Flaw of Atheism in Regards to Science

[emprworm]

Most atheists rule out the supernatural before science even begins.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Interesting read ... i thoroughly enjoyed it.

[VigilVirus]

First of all...atheism is not a religion. It's the absense of religion.

I've read about the multiverse theory and thought it to be quite interesting and plausible however. Natural, supernatural - it doesn't really matter. If another universe/parallel dimension were to exist some laws would apply to it. They might be different laws, but they can still be studied through science if they are observed, even if you do call them "supernatural".

[nemafakei]

I'd reply to the conent, but there's really not much point...

What is/are universii, by the way?

[filecore]

What is/are universii, by the way?

Root plural of "universe"?

[emprworm]

First of all...atheism is not a religion. It's the absense of religion.

I've read about the multiverse theory and thought it to be quite interesting and plausible however. Natural, supernatural - it doesn't really matter. If another universe/parallel dimension were to exist some laws would apply to it. They might be different laws, but they can still be studied through science if they are observed, even if you do call them "supernatural".

some atheist scientist have speculated that other universes exist, that are completely seperate and not part of our own.

[nemafakei]

My question was a linguistic one, not some arrogant statement to be replied to in kind.

"Root plural of "universe"?  It's clumsy to say "universes", and most probably incorrect (although I confess to not knowing the correct plural to "universe", "universii" sounds about right).

After all, what would you use to refer to plural hippopotamus? Radius? etc"

Universus (-i) is the latin, and if we used universus in English, the correct plural would indeed be universi.

But we use the ending -e, so the correct plural is universes. There's not even much of an argument for expedience on this one, as verse becomes verses quite happily. Oh, and it means all that exists (and is derived precisely from the sort use of all that is given to exist, whether you like it or not, emprworm). Perhaps the word 'cosmos' is better suited to your use.

Universii, however, seems to be overcomplicating things beyond measure (rather begging the question "Why?", which I won't answer, as my best estimate probably constitutes an insult).

In case you haven't guessed, I don't like people misusing or trying to change the meaning of words.

[emprworm]

uh ok. 

simplicity is not necessarily an axiom that would apply to a multiverse.  there is no rational basis to assume this. a negative universe may or may not be simple.  time may flow backwards in one universe, forward in another.

point being: there is no rational basis for ruling out the supernatural before science begins

[nemafakei]

"simplicity is not necessarily an axiom that would apply to a multiverse.  there is no rational basis to assume this. a negative universe may or may not be simple.  time may flow backwards in one universe, forward in another.

point being: there is no rational basis for ruling out the supernatural before science begins"

Was that meant to be in response to my post, or an addition to your previous? If it was in response to mine, I don't quite see how it has any bearing on what I've put.

[emprworm]

"simplicity is not necessarily an axiom that would apply to a multiverse.

[nemafakei]

Ok.

[Filo]

Universe or multi-universe, including God or not, remains a mystery, especially about creation.

The question is : how the universe was created?

A mystery that even science cannot explain, and never will explain. So untill we find, it's supernatural. Even atheists must agree that.

And if God do exists, the theists contend that He created the universe. But they must admit they cannot answer to the question : how God was created?

[emprworm]

Universe or multi-universe, including God or not, remains a mystery, especially about creation.

The question is : how the universe was created?

A mystery that even science cannot explain, and never will explain. So untill we find, it's supernatural. Even atheists must agree that.

And if God do exists, the theists contend that He created the universe. But they must admit they cannot answer to the question : how God was created?

why do you assume everything is 'created?"

neither atheists, nor theists make this assumption.

your opinion is quite isolated.

[Filo]

A scientist will say: All that exists may have been at least created, otherwise it doesn't exist.

A theist will say : All that exists has been created by God, except God Himself, who is eternal.

My own answer will be : I don't know, so I don't dare contending any theory about creation. I just suppose that space is infinite and time is eternal, just like the quest of truth in human's mind.

[Acriku]

Until there is actual evidence of a supernatural event, and this is quite a big feat by itself - conclusively showing that it was supernatural in the first place is beyond difficult, why should a scientist even consider supernatural events? Scientists use evidence found to formulate theories, they do not formulate theories and bend evidence to support them.

[emprworm]

Science should never rule them out.

Are you ruling out supernatural events before science begins?

[Acriku]

Well, first define what is supernatural, so I can understand exactly what atheist scientists are ruling out. Pwease?

[emprworm]

Well, first define what is supernatural, so I can understand exactly what atheist scientists are ruling out. Pwease?

already defined.  you have a nasty, (always had) profanely excessive habit of skimping posts.

[Acriku]

already defined.  you have a nasty, (always had) profanely excessive habit of skimping posts.

No, as I recall you defined what is supernatural in terms of another universe acting upon ours. Can you define it in terms of one universe, that is, ours?

[Warskum]

i believe he explained what supernatural is.

This is what hey sayd:

"If another universe, say a mirror universe where gravity repelled objects, interacted with our universe, the event would be supernatural, since no natural law to our universe could explain it."

I think the last part were it says no natural law can explain it is the important part, if something cannot be explained by a NATURAL law then that thing is supernatural.

(could be wrong :-)

[Filo]

... if something cannot be explained by a NATURAL law then that thing is supernatural.

Therefore, the Creation is supernatural, even scientists or atheists must admit it.

[emprworm]

No, as I recall you defined what is supernatural in terms of another universe acting upon ours. Can you define it in terms of one universe, that is, ours?

already did.

[TMA_1]

guys, I know this is off topic, but there is something even greater happening.

How many threads up at the top of PRP are NOT of gunwounds and empr?lol isnt this scary to any of you guys? Saruman and his servent grima...

I am just concerned that maybe the board will be overturned.

[Cyborg]

It doesn't need to have been a creation at all...

Perhaps there is neither a beginning nor an end...

Atheist:  "No event in the universe needs a supernatural cause.  All events are necessarily natural"

True Scientist:  "Not all events in the universe are necessarily natural.  To rule out the supernatural before science even begins is irrational."

You're maybe right here, but remember that theists say:

"God created the universe, of course."

That is just as stupid, if not more, as the atheist answer.

Remember too that being a scientist is a profession, whereas being an atheist is just being a free thinker. They can even be combined...

[Acriku]

already did.

Ok, let's go with what Warskum highlighted, that is, something natural law can't explain.

First off, wouldn't calling anything supernatural be contrary to "true" science, after all how can you judge if it cannot be explained by natural law without jumping to conclusions?