Do you believe in fate? I can scientifically prove that it does exist.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
For anyone interested, the result of my attempt at clarifying such terms:
If it's not too personal, what made you go from atheism to Christianity again? If it's off limits, there is no need to answer. I just want to ask, because I find this kind of question very interesting.
I can understand that an atheist would believe in generic supernatural events or become a believer in a deistic-type god. But to go from atheism to a specific religion and a specific god really makes me wonder. It seems to me that something explicit has to take place for that.
Hi Pragmatic, no, not too personal. I'll come back later to share it. :)
@ The Pragmatic, you asked why I came back to Christianity, and thought I'd share a bit. I was raised in a Catholic home and left Christianity a few years back, and was an atheist for part of that time. What led me to atheism, and how I view atheism in general, is really a natural conclusion one may come to, when one feels a deity doesn't exist. It could because that person fails to see the need in a deity, or the holy texts just don't offer any type of answers. It is a path that sort of falls in front of the person, it's not really a choice. At least that is how I viewed atheism at that time. It became an indifference, not a loathing of religion or God, but a path of indifference. I grew to not even care if a god exists. One day last year, I had an experience, in the midst of my indifference, that I would consider to be a spiritual experience. A holy spirit experience. It startled me, and there were other experiences after this...it changed my life. I came back to belief in a deity, because I had an experience. I didn't feel this way about God before leaving faith, and now things are much different. My belief system is different, it isn't a monotone walk through the Bible...but, rather I can understand the Bible in terms that aren't mere stories, but there is meaning there. Perhaps, because of my experience. Having been an atheist, I feel that my faith now is stronger, because of it. Not sure if that makes sense, but I never ''understood'' atheism before, and now I do. It isn't so much something to understand as to experience, as well. Many would say...atheism is experiencing and living in reality. I'd have to agree, but faith now is very much a part of my reality.
Hi, thanks for the answer.
(I only just noticed that you had answered, I almost missed it since I have unread entries in 20-25 threads each time I get back to the forum.)
My impression of your explanation is that you feel that the experience, "A holy spirit experience", was directly connected to Christianity. What I'm wondering is the details about that experience: What in that experience connected back to Christianity?
My own thought is that people in that situation interpret the experience in the context of the religion they grew up with it, or the one they feel most compelling. In other words, a person who had grown up as a Hindu would have interpreted a similar experience within the context of Hinduism.
I also suspect that people who have had such experiences, some times haven't come to their conclusions about it entirely on their own. But that someone from a specific faith has influenced the interpretation.
As I see it, belief in the God of the Bible is very distinct in comparison with belief in a generic god. And there are a million different degrees of strict to loose interpretation of the Bible, reflecting different versions of Yahweh/Jesus.
I'm just curious, so don't feel pressured to answer any questions you don't want to.
In the physical world absolute proof is an illusion inasmuch as inductive reasoning is key to totally new knowledge, and it does not admit certainty. It's always a case of weighing the pros and cons of a claim to see which one is more probable. If one clearly outweighs the other on the scale of evidence and reason, and potential competition is not anywhere in sight, then we accept it as a tentative fact.
Not only do the usual god proofs fail, as you know, but there are powerful reasons why I do not accept god belief. From my perspective God is about as credible as the Easter Bunny. I don't want to go totally off topic, so I won't bore you with the details. It is enough for me to say that, where I'm sitting, it's not much of a conundrum.
As with all of us, you will believe what your mind tells you is right. The only real choice we have is the choice to carefully study the issues and seek out the relevant evidence, to be fully aware of all sides to an issue. In the end you must do what is right for yourself. I'm not here to convert you to atheism (again!) but rather to show (especially to arrogant defamers) that there are strong arguments for atheism. We have the best of reasons for being atheists.
Some of my best friends are Christian, and my very best friend is probably Muslim. Though I will defend my views if called upon, views that I do not hide, I am not in the business of telling them what to believe. We spend our time hiking, looking at the planets occasionally through my telescope, or just playing a friendly game of chess.
Greensnake - "From my perspective God is about as credible as the Easter Bunny."
I'd say the Easer Bunny is slightly more credible, since eggs show up in yards from time to time.
You're right! And there is Santa Claus, who has been sighted everywhere, who has a way better personality than God!
Where did our troll go? He owes chimp3 some evidence! That scoundrel!
"As I have said earlier, "nothing in nature is absolutely certain" because we have to account for tremendous amount of other particles influencing it. But that doesn't make it random. It only makes it almost impossible to calculate. And yes you don't have to say same thing over and over again if you didn't understand what i said"
Sweetie, you pile words together in a unrelated way, and try to make it an argument or an equasion!
Randomness or absence of such dos not prove any kind of fate.
You'd have to define the terms you use, if you want to make any clear argumentation, we can respond to.
and while doing it, your thesis would probably implode..
If you define "Fate" as something at some point pre-determined and unescapable, vs. something non-predetermined and randomly, or intentionally or otherwise) changeable - you may construct a weak kind of short-term-fate-hypothesis - like the tipping point of your little bro on his bike - when it's like, REALLY too late for superman to swoop down and catch him - but you'll never be able to prove that superman MIGHT not, in this instance sneakily-defined-as-fate-in-action swoop down, after all, or bro put a foot out - or the planet spontaneously combust.
You don't even need to go all the way to behavior of small particle or energy, or what-sit.
If you mean by fate the said super causal clockwork experience - it doens't exist, because things don't all follow exact rules and laws all the time that can pnly have one outcome..
A circuit in your brother's brain my fire - and he sticks his foot out, before he falls. A circuit in your brother's brain may fire, but the reflex is hemmed in a panicky confusion, which spontaneously crops up, and he's flat on his face.
Whether you call it "random" or rather "spontaneous" even in a causal world, things, down to the demise-or-not-demise of a single particle in a radioactive blob at a given time, are not pre-determined. It's not a law whether or not they'll happen. "Spontaneity" kills "fate", I'll wager..
But thanks for the interesting challenge!
P.S. you only waste people's time - you remind me of the religious people, who bump into sceptic forums, say . "please tell my why I shouldn't believe the earth is young" and then anwsers to every proper explanation " nope, won't believe it, the bible says sduch and such, where is your evidence my, you are all stupid".
Didn't you read all my comments in this thread?
I explained why I use fate in (Reply to #53)
And your example is very weak that you can google to find why.
Are you at last ready to give chimp3 his evidence?
Yes.. But It would take a while.. We humans have to evolve a little more to have technologies to study things to this astonishing level..
And now listen carefully, chimp3 needs evidence for everything because he cannot make logical conclusion without it.. So he might not be believing in evolution, or theory of relativity, or universality of gravitational constant.. So you should keep an eye and tongue on him..
Did I hear correctly? You advanced your claim of refuting randomness by way of teeny-tiny particles and then declare that, in time, evidence would be forthcoming to support that claim! Don't we start with the evidence (like Sherlock Holmes) and then draw our conclusions? Has there been a revolution in epistemology that I missed?
I doubt that chimp3 "believes" in evolution! I suspect that he accepts it as a highly probable explanation for the diversity of life, so probable in fact that it would be perverse to dismiss it. Why wouldn't chimp3 seek evidence for all his conclusions concerning our world? Is he supposed to draw his conclusions without even considering the evidence--as you do? I hope that this is a communications breakdown on your part rather than a total brain implosion!
" highly probable explanation " Yes.Since you accepted that, you really made things easier for me.. It justifies my arguments too as i have said earlier.. And if you think there isn't the minimum probability in my argument required to accept as in the evolution theory , comment, I'll clarify..
"Why wouldn't chimp3 seek evidence for all his conclusions concerning our world?" proving scientifically doesn't necessarily mean that there should be strong evidence to support it.. (And I think you already know that too)..
You are speaking in riddles again! I haven't the foggiest idea as to what you are talking about. I really don't have the time or inclination to review all your posts (in this long thread) every time you cryptically throw something out. Just maybe you could deliver posts that are self-explanatory. You do have a copy button, don't you? If you need to refer us to a block of previous material, you could just paste it in. Just don't waste a lot of space on a lot of nothing. Have a concise idea in mind.
"Proof" in the scientific world just means a high level of professional confidence, and that confidence can only come from the evidence. I never heard of a scientific theory in modern times being established on the basis of weak evidence! That's an oxymoron. So, what ARE you talking about?
"Just don't waste a lot of space on a lot of nothing." OH THE IRONY
I have studied evolution and relativity. I am convinced there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the theories. Not only that but I find the theories beautiful and awe inspiring. Your premise that the laws of physics equals predetermination / fate I find flimsy and mundane. Belief is not an issue. You just are not convincing me.
"evidence to support the theories" Let me borrow your shoes for 1 sec.. Give me evidence for evolution and relativity..
"I find the theories beautiful and awe inspiring" but my argument is not convincing you. Is that your final argument?
Your argument? So far all we have received is a collection of unsubstantiated speculation! I have yet to see a serious argument. Aren't you the one who said you had proof ruling out pure chance? Well, where is it? (By the way, strong evidence for evolution has been discussed at some length by myself--and possibly others--in earlier threads. As for relativity, your GPS wouldn't work if it didn't take into account Einstein's special and general theories of relativity.) Chimp3 has given you his evaluation of evolution and relativity (based on previous studies) and of your claim (based on all that you have said in this thread). It's not a snap judgment as you seem to imply in your usual cryptic response!
I read books. I suggest you do the same. No use for one man who is not a scientist to provide other peoples hard earned evidence to another non scientist. I recommend Origin of Species to begin with.
Is it your assertion that physical laws only allow one single pathway for particles thus equating with fate? If laws allow for multiple possible pathways then evidence for fate is not met.
Yes.. If we have multiple pathways, then there should be a reason causing that..
Almighty: "Yes.. If we have multiple pathways, then there should be a reason causing that."
"A" reason? Maybe multiple reasons?
I am not convinced we have evidence for predetermination or fate. Too many multiple pathway options open.
After all everything has reason behind it.. Atleast you accepted that much
A deterministic system would only have one pathway between cause and effect. I. e., the same cause must always give the same result. Right? However, in the magnetic moment experiment given by Nyarlathotep the input variable is limited to just one thing, the angle for the magnetic moment of a particle, a property that can easily be set up, a property that's not affected by unseen particles. Yet, particles with the same angle for their magnetic moment, striking the same detector, show that one cause (the two coming together) can produce two different effects. The actual path must be by pure chance. If it was determined in some way then the path would always go one way or the other. You wouldn't have a mix.
I wonder if any atheist so fixated on fate and predetermination might be looking for excuses for personal faults and behaviors. "The Big bang made me do it!"
"personal faults and behaviors" so you thought that personal faults and behaviours are random and not based on your DNA and your personal experience?
I would say that living within physical confines is not equal to fate or predestination.
As I have said earlier, If the causes are exactly same, then the result should also be same..
In the experiment, angle for the magnetic moment is dependent.- Yes.. And how does the angle affect the probability?
"a property that can easily be set up, a property that's not affected by unseen particles" explain why you concluded so?
"If it was determined in some way then the path would always go one way or the other" At any particular instant, there is only one way. There isn't any mix.