Replies to Ideas that Atheism Is Supported By Scientific Evidence

I wrote the following in reply to comments on my video 'The Ignorance of Atheism' elsewhere. It works toward a logical consideration of the unscientific concept.... Human knowledge has accumulated through conscious effort. Human beings seem to exists in a large space (universe). It seems to be a functioning event process. Uncertainty arises before its origin and follows it entropic demise or phase transition ahead. What human experience actually is in't certain.. it may be described just in the circumstance of social and existential relativity.

Metaphysically remember Bishop Berkeley as well as Emperor Theory.

Plotinus described some of the One, Christians know The Son.Logically the atheist/atheist position for itself are two sides of a coin with agnosticism on the edge.

If one regards atheism as a faith or belief rather than a positivist assertion made without evidence, it then would be entitled to be regarded as an example of the Argument From Ignorance that Bertrand Russell invented. I am not sure of what 'other perspectives' might exist on belief in God, belief that god does not exist and the point of uncertainty.

Those three opinions seem to encompass what one might have about it. It is rather like the binary states of computers today in the on or off setting. Eventually with quantum computers it may be possible to have more states than that though one cannot know for sure right now.

God is not regarded as a creature incidentally. If one might say anything about Him analogously it might be more like a Unified Field containing and setting an infinite number of potential forms to be or become deterministicaly. Human forms and referent Universes are phenomenal denotations within His experience. He has promulgated nature in accord with His will.

One should be aware that the political and sociological criteria of dissent from faith is not the same question as an objective investigation of nature on in search of evidence for or against the existence of God. There are valid historical circumstances where political reform in liberation from oppression by state religions were valid, and of course the opposite situation where religious minorities or even minorities were persecuted, exiled or slaughtered by governing power.

That atheists tend to rely too much upon the work of refuting ancient doctrines is one of the salients points I made in the video essay. That is an historical approach to finding objective cosmological evidence-certainly a less than scientific approach.

Perhaps Jews invented History writing. The Greeks had Homer but Thucydides was tardy comparatively. This isn't, with respect, a history 101 class.

The point about divine inspiration is a good one-intriguing especially for the New Testament....

One might disprove the Ptolemaic cosmology and discount the possibility that any unified field theory could exist I suppose, and have a paradigm something like the reasoning of atheists that are theoretical physicists today when they extract an argument for atheism based on criticism of Zoroastrainism, the Bible or whatever.

The Bible is not historical fiction. It is not Don Quixote.or The Tales of Genji. Neither was it Sophocles or Euripidean in style. Kings, Chronicles and so forth are some of the best history of the era existing. I did point out in the video however that atheists rely on badly formed criticisms of the Bible to infer atheism.

Ockham's razor would suggest that one be agnostic on the topic taking Wittgenstein's 'Whereof I cannot speak thereof I must be silent'.

Atheist opinion may be developed by ignoring scientific method. It may also be developed by ignoring Biblical facts and levering a false alternative with a straw man.

Good opinions are well informed; atheist opinion is not.

One is aware of the argument of William James about the consequences of placing a wrong bet on faith and salvation, yet that aside, the absence of conclusive proof as in any scientific endeavor ought to leave one agnostic. Mixing up scientific method with philosophy and. theology, Biblical history and so forth isn't a good way to find purely scientific proofs.

A logical fallacy. I can't recall the name of it, although I could search for that. Philosophers of logic worked on that kind of issue in the 50's and 60's or even earlier. I can't duplicate that work here to help explain it. Kripke's 'Naming and Necessity' and Russell's description of names provide insight into why not all verbal constructions have referent objects. That isn't the issue with God though.

Deductive and informal fallacies are common. The Argument From Ignorance asserts the existence of anything that cannot be disproved. That works in the opposite direction as well for asserting the state of non-existence for anything for which there is no evidence.

One can use dead reckoning judgments to generalize odds for referents without support of objective evidence; contingent probability perhaps.

The fallacy of composition also may afflict cosmology, politics and defense.

Consider the mythic history of Pegasus. People disbelieve that, however what Europeans disbelieve is probably different from the original legend arising in Greece.

If the white horse with wings is a northern European idea transformation of the Greek legend of a horse so fast that it could be said to fly, it is possible that there was an Arabian stallion that was brought by ship to Greece long ago, perhaps even over as far as Troy able to outrun the slower European horses and becoming legend.

Deductive and informal fallacies are common enough. Russell's Argument From Ignorance asserts the existence of anything that cannot be disproved. That works in the opposite direction as well for asserting the non-existence for anything for which there is no evidence.

There is simply no known evidence in support of atheism that would meet even minimal scientific criteria.

The acceptance of any sort of universal proposition describing the non-existence of a non-contingent Supreme Being is implicitly incomprehensive. It is something like using a set of even numbers to prove that no odd numbers exist (if one had not yet discovered them).

Theories of knowledge or epistemology moved into formal logical paradigms can be in an ontology of meanings regarded as verified or not. There is a verificationist theory of truth incidentally.

Determining the truth values of language constructions is a philosophical practice, as it is for anyone.

It isn't a simple topic. Noam Chomsky provided an example of a sentence that is meaningless yet semantically correct...

at wikipedia...Colorless_green_id­eas_sleep_furiously

There are several methods of describing sentences or propositions that have no object of reference. A theory of names (Kripke and Russell) can be realist or nominalist, Yet Quine also developed a language term structure called an ontology. Propositions and names may have a descriptionist form. Krike at least expressed the form 'x such that Fx' in Naming and Necessity. He said that the form is be used for names as well as descriptions.

X can be any thing that exists. One may use existential quantification and say that there is at least one X in the Universe such that Fx. F might be any sort of adjective, verb, phrase etc that describes the referent X. Lexicons are lists of meaningful content of a language.

The 20th century philosopher Carnap provided the grammatically correct yet meaningless nonsense phrase "This stone is thinking about Vienna". Perhaps it could be said to have a value as an abstract fiction enabling thought about the inability of stones to think at all.

Existential quantification as a construction with words from a lexicon refer to known referents or speculative referents, yet cannot meaningful refer to unknown referents... such as... ∃ (is a Universe without a Creator)

Gödel's incompleteness theorems of natural numbers demonstrated the inability of axioms to provide necessary proofs of consistency of themselves. I believe a correlative example is that there cannot be a set of all sets containing itself. Cantor's trans-finite number series cannot get around that.

One is left with an infinite number of possible cosmological theories for which the infinite number of possible Universes is just one trans-finite set. It is not possible to place a finite cap on any given Universe that would provide information of the unknown state of non-existence of a Creator for any given Universe that exists. It is perhaps not even possible to apply the concept of a non-Created Universe to all possible Universes rather than just a or one Existentially quantified, and of course begging the point of completeness of proof.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html