that not only do it's theories explain the world - you can use them it to make predictions that can be later verified i.e Newton Einstein, Higgs etc.

Nobody in science argues those theories are complete or unassailable or beyond tweaking (indeed we continually try to 'break' them - the 'standard model' is topical - what is 'dark matter' or 'dark energy' - is our understanding of gravity correct at cosmological distances - even 'tired' light to explain red shifts. Why is gravity so weak (other dimensions) and on and on.

They are simply the best models we have of reality however 'spooky'. No doubt improved models will follow.

Religion (or a God(s)) is unprovable - almost by definition - all about 'faith' - I can dream up any 'God' I like and it's equally valid. Will my new God make it rain? Can I use my God to make testable predictions - No.

All that said I understand why some people need a God comfort blanket. It helps them lead and gives a meaning to their lives.

Atheism isn't a faith and nor is science.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

11 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Sure, no dispute at all there regarding unsubstantiated claims being a fuel for the scientific process, but the point here is which claims/models are given more credence at the time the question is posed, and a mental tool is useful for helping sift through various models at the time. And I would say that science has the habit of eating its young (revising what was previously considered correct when new evidence comes to light) as part of its progress or indeed if previously undiscovered weaknesses in methodologies come to light (the social sciences are particularly vulnerable there).

If we bring it back to religion though, as I like to jocularly put it, we've been waiting 2,000 years to watch a god walk on Doffcocker Lodge (a local beauty spot).

Bearded  guys on clouds are just an expression of the idea. In a way, it does exactly what you favour doing with Hitchen's razor, namely using it as a tool to put the stuff you can't explain in a box and not worry about it.

When you get down to it, all religions really come down to the philosophical ideas of people about building societies and how to behave. 'God' is just a way of putting in a box all the unexplainable to focus on what they think they have explained.

Edited April 18 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

24 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The simple fact that makes science so successful is that not only do it's theories explain the world - you can use them it to make predictions that can be later verified i.e Newton Einstein, Higgs etc.

Nobody in science argues those theories are complete or unassailable or beyond tweaking (indeed we continually try to 'break' them - the 'standard model' is topical - what is 'dark matter' or 'dark energy' - is our understanding of gravity correct at cosmological distances - even 'tired' light to explain red shifts. Why is gravity so weak (other dimensions) and on and on.

They are simply the best models we have of reality however 'spooky'. No doubt improved models will follow.

Religion (or a God(s)) is unprovable - almost by definition - all about 'faith' - I can dream up any 'God' I like and it's equally valid. Will my new God make it rain? Can I use my God to make testable predictions - No.

All that said I understand why some people need a God comfort blanket. It helps them lead and gives a meaning to their lives.

Atheism isn't a faith and nor is science.

Atheism makes a specific unfalsiable claim: 'no conscious entity was responsible for the creation of us and our universe'. Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

 

 

 

Edited April 18 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,310]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Science is a subset of philosophy. There are assumptions in the scientific method itself that we are required to make for the scientific model to work. Hitchen's razor takes the principles of science of working with what you can establish scientifically as a complete philosophy, which maybe could be regarded as sciencism.

Somewhat misleading I'm afraid. Science (in all its branches) is in the business of ascertaining facts. Philosophy is a wholly critical activity in which the status of of such facts are assessed for their significance. You would benefit enormously from reading some AJ Ayer on this (Language, Truth and Logic), or try this very readable essay by the Logical Positivist Moritz Schlick

 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Philosophy

You're right if you are claiming that ALL claims to knowledge (scientific, religious or otherwise) rest on certain underlying assumptions.  And it is indeed the job of philosophical criticism to identify and question those assumptions. However, the merits or otherwise of certain scientific beliefs are determined by their veracity and the explanatory power of the claims they make, not philosophical criticism.

I think you probably meant to refer to "scientism" when you talk of science as a "complete philosophy". Scientism is the view that there are no phenomena that can't be reducible to a scientific explanation. This, however. won't help you out in a criticism of atheism. Atheism is not a form of scientism (although you can, of course, be both an atheist and scientistic). It's simply not the case that an atheist has to believe that all empirical evidence is reducible to scientifically proven entities. If you read David Hume's empiricist arguments against the existence of miracles you will see they make not the slightest reference to anything to do with science. The atheist simply denies that ANY empirical experience (scientific or otherwise) provides evidence for the existence of God. 

[TheGunnShow 5,956]

36 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Bearded  guys on clouds are just an expression of the idea. In a way, it does exactly what you favour doing with Hitchen's razor, namely using it as a tool to put the stuff you can't explain in a box and not worry about it.

When you get down to it, all religions really come down to the philosophical ideas of people about building societies and how to behave. 'God' is just a way of putting in a box all the unexplainable to focus on what they think they have explained.

Not really, it merely gives an order of priorities based on the quality of substantiating evidence. Determining the quality of evidence is a different ball game.

But your last sentence could be readily summarised as my phrase "god of the gaps" - used as a substitute as knowledge hasn't reached the points in question yet.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

28 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Somewhat misleading I'm afraid. Science (in all its branches) is in the business of ascertaining facts. Philosophy is a wholly critical activity in which the status of of such facts are assessed for their significance. You would benefit enormously from reading some AJ Ayer on this (Language, Truth and Logic), or try this very readable essay by the Logical Positivist Moritz Schlick

 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Philosophy

You're right if you are claiming that ALL claims to knowledge (scientific, religious or otherwise) rest on certain underlying assumptions.  And it is indeed the job of philosophical criticism to identify and question those assumptions. However, the merits or otherwise of certain scientific beliefs are determined by their veracity and the explanatory power of the claims they make, not philosophical criticism.

I think you probably meant to refer to "scientism" when you talk of science as a "complete philosophy". Scientism is the view that there are no phenomena that can't be reducible to a scientific explanation. This, however. won't help you out in a criticism of atheism. Atheism is not a form of scientism (although you can, of course, be both an atheist and scientistic). It's simply not the case that an atheist has to believe that all empirical evidence is reducible to scientifically proven entities. If you read David Hume's empiricist arguments against the existence of miracles you will see they make not the slightest reference to anything to do with science. The atheist simply denies that ANY empirical experience (scientific or otherwise) provides evidence for the existence of God. 

Sciencism was something I made up on the spot to express an idea of using science as an all-inclusive philosophy to exclude other reasoning. If scientism is an existing term for the same idea then thanks for the info.

I think @ron obvious is right that it would be great to have a pure philosophy thread.

Getting back to the social, to me, religion is far more important in the social, cultural, and philosophical elements regarding human behaviour than what it may or may not have to say about the existence of an all-encompassing consciousness that was responsible for our existence. Fundamentally, if a group is getting so aggressively hostile to all religion that you would seek to oppress expression of religion simply for objection to the idea that the idea of a conscious entity may have been involved in our creation, , as some self-proclaimed atheists clearly are, then it's starting to display the sort of toxic behaviour that religions are often criticised for; it's going beyond secularism into what becomes ideologically-based oppression in its own right.

Edited April 18 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

25 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Atheism makes a specific unfalsiable claim: 'no conscious entity was responsible for the creation of us and our universe'. Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

You're standing the burden of proof on it's head. It's impossible to prove a negative. The assertion is from the diests/theists that God/s exist. They need to prove that. They can't. My default position in the absence to any such proof (and then who created them ad -nauseam) is that such (true) Gods above and beyond our universe don't exist.  Science can posit other universes - parallel time lines and many possibilities but all reducible to logic.

From Wiki

therefore, they argue that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of gods but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.^[6]

[horsefly 4,310]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Getting back to the social, to me, religion is far more important in the social, cultural, and philosophical elements regarding human behaviour that what it may or may not have to say about the existence of an all-encompassing consciousness that was responsible for our existence. Fundamentally, if a group is getting so aggressively hostile to all religion that you would seek to oppress expression of religion simply for objection to the idea that the idea of a conscious entity may have been involved in our creation, , as some self-proclaimed atheists clearly are, then it's starting to display the sort of toxic behaviour that religions are often criticised for; it's going beyond secularism into what becomes ideologically-based oppression in its own right.

I just don't think this is true. Who is this hostile group of atheists who are preventing people expressing their religion? If your talking about the headmistress who has banned prayer from school I think you'll find it has nothing to do with being anti-religion but more about about her peculiar form of school discipline. I know of no atheist who has protested outside a mosque, church, synagogue, or Gurdwara, calling for their closure. Atheists simply want to ensure that religious people are not given some kind of privileged position over non-religious people. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

10 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

You're standing the burden of proof on it's head. It's impossible to prove a negative. The assertion is from the diests/theists that God/s exist. They need to prove that. They can't. My default position in the absence to any such proof (and then who created them ad -nauseam) is that such (true) Gods above and beyond our universe don't exist.  Science can posit other universes - parallel time lines and many possibilities but all reducible to logic.

From Wiki

therefore, they argue that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of gods but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.^[6]

All you've got to do to prove there's no God is come up with a scientifically verifiable explanation for our conscious existence in this universe that excludes the possibility that no conscious entity actively brought about what we perceive as existence.

 

[horsefly 4,310]

21 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

You're standing the burden of proof on it's head. It's impossible to prove a negative. The assertion is from the diests/theists that God/s exist. They need to prove that. They can't. My default position in the absence to any such proof (and then who created them ad -nauseam) is that such (true) Gods above and beyond our universe don't exist.  Science can posit other universes - parallel time lines and many possibilities but all reducible to logic.

From Wiki

therefore, they argue that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of gods but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.^[6]

Indeed! As a bit of a trick with the students I would ask them, "Prove to me that there are not 2000 invisible pixies in the lecture room right now". Many hilarious attempts at doing so would usually ensue, but of course the right answer was to point out the absurdity of the question. NOTHING at all could be cited as evidence that there were not 2000 invisible pixies in the room. So we are then left with two choices, either to think this failure means we should believe there actually are 2000 invisible pixies in the room, or think that we are left with no evidence at all for believing there are. Atheists take the second option (Just replace the invisible pixies with God and you will see the point).

Wittgenstein, in my view, was spot on when he said "'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." In short, our language is such that we are able to ask questions like the one I posed to the students that look as if they are perfectly meaningful but are actually a result of confusion (if not simply absurd and meaningless). Substitute for "2000 invisible pixies" the word "chairs" and you have a sentence of exactly the same grammatical structure but now a sentence that has actual meaning because we can identify the truth conditions that determine its truth value (true or false).  

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Indeed! As a bit of a trick with the students I would ask them, "Prove to me that there are not 2000 invisible pixies in the lecture room right now". Many hilarious attempts at doing so would usually ensue, but of course the right answer was to point out the absurdity of the question. NOTHING at all could be cited as evidence that there were not 2000 invisible pixies in the room. So we are then left with two choices, either to think this failure means we should believe there actually are 2000 invisible pixies in the room, or think that we are left with no evidence at all for believing there are. Atheists take the second option (Just replace the invisible pixies with God and you will see the point).

Wittgenstein, in my view, was spot on when he said "'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." In short, our language is such that we are able to ask questions like the one I posed to the students that look as if they are perfectly meaningful but are actually a result of confusion (if not simply absurd and meaningless). Substitute for "2000 invisible pixies" the word "chairs" and you have a sentence of exactly the same grammatical structure but now a sentence that has actual meaning because we can identify the truth conditions that determine its truth value (true or false).  

Yes HF. All hail the 2000 pixies....

I rather like 'Man created God'. Prove me wrong!

[horsefly 4,310]

20 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

All you've got to do to prove there's no God is come up with a scientifically verifiable explanation for our conscious existence in this universe that excludes the possibility that no conscious entity actively brought about what we perceive as existence.

 

The answer to your question can be found in my last post. You're asking a "pseudo-question". There is absolutely no answer that could satisfy your requirements because NOTHING could count as a verification that excludes that possibility. 

[ron obvious 1,514]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes HF. All hail the 2000 pixies....

I rather like 'Man created God'. Prove me wrong!

No, this is wrong. Atheism DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE POSSIBILITY of the 2000 pixies.

Less than 200 years ago the existence of neutrinos would have been considered impossible.

A distinction between knowledge & belief is often lacking round these parts.

Agnosticism is, I think, the only tenable position available to us.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

6 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Not to be tricky RTB - but your whole assumption above about a creator is based on the notion of forward linear time. In physics you can actual reverse time and everything still makes 'sense'. Time (and passage off) itself is even in our limited 20th century understanding varies with gravity (GPS needs correcting because of it). It stops on the event horizon of black hole looking in.  Indeed is time actually real or just our way of understanding / predicting the universe. Most theories about the so called big bang actually have time starting then - there was not a before in our sense. Is 'time' 'emergent' too? 

To be religious  - in the beginning there was however the equations, the maths - the 'word'....

There is another philosophy which holds we are all nothing but mathematical constructs - equations - what can exist mathematically, will exist etc.

some very interesting points YF, and time is a very interesting concept, especially for someone who hates to be late for things. i think time is both a forward linear and a backward linear concept as well as a sideways in any direction concept depending on how you want to observe it. The easiest way to imagine time, imo, is to imagine the surface of a sphere where there is no beginning and no end. However, if you were to place a dot somewhere on the surface of the sphere you have created a here and now concept, and if you were to trace a line it would disappear into the future but eventually would come round to the past and end up back at the starting point. so in that way time is both forward and backward looking and things are the same whatever way you go. Another interesting feature of this model is that every other single point in time is potentially available to the start point and just requires a change in direction to reach it. so for me this covers the possibility of omniscience. As far as I can tell, the creator kicking off the big bang to begin creation also kicks off time as well.

I wish I could give you an answer about the behaviour of time around black holes and gravity but i'm afraid I don't know enough detail about the subject.

some say it takes a leap of faith to believe in a God. i prefer not to use the term 'God' as it comes with several thousands years of baggage and precluded beliefs not based on a god. i much prefer to think in terms of a creator, and i think looking at the evidence of a creation which I can see and am part of, and knowing that creation is an ongoing daily scientific-based process, and then knowing that a creation requires a creator, putting two and two together suggests to me there is a creator that created everything we eperience and that creation started with a big bang

A finally we come to the beginning - In the beginning was the word - and just like you say, the beginning was all the algorithms that  hold true in science. and once we got the scientific blueprints the creator got busy with their creation. I don't see a conflict between science and the religious belief in a creator. But nobody should be forced or manipulated into believing in a creator.

[ricardo 7,395]

29 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

 

Agnosticism is, I think, the only tenable position available to us.

An agnostic is just an atheist without balls.😉

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

No, this is wrong. Atheism DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE POSSIBILITY of the 2000 pixies.

Less than 200 years ago the existence of neutrinos would have been considered impossible.

A distinction between knowledge & belief is often lacking round these parts.

Agnosticism is, I think, the only tenable position available to us.

 

34 minutes ago, ricardo said:

An agnostic is just an atheist without balls.😉

I'm quite happy to say that atheism is the very strong BELIEF in no deity (or Pixies) - until proven otherwise! It's a good starting working knowledge/position.

As we note - you can never prove a negative!

Discovering more of the science of real world - neutrinos (do they oscillate 'flavours'?), quarks, anti-matter and so on (axions anybody since dark matter was noted somewhere?) I'm quite open minded about - even intelligent aliens or hidden 'dimensions' They are not Gods beyond the realms of our science or (eventual) understanding.

Agree with Ricardo here!

Now - There are however footballing Gods - What do we need to sacrifice to make sure we dismiss Ipswich at Wembley play-offs. What do I need to do?  Ipswich already know there is a Yellow & Green God. Can anybody prove I'm wrong?  

Edited April 18 by Yellow Fever