What 'evidence' and 'reasons' exactly are atheists after.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is the final word on matters of reality¹. Despite all the long words and philosophical waffle that people spout on the subject of science, the core idea is very simple (to paraphrase Feynman): "if your idea disagrees with experiment, it is wrong". i.e. if you compare your idea with what actually happens in the World and what happens is not what your idea says happens, your idea is wrong.

It really is that simple and nobody has yet invented a better way to find out about the World that exists outside of our minds.

¹but it is a final word that can change when new evidence comes in.

What experiment has been done to prove that science is the final word on matters of reality?

When Feynman talks about science and ideas isn't he talking more about scientific hypotheses?

How come science experimentation reveals a big bang and yet there are a few on here yearning for the universe to have existed from infinity?

[jeremyp]

What experiment has been done to prove that science is the final word on matters of reality?

We don't need an experiment. It's the only thing that works.

When Feynman talks about science and ideas isn't he talking more about scientific hypotheses?

That's what science is. It's making hypotheses and then finding out if they are wrong. There's no need to make it any more complicated than that unless you want to obfuscate a question.

How come science experimentation reveals a big bang and yet there are a few on here yearning for the universe to have existed from infinity?

Yearning is not science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We don't need an experiment.

Yep, OK.

Yearning is not science.

So the final word, as you say, at the moment is the big bang?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We don't need an experiment. It's the only thing that works.

But you've been banging on about experiments Jeremy so how come your theory that science is the only thing that works on reality is the one thing that doesn't need experimentation.

Seems to me you have jumped the bounds of science into philosophy.

[Stranger]

How come science experimentation reveals a big bang and yet there are a few on here yearning for the universe to have existed from infinity?

Who do you think is yearning for that? We have well established theories that take us back to a tiny fraction of a second after what becomes a singularity if we extrapolate GR back further. What actually happened before that is unknown because quantum effects and gravity are both involved and we don't have a tested theory that units them.

We simply don't know if time started at that point or if it extends back further (possibly infinity further), or something else we haven't even thought of yet.

However, if GR is substantially correct about what space-time is, then look back in time for the reason what the space-time exists is still wrong-headed, Newtonian thinking.

[Alan Burns]

Yearning is not science.

It is evidence of our consciously driven freedom to choose what we want to yearn about. 

[Owlswing]

It is evidence of our consciously driven freedom to choose what we want to yearn about. 

Unless you are Christian, in which case that ruddy book tells you exactly and precisely what you are allowed to yearn for and what will happen to you if you yearn for something that is forbidden!

[Stranger]

It is evidence of our consciously driven freedom to choose what we want to yearn about. 

Except we obviously don't have such a freedom. Try yearning for something you dislike.

[ippy]

Unless you are Christian, in which case that ruddy book tells you exactly and precisely what you are allowed to yearn for and what will happen to you if you yearn for something that is forbidden!

Owl, the poor bloke is totally indoctrinated into a thick catholic fog, you wont get through to him.

ippy.

[Owlswing]

Owl, the poor bloke is totally indoctrinated into a thick catholic fog, you wont get through to him.

ippy.

Ain't that true - it is truly the most pathetic form od indoctrination.

It would be progress if, at the very least, these sheep would agree that, as I have said on many ocassions, my religious beliefs are just that, beliefs and matters of faitrh - I do not claim it to be anything else.

[Outrider]

When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?

Not speaking for anyone else here, but for my mind... I don't know.  I can't really conceive of what evidence would be enough to support such a massive claim.  The problem is that the very concept of 'evidence' starts to break down when you're looking at claims of magical entities - if the magic is real, no evidence is reliable, which makes claims of evidence in support of the magic problematic.

O.

[jeremyp]

But you've been banging on about experiments Jeremy so how come your theory that science is the only thing that works on reality is the one thing that doesn't need experimentation.

It’s not a theory, it’s an observation.

Seems to me you have jumped the bounds of science into philosophy.

Seems to me you should be Less obsessed with labels and more concerned with what people say.

[splashscuba]

When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?

I'm not after any evidence. There are an infinite other things I could choose to believe in apart from your god.

[Alan Burns]

Who do you think is yearning for that? We have well established theories that take us back to a tiny fraction of a second after what becomes a singularity if we extrapolate GR back further. What actually happened before that is unknown because quantum effects and gravity are both involved and we don't have a tested theory that units them.

We simply don't know if time started at that point or if it extends back further (possibly infinity further), or something else we haven't even thought of yet.

However, if GR is substantially correct about what space-time is, then look back in time for the reason what the space-time exists is still wrong-headed, Newtonian thinking.

The physicist, Stephen Hawking, offered substantial evidence that time as we know it started from the singularity of the Big Bang.  It is misleading to say "what happened before the Big Bang" because this implies time continuing to extend back.  It may be more accurate to consider what happens or exists outside the Big bang, or more accurately, outside our universe.  Outside the universe could be an existence which is aware of this universe and its time dimension, but not part of it.

[Stranger]

The physicist, Stephen Hawking, offered substantial evidence that time as we know it started from the singularity of the Big Bang.

No, he did not.

It is misleading to say "what happened before the Big Bang" because this implies time continuing to extend back.

As I said, we simply don't know because there is no tested theory of quantum gravity and that will have an impact on what did or did not happen at the time general relativity predicts a singularity.

In any event I was talking about before the time that our tested theories allow us to go back to (when quantum gravity effects would become significant). I'm not denying that that it's perfectly possible that time started at the BB.

It may be more accurate to consider what happens or exists outside the Big bang, or more accurately, outside our universe.  Outside the universe could be an existence which is aware of this universe and its time dimension, but not part of it.

And gravity could be caused by little purple, multi-dimensional pixies, all called Eric, that pull at the fabric of space-time....

[Outrider]

And gravity could be caused by little purple, multi-dimensional pixies, all called Eric, that pull at the fabric of space-time....

Did you just assume Erica's gender?!?

O.

[Alan Burns]

No, he did not.

I take it that you have not read (or understood) his book "A Brief History of Time"

[Alan Burns]

And gravity could be caused by little purple, multi-dimensional pixies, all called Eric, that pull at the fabric of space-time....

But no little purple, multi-dimensional pixies ever came into our universe, becoming one of us in order to witness to the existence of what exists outside and offer us the choice and means to join them in eternity.

[Roses]

But no little purple, multi-dimensional pixies ever came into our universe, becoming one of us in order to witness to the existence of what exists outside and offer us the choice and means to join them in eternity.

There is no evidence any god exists either.

[Stranger]

I take it that you have not read (or understood) his book "A Brief History of Time"

I have, and it didn't offer "substantial evidence that time as we know it started from the singularity of the Big Bang". IIRC in that book he proposed his "no boundary conditions" hypothesis using imaginary time.

It was and remains nothing more than one hypothesis amongst many others and there is no actual evidence for any of them. We need a properly tested theory that unites General