Thread: Just a question for the atheists

Alright, I not trying to turn this into a hot debate or anything, I just have a question. Atheism uses science to explain things, rather than god, right? All science can do now is explain how things happen instead of why(linked to God). Does an atheist believe science will eventually explain the why of everything? Or is why uninportant to them?

Why?

What the hell are you talking about?

"Why" is explained: "Action because Reaction because Action."

A child asks, "How did that apple fall?"

Your answer, "Gravity from the earth brought the apple towards it. The earth's gravity is stronger than the apple's.

The child then asks "How is the Earth's gravity stronger?"

You say, "because it has more mass."

The child asks, "How do more massive things have stronger gravity"

You say, "They leave deeper impressions in space-time.

Most of the time how can be subsituted for why, until we have no answer. Assuming we avoid questions that boarder philosophy and focus scientifically, we have no answer to explain how. We focus on the ending why-making it easier to say God was behind it. Do atheist believe science will explain How without ever needing a why?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Why?

What the hell are you talking about?

"Why" is explained: "Action because Reaction because Action."

That's circular reasoning.

Is there even a 'why'? Think about that first...

Why should everything have a purpose? What evidence, what hints do we even have that this life, this universe has a purpose?

I think it is just human thinking to want to have a purpose, a deeper meaning for everything. We are so far evolved that we can question stuff... The only thing is that we see everything from a human perspective.
When we see a dog wagging it's tail, it isn't hard to imagine him saying something like 'Oh... it's my boss, hey pal!' Just because he looks so happy. We see the dog speaking, we momentarily see the dog from a human standpoint, simply because the only thinking we know is that of humans... Have you ever thought like a dog?

It's the same with seeing life and the universe. When we do something or make something, we do it with a purpose, with a meaning, and therefore we anthropomorphise nature, life, the world itself, because we can only think in terms of human thinking.
I can remember someone saying he felt sad for pluto because he was degraded to a dwarf-planet... How's that for personifying? It's a rock made of ice!

So yeah... Instead of asking whether science can explain why things are (which implies a creator, by the way... The only thing that can give a purpose to something is a creator... else it just happened, and there can only be a how...), you should ask whether there even is a why...

If you mean the "why" of existence itself, no. That belongs to the realm of philosophy, not science.

Originally Posted by Korittke

If you mean the "why" of existence itself, no. That belongs to the realm of philosophy, not science.

As far as I'm concerned for science to replace religion, a completed science should answer everything, without ever needing the word philosophy.

If science will ever explain everything, eventually our laws of physics/logic, ect. will break down and we will never need a philosopical why. We won't need a why for the universes origin, because we "know", this is assuming we have completed science. I'm just curious if atheist think we can achieve this.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

As far as I'm concerned for science to replace religion, a completed science should answer everything, without ever needing the word philosophy.

If science will ever explain everything, eventually our laws of physics/logic, ect. will break down and we will never need a philosopical why. We won't need a why for the universes origin, because we "know", this is assuming we have completed science. I'm just curious if atheist think we can achieve this.

No.

1. Not every question can be answered by science. This is why we have philosophy.

2. Philosophy and science are complementary. The task of philosophy is not to solve problems, but to identify and clarify them. There is no science without the philosophy of science.

Originally Posted by Korittke

No.

1. Not every question can be answered by science. This is why we have philosophy.

I realize this, I'm just saying it's a possibility that may happen eventually in some distant future when we become "gods" ourselves. Science should cover everything to be "true science". Questions regarding human pondering should be answered with the breakdown of logic/physics. It's hard to grasp as a possibility now only because it's so far into the future.

For example: Is it better to kill 1 person to save 2? Right now it can be argued with moral standards. With the breakdown, we can bypass this question because its too general. We should know the decendents of all the people and who further contributes a cause to humanity and who upsets it. On and on this breakdown will continue, what cause is better? ect. With unlimited sight, cold logic can be applied to anything. Morals would cease to be only as a human condition.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

As far as I'm concerned for science to replace religion, a completed science should answer everything, without ever needing the word philosophy.

So, until people could explain lightning, they should have kept assuming it was caused by the god of thunder?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So, until people could explain lightning, they should have kept assuming it was caused by the god of thunder?

When I mean replace, I mean erradicating religion until it is no more. As of now they both exist. This is because science isn't "complete"-following the atheist view of course. Clear?

What's with all these questions dealing with semantics? Some people just want to discredit others, does it make them feel beter? It's obvious when you brought up god of thunder instead of God. Polytheism isn't as common as monotheism, so I will assume this was spite. Just forget it...

Anyways back on topic.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So, until people could explain lightning, they should have kept assuming it was caused by the god of thunder?

The bible was written at a time when no person could explain lightning, and yet it did not say God was doing it. Why didn't the bible try to explain things like lightning by linking them all to God?

Why means nothing to anybody.


Christians don't need a why, such as: "Why did God make the Earth?"

And other such questions which would destroy the support of Christian theory if answered.

To science, why simply doesn't exist, only the earthly matters of how, when, where, etc. And that is its biggest downfall!