The word god at it's root means that which is invoked. There is no one who does not invoke some model of good. The word good comes from the old English god, meaning "unite".
Definitions can't be proved or disproved. They can only be shown to be more useful or less useful. There is now what's been called "hard" atheism and "soft" atheism. Hard atheism denies the existence of God. A recent example of it can be found in Relaxx's Post #3 on the thread "What is Agnosticism Really?" which argues that there is less than a one in a million probability that God exists. It has the advantage of being bold and distinctive, and the disadvantage of being impossible to prove. But it's clear that hard atheism is a belief, not an absence of one. "Soft" atheism says "I don't believe in God". It has the major advantage of being impossible to dispute. We might say "you should believe in God', but the burden is on the asserter and that's really a tough one to argue. A disadvantage, if it can be called that, is that it blurs the line between atheism and agnosticism. It is soft atheism that can arguably be said not to be a belief, but simply the absence of a belief in God. Then we might ask why is that so important? In the context of the present thread, I think could function to allow atheists to dodge responsibility for the sins of fellow atheists, while tarring theists with a broad brush of evil, ignorance and/or violence. (How many Quaker suicide bombers do we know?). I tend to be concerned with how a belief or non-belief functions. If it functions to support anti-religious animus, I regard it as belief, whether or not the believer is willing to admit it. If it's held as a mere descriptor, without behavioral consequences, I'm cool with whatever a person wants to call himself/herself.
I think that one day science will be able to prove many things that they supposedly can't prove now (and certainly wouldn't admit to)- such as remote viewing, telekinesis, that "something" (God?) holds the atom together whereas it shouldn't be possible. I furthur think the tests to prove these, and other things, is not so far away as many would think. However, if we, just average humans, are allowed access by the gov't to the knowledge of these tests is something else, indeed. Much less the results said tests could/would give. My vote is that the US gov't will keep as quiet as possible about any Proof of God or anything remotely metaphysical.
"holds the atom together whereas it shouldn't be possible." gravity's a trip. anyone care to explain how it can exist?
I wasn't aware that definitions were meant to function in a way that could be proved or disproved. This could be another thread if you want to talk about why gods existence would be overwhelmingly close to zero. I'd really rather not though, after thinking about it. The theoretical physicist you mentioned started a with 50% chance... Is Atheism and Theism the complete list of causes for violence and distrust? Or is there a much bigger list whose items share the same underlying cause? I was incorrect in that atheism actually is a belief, but the fact is negligible. The belief called Atheism only functions to describe the absence of a belief. I overestimated the efficiency of my language. Gravity can exist because there is mass in the universe.
"Gravity CAN exist because there is mass in the universe" that didn't explain the existence of gravity whatsoever.
reasonable request. other than its label, what is the force of attraction between masses and how can it exist? what is its cause? i understand that we have observed a solid relationship between the force that we call gravity and mass, but this does not explain how it can exist.
Mass attracts mass. Its just the nature of the universe. Science is still perusing theories like Higgs Boson (large hadron collider), but this is generally accepted as a top level explanation. Why does heat excite atoms, rather than slow them down? Why is the speed of light 299,792,458 miles per second? Why does life exist in the universe? Everything that is, and ever has been is the nature of the universe, simply because it does exist or has existed. Some things just are. Most religions don't even deny that. Some of them have even convinced themselves that this makes it reasonable to oppress other people. (it doesn't)
heeh2- i agree with much of what you just said. i am attempting to highlight one of the main features of science that makes it imperfect: it is based on forces that we can observe, but do not understand. i think that we can also agree that our ability to observe, even with the most recent advances in technology, is ridiculously limited in scope. as you yourself implied in another thread- our understanding/perception of the universe is constantly in flux. to me, this makes science useful in helping us to interact with what we are able to interact with more efficiently, but not so useful in helping us to understand the true nature of the universe. p.s. by agree, i intended a meaning that would more closely be described as lean towards.
We are working on it. Our limited scope once led us to believe that the earth was flat. Now we plant technology outside of the atmosphere. Do you mean universe as in 'everything that exists anywhere' or in the cosmological sense, to describe solar systems and galaxies and space? For personal reasons I default to the former definition. If this is what you meant I cant agree. Science provides casual depth that eventually has to break down for our brains to understand how or why things exist. Science has given us medicine, electricity, heat for our homes, applicative combustion engines, satellites, cellphones, computers. A boundless array of information about our universe allows all these things. What is more true than existing, and observing the universe?
science has definitely, as you are saying, helped us to interact more efficiently with what we are able to interact with, but it has not helped us to truly understand its very building blocks. as our observation is limited, there must be more truth than we can observe.
We may also cleanse, as they say, the lens of perception. A journey into the "wilderness" beyond the distorting atmospheres of cultural indoctrination, the "trappings" of civilization, the prejudicial view.
Why must there be more truth than what we can observe? I don't deny the possibility, but how do you demand that something we cannot observe must exist?
i was stating that, if our ability to observe is limited, then there is more outside of that scope-unless one believes that they are the only real (or the most perceptive) being in existence-since we all have varying ranges of ability to observe. if we state that there is no more than what we observe, we are also either denying the validity of the observations of those with better (or different) faculties than our own, or the very existence of those with better faculties than our own.