Mmm... atheism is about as religious as evangelical fundamentalism.
It is impossible (with the scientific method, at least) to prove non-existence of God (defined as being capable of creating the Universe) by any empirical observations from within the Universe. How do you know that our Universe is not a simulation running on a computer (it doesn't even have to be very fast - subjective time doesn't depend on simulator's performance)?
It is not seem to be possible to prove abiogenic hypothesis - even if there's a direct experiment showing that life indeed can arise from inorganic chemicals, it still does not prove that the life on Earth indeed arose in this manner (as opposed to being created by somebody visiting).
The only intellectually honest position is agnosticism. An agnostic can have faith of any kind, as long as he understands that it is not the truth, but rather his personal preference - and that there's possibility that other people may be right.
Оккам учит нас, что из невозможности доказательства существования и невозможности доказательства несуществования более естественно вывести несуществование.
The Occam's Razor is a funny thing (especially when used to justify atheism... Occam was a Franciscan friar:) - it basically is the principle of minimizing assumptions.
But the problem is how one assigns weights to different assumptions. If we simply count them, then Occam's Razor is totally in favor of solipsism, as it only requires exactly one assumption for all the observed phenomena. In reality, the result of its application always depends on prior biases - which was formalized by Bayes, resulting in the statistic containing Aristotelean logic as its asymptotic case.
>prove non-existence of God Атеист не утверждает несуществование богов. Он просто не верит в их существование. Утверждающий несуществование — это сильный атеист, или антитеист (впрочем, последний термин часто используют в несколько другом смысле).
Разница здесь похожа на разницу между асоциальным человеком (ему безразлично общество) и антисоциальным человеком (он враждебен обществу).
>How do you know that our Universe is not a simulation running on a computer (it doesn't even have to be very fast - subjective time doesn't depend on simulator's performance)?
Именно. Это прекрасно согласуется с позицией атеиста.
>It is not seem to be possible to prove abiogenic hypothesis - even if there's a direct experiment showing that life indeed can arise from inorganic chemicals, it still does not prove that the life on Earth indeed arose in this manner (as opposed to being created by somebody visiting).
Доказательства есть ровно в одной области знаний — в математике. За пределами математики нельзя доказать ничего. Можно лишь выводить научные факты. Abiogenesis вполне может стать научным фактом.
Атеист не утверждает несуществование богов. Он просто не верит в их существование.
It must be hard to live without knowing the meaning of the words... the state of perpetual confusion must be rather annoying:)
(All the subsequent definitions are from American Heritage Dictionary).
atheism: n. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
agnosticism: n. 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
Доказательства есть ровно в одной области знаний — в математике.
The word "prove" has different meanings in domains of mathematics and outside of it:
prove: v. proved, proved or prov·en (prōō'vən), prov·ing, proves
v. tr. 1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence. 2. Law To establish the authenticity of (a will). 3. To determine the quality of by testing; try out. 4. Mathematics 1. To demonstrate the validity of (a hypothesis or proposition). 2. To verify (the result of a calculation). 5. Printing To make a sample impression of (type). 6. Archaic To find out or learn (something) through experience.
Abiogenesis вполне может стать научным фактом.
To be a "scientific fact" (which is an oxymoron, because a fact is something which exists independently of any method of its interpretation, such as science; the proper name is "scientific theory") there should be proven causation chain between inorganic reactions and the first biologic replicators. Since these reactions are very unlikely to leave any fossil evidence, the positive causation chain cannot be conclusively established.
The most annoying feature of all modern adherents of cult of scientism is the inability to say "we don't know" - that'd be challenging the dogma of omnipotence of their deity.
>atheism: n. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Из этих трёх (disbelief, denial, doctrine) для атеиста почти всегда имеет место именно первое. Второе и третье редки.
Даже Richard Dawkins, которого часто упоминают по этому поводу, пишет что-то вроде there is almost certainly no god и так далее. Много ли есть христиан, которые говорят almost certainly there is a god?
Из всех определений слова prove релевантны к дискуссии только два: 1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence. 1. To demonstrate the validity of (a hypothesis or proposition). и я не вижу существенных отличий.
Вы можете легко опровергнуть моё утверждение о несуществовании доказательств вне математики. Для этого вам достаточно привести пример доказательства (proof) вне математики. Можете использовать любое из ваших определений.
>To be a "scientific fact" (which is an oxymoron, because a fact is something which exists independently of any method of its interpretation, such as science; the proper name is "scientific theory")
Научный факт, естественно, никакой не оксиморон, а всего лишь воспроизводимое явление. Не больше и не меньше.
>there should be proven causation chain between inorganic reactions and the first biologic replicators. Since these reactions are very unlikely to leave any fossil evidence, the positive causation chain cannot be conclusively established.
Fossil evidence, который вы тут упоминаете, тоже, естественно, ничего не доказывает — а что если кто-то его туда закопал 100 лет назад?
Когда в науке говорят, что жизнь на Земле возникла в результате абиогенезиса, это означает не больше и не меньше, что предположение об этом согласуется с имеющимися данными и позволяет делать предсказания, которые впоследствии можно проверить (в результате чего теория получит дополнительное подтверждение или будет пересмотрена).
Никакой другой истины люди пока получать не научились.
>The most annoying feature of all modern adherents of cult of scientism is the inability to say "we don't know" - that'd be challenging the dogma of omnipotence of their deity.
ну, он привел фактические доводы, но Вы предложили их не принимать во внимание, потому что с Вашей точки зрения, "для атеиста почти всегда имеет место именно первое, а второе и третье редки". Какой смысл спорить с человеком, который по своему усмотрению наделяет смыслом общеупотребимые слова - которые, мало что все знают, что именно обозначают - но Вам даже привели их определение из словаря. Смысла спорить на таком уровне действительно нет.
