Atheists still haven't answered my question on why science is their crutch?

Question

I posed the question about why atheist use science as a crutch when the very basis of their belief is contradictory? In one way or another I said, how can you believe in science if nothing in science evolves from nothing. How can you use science as a crutch if the very core of your belief is illogical...NOTHING in this entire universe evolves from nothing...so to use things such as evolution and any other means of proving why God doesn't exist is senseless. How can you believe in nothing, if nothing evolves from nothing?

Now I posed the same for infinite values, and as far as the leading scientists in this world, no infinite values exist either. Ok JP, there are black hole theories that constitute such probabilities, but they are not fact just theory.

SO Please atheists, instead of avoiding the question by attacking me with your typical defense mechanisms answer the question, NOTHING MORE. Something tells me you cant and you'll revert back to your typical petty responses.

Answer 1

I'll try to avoid being mean like so many others here.

This is simple. Science, like anything else, is just an approach to the world, but it provides us with actual results and is based on what we perceive. You could say that we're "believing," but it's based on what our senses - the only way we have of interpreting the world around us - tell us. Even theists use their senses to get through life, yes?

And, as others have said, it's not really a crutch. We don't have much choice. We can't just stop using our senses. Besides, there's nothing, at least to me, that is comforting about it. I don't want to cease to exist when I die, but I am prepared to accept that possibility.

I'm actually agnostic, but that doesn't mean I can't reject things. We might be able to say that causality, a part of science, could be a "false" view because it's based on our limited human experiences. But if we deny something like A=A, we're really in trouble, since there's no way of obtaining knowledge without that. Now, using that law, we also grasp the concept of non-contradiction. Some Gods/gods can be disproven by their definitions or by existing facts. Neither evolution nor the Big Bang, whether proven or not, disproves a creator God, so there should be no threat for you. It may call certain texts into question, but little else.

Really, we should all acknowledge how much we don't know and how wrong we can be. All of us - atheists, theists, agnostics... and everyone in-between. It's not a bad thing, and it can only help us to understand our surroundings better, to be open to something more than that to which we limit ourselves.

I would apologize for the behavior of others if I could, but it wouldn't change a thing anyway. Remember, though: expect to get back what you give out.

Answer 2

well last time you talked about Darwin a lot, and what you said about Darwin was just nonsense. I'll try to look into what you are saying.

I don't KNOW why there is something instead of nothing. In fact, I have no idea. But I do think this has nothing to do with believing in God or not. Genesis begins: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It doesn't say why he does it or why he exists. I am not using that as an argument against God, but to show you that the question why there is something instead of nothing is unanswerable and probably meaningless.

Or do you mean that scientific theories are based on the idea that everything has a cause? And how is that possible without a first cause? Is that what you mean? In that case, I'll be happy to tell you that I don't actually believe that. I think that causality is not part of the structure of the universe, but part of the structure of thought and language. "A causes B" does not actually mean anything apart from recognizing the statistical pattern that B happens extremely often (or always) after A. The whole of space-time is just a four-dimensional object, and the characteristics of any part of it don't cause the characteristics of any other part of it any more then the other way around. So no, I don't believe there is causality in the universe itself. Causality is a way to organize the information we have about it. It enables us to make testable predictions about the future. It has nothing to do with the way the universe actually is, because in its totality it doesn't work in any way, it just is. Stuff happens, so to say.

I don't use anything to prove God doesn't exist. I don't believe such proof is ever possible. Why should we need it?

Answer 3

Agnostic here but I'll give it a shot.

I don't know any atheist that has ever stated they know what the very beginning was. They just don't agree with the god theory.

If you look at some stories from the bible about demon possession, god blotting out the sun, stuff like that, all such things have been scientifically explained today. Mental disorders, eclipses, etc. Before such explanations existed, people chalked it up to god or gods.

Now, if you apply that to current day, you'll see what is sometimes assumed as the same thing. Science in no way explains everything. I've never seen anyone make that claim. But rather than continue to chalk up the unexplainable to a god or gods, the logical deduction based on previous examples would be that there is an explanation for it...we just haven't progressed to the level of ability to explain it yet.

This, in part, is one of my major issues with religion. Limiting science (challenging scientific theories with religious theories in education, not allowing scientific research in areas like stem cell research) hinders the advancement of the human race. Much like the book burnings during the crusades, it would be back pedaling our knowledge.

Answer 4

I'm not an Atheist, but I grew up in a protestant family and eventually stopped believing in a god, but after a lot soul searching I eventually realised there was a god.
But let me tell you something, Atheism is based on logic and reason, not faith. The fact that you say nothing in this universe evolves from nothing, means you don't even know what the word "evolve" means. How the universe got from what it was at the time of the big to what it is now was due to "expansion" not "evolution". Evolution relates to life, not astrophysics.
By the way evolution didn't start from nothing, single cell organisms evolved and adapted to the toxic environment on earth. Earth in many ways back then would be similar to what Mars is now with life forms trying to survive. Gradually they evolve to survive and change shape to whatever works with the current environment. Now if you wanna take the piss out of evolution, I would suggest you should learn something about it rather than pretending you know anything about it.

Answer 5

Your question is retarded. You set up a straw man and attack that instead of the actual theories. Evolution is the theory to explain the development of life on earth. The Big Bang explains the formation of the Universe. Not I said formation, not creation or popping into existence of. Science puts forth that matter nor energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only change states between the two. Thus, all matter in existence has always existed in one state or another. The laws of physics explain, in great detail I might add, the rest. Get educated and stop setting up straw men.

Answer 6

You are a clueless idiot and as such you are not going to get sensible answers. You are saying ridiculous things like "how can you believe in science if nothing in science evolves from nothing" it is meaningless drivel.

Come back when you actually have something to say that makes sense.

Answer 7

You are absolutely right. Nothing evolves from nothing. BUT, something can evolve from something different, and does every day.

Evolution is the scientific explanation for how life on Earth has been changing since it began. The Big Bang is ONE OF the theories for how the Universe came into existence. Now, listen very, very carefully: THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THEORY. THEY DON'T EVEN COVER THE SAME TOPIC.

Ok, are we done yet?

Answer 8

The scientific method is not used as a "crutch" as you claim, but rather as an investigative tool - sort of a combination microscope, crowbar, telescope, paintbrush and screwdriver. It even makes little 'ping' sounds.

You claim that the use of this tool is illogical because in science nothing evolves from nothing.

Leaving aside the completely nonsensical nature of that statement, you fail to even indicate why the keen, twin-hulled catamaran of scientific toolage fails to navigate the obfuscatory waters of amaurosic display.

Perhaps if you can contumate the postulation of how a Biblical paradigm of agnate and pre-cognate plumbing can tread the karst-like topography of something evolving from something, then we atheists will shoulder the sub-etha net of duality and re-cognate your thetical leg-brace.

Answer 9

You overstate our adherence to science. We don't follow it dogmatically, and anyway, that would be impossible because science itself is not a dogma. Science embraces the truth, even when it is suprising. Religion wants everything set in stone and unquestionable, which is a pretty totalitarian attitude.

The difference between atheists and the religious is that we don't presume to know the origins of the universe. We're just not content with the explanation you have embraced.

"We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason."

Answer 10

Since when did science assert that something came from nothing? Science is merely explaining how things came to be and it isn't a "crutch". With your statement alone, you're assuming that science is trying to disprove the existence of a deity which is not so.