Atheist Q and A

well...numbers are real...in the same sense that words are real. You really didn't think that atheists did not believe in words, did you?I believe that god exists as a concept, just like I believe that existence and non-existence exist as concepts. Based on your reasoning, that must mean there are universes where there are no number 2s, and no gods.

There is a difference between numbers and gods. Numbers have utility, in that they quantify properties of nature (and beyond, which may also be useful). How would I actually observe a number, other than as an abstract representation? I have no reason to doubt that they can similarly exist in other universes that have countable things. In universes with no trees, why would it even matter?

This is completely different with god, however. God is not defined as an abstract concept, but as a supernatural being. Again, I know for sure that god does not exist, because the supernatural does not exist. Only observable phenomena exist as far as anybody is concerned, and you cannot prove otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with banging on about something if you have an aim in mind, for example, I talk about it often because I believe that religion offers women a very bad deal. In fact, discussing this with young people, people in education who are still forming their opinions, is critical. To prompt a young girl to question why when she gets married her husband has to be the head of her household, is a worthwhile thing.

I feel that most moral laws have been taken from Christianity. The morality which a secular society governs itself is purely subjective, so most morals which individuals hold in the west are due to Christian Europe.

I would agree. I feel that over time the objective moral lace which Christianity provided will slowly be undone. I think there are quite a few examples of that in our current society.

This is for those of faith who want to ask atheists on TSR anything about Atheism, why they don't believe etc. You can ask anything you want, just be polite
POLITE debate is encouraged.

Thanks

I don't have an issue with the idea of a necessary being.

A different definition? You mean "a necessary being" = god I suppose? Why?

I don't have a problem with the term "possibly necessary", only your implied usage of the term for your own agenda.

In science, you have hypothesis which are possible based on prior observations, and if you prove it false, you are restricted to remaining possible hypotheses. Observations and hypotheses are not "possibly necessary": They are what is, and what could be possible.

A god cannot be observed, nor can a god be a hypothesis (as a supernatural being runs completely contrary to that process).

Some religions do, that is true while others like Christianity do not.

To say Christianity offers women a bad deal means you have not understood the bible on such matters,

How can you be 100% certain that there is no God when science does not have all the answers.

They don't always, or should I say they don't often exist. For example I can conceive of a 27 dimensional space. It may not exist as a real space, but I may use it to understand the real world around me in a situation where I need 27 values to describe a space or the location of a particle/particles in space. I may use a wavefunction, a mathematically abstract entity to describe a real particle in time and space; the physical particle is only described by values churned by the function, which we then have to find a way of interpreting to give us some way if visualising that particle as having a position in space.

How can you be 100% certain that there is no God when science does not have all the answers.

I have studied the bible extensively over many years. I have read it in it's entirety. I have used several versions, and have studied the Hebrew and Greek texts.

It subtly offers women less than they would be entitled to in an equal society. It is often interpreted in a way that leads to the unhappiness of women within their relationships and beyond.

I am very informed on this matter.

Thanks.

I have studied the bible extensively over many years. I have read it in it's entirety. I have used several versions, and have studied the Hebrew and Greek texts.

It subtly offers women less than they would be entitled to in an equal society. It is often interpreted in a way that leads to the unhappiness of women within their relationships and beyond.

I am very informed on this matter.

Thanks.

How can you be 100% sure that there is a god when religion provides no answer (just assertions)...

Furthermore, how can you be 100% sure that it is your favourite god, the god you support (and the religion you were born with contains the right god).

We have a lot of answers, in theory, if we were to exist as a race long enough, we could have them all.

I'll use this pretty useful article to demonstrate the point I'm trying to make.

'However, your nominalism begins to run into problems pretty quickly. Never mind numbers. What about things like, say, novels? What exactly*is*the novel*The Catcher in the Rye? It’s not any of the particular instantiations of it — it’s not the copy on your bookshelf; it’s not the copy on mine. All of the print copies on the planet could be eradicated and still the novel could be able to be said to exist. Is the novel the original manuscript sitting in a safe somewhere? But that could be burned and you could still argue that the novel exists. But if the novel itself is not identified with any of its particular instantiations, then the nominalist is in a bit of a quandary. On this perspective, the copies of the novel are instantiations of the novel itself, and the novel itself is seeming to be something abstract — something non-physical.

So the idea of something somehow existing outside space and time is suddenly not as absurd as it may have seemed. What about numbers, then? Of course there are disanalogies between numbers and novels. Novels are invented by humans, while, on most views of the subject, numbers exist whether or not humans ever happened to discover them. But, putting such differences aside for the moment, perhaps the existence of novels as abstract objects gives us some traction to say that numbers exist as abstract objects.'

. . . . . . . .

So do numbers exist?

'Well, if you’re a platonist, you would answer “yes, numbers exist”. And further you would claim that they possess a sort of existence that is abstract — different from the sort of existence that stones, trees, and quarks enjoy. Of course, this means you are in the unenviable position of explaining the coherence of this sort of existence, along with the herculean task of explaining how we know about anything in this abstract, non-physical realm.

If you’re a nominalist, you’d probably answer “no, numbers do not exist”. However, now you have the unenviable job of explaining why mathematics seems so indispensable to science, while science is perhaps our best tool for saying which things exist. The two best nominalist answers to this conundrum seem untenable.'

A complete read of the article if you are interested:

http://welovephilosophy.com/2012/12/17/do-numbers-exist/

Posted from TSR Mobile

How can you be 100% certain that there is no God when science does not have all the answers.

That is a misunderstanding of atheism.
It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods because of its unlikelihood. No (informed) atheist would ever claim to be 100% certain that a deity doesn't exist rather that is something that theists do.

Isn't that an agnostic then?

So you base everything on unproven stuff.

Isn't that an agnostic then?