А вы в курсе, что словари бывают разные? И определения в них тоже разные?
Вот, например, энциклопедия Britannica:
atheism Main
in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
It is impossible (with the scientific method, at least) to prove non-existence of God (defined as being capable of creating the Universe) by any empirical observations from within the Universe. How do you know that our Universe is not a simulation running on a computer (it doesn't even have to be very fast - subjective time doesn't depend on simulator's performance)?
It is not seem to be possible to prove abiogenic hypothesis - even if there's a direct experiment showing that life indeed can arise from inorganic chemicals, it still does not prove that the life on Earth indeed arose in this manner (as opposed to being created by somebody visiting).
The only intellectually honest position is agnosticism. An agnostic can have faith of any kind, as long as he understands that it is not the truth, but rather his personal preference - and that there's possibility that other people may be right.
no subject
no subject
But the problem is how one assigns weights to different assumptions. If we simply count them, then Occam's Razor is totally in favor of solipsism, as it only requires exactly one assumption for all the observed phenomena. In reality, the result of its application always depends on prior biases - which was formalized by Bayes, resulting in the statistic containing Aristotelean logic as its asymptotic case.
no subject
Атеист не утверждает несуществование богов.
Он просто не верит в их существование.
Утверждающий несуществование — это сильный атеист, или антитеист
(впрочем, последний термин часто используют в несколько другом смысле).
Разница здесь похожа на разницу между асоциальным человеком (ему
безразлично общество) и антисоциальным человеком (он враждебен
обществу).
>How do you know that our Universe is not a simulation running on a computer (it doesn't even have to be very fast - subjective time doesn't depend on simulator's performance)?
Именно. Это прекрасно согласуется с позицией атеиста.
>It is not seem to be possible to prove abiogenic hypothesis - even if there's a direct experiment showing that life indeed can arise from inorganic chemicals, it still does not prove that the life on Earth indeed arose in this manner (as opposed to being created by somebody visiting).
Доказательства есть ровно в одной области знаний — в математике.
За пределами математики нельзя доказать ничего.
Можно лишь выводить научные факты.
Abiogenesis вполне может стать научным фактом.
no subject
It must be hard to live without knowing the meaning of the words... the state of perpetual confusion must be rather annoying:)
(All the subsequent definitions are from American Heritage Dictionary).
atheism:
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
agnosticism:
n.
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
Доказательства есть ровно в одной области знаний — в математике.
The word "prove" has different meanings in domains of mathematics and outside of it:
prove:
v. proved, proved or prov·en (prōō'vən), prov·ing, proves
v. tr.
1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.
2. Law To establish the authenticity of (a will).
3. To determine the quality of by testing; try out.
4. Mathematics
1. To demonstrate the validity of (a hypothesis or proposition).
2. To verify (the result of a calculation).
5. Printing To make a sample impression of (type).
6. Archaic To find out or learn (something) through experience.
Abiogenesis вполне может стать научным фактом.
To be a "scientific fact" (which is an oxymoron, because a fact is something which exists independently of any method of its interpretation, such as science; the proper name is "scientific theory") there should be proven causation chain between inorganic reactions and the first biologic replicators. Since these reactions are very unlikely to leave any fossil evidence, the positive causation chain cannot be conclusively established.
The most annoying feature of all modern adherents of cult of scientism is the inability to say "we don't know" - that'd be challenging the dogma of omnipotence of their deity.
no subject
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Из этих трёх (disbelief, denial, doctrine)
для атеиста почти всегда имеет место именно первое.
Второе и третье редки.
Даже Richard Dawkins, которого часто упоминают по этому поводу, пишет что-то вроде
there is almost certainly no god и так далее.
Много ли есть христиан, которые говорят
almost certainly there is a god?
Из всех определений слова prove релевантны к дискуссии только два:
1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.
1. To demonstrate the validity of (a hypothesis or proposition).
и я не вижу существенных отличий.
Вы можете легко опровергнуть моё утверждение
о несуществовании доказательств вне математики.
Для этого вам достаточно привести пример
доказательства (proof) вне математики.
Можете использовать любое из ваших определений.
>To be a "scientific fact" (which is an oxymoron, because a fact is something which exists independently of any method of its interpretation, such as science; the proper name is "scientific theory")
Научный факт, естественно, никакой не оксиморон,
а всего лишь воспроизводимое явление. Не больше и не меньше.
>there should be proven causation chain between inorganic reactions and the first biologic replicators. Since these reactions are very unlikely to leave any fossil evidence, the positive causation chain cannot be conclusively established.
Fossil evidence, который вы тут упоминаете,
тоже, естественно, ничего не доказывает
— а что если кто-то его туда закопал 100 лет назад?
Когда в науке говорят, что
жизнь на Земле возникла в результате абиогенезиса,
это означает не больше и не меньше, что предположение
об этом согласуется с имеющимися данными
и позволяет делать предсказания, которые
впоследствии можно проверить (в результате
чего теория получит дополнительное
подтверждение или будет пересмотрена).
Никакой другой истины люди пока получать не научились.
>The most annoying feature of all modern adherents of cult of scientism is the inability to say "we don't know" - that'd be challenging the dogma of omnipotence of their deity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
no subject
Goodbye.
no subject
>insists on his own interpretation of meaning of common words.
Это, очевидно, здесь?
>Можете использовать любое из ваших определений.
Смешно.
no subject
no subject
Вот, например, энциклопедия Britannica:
atheism
Main
in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
Как видите, Britannica как раз согласна со мной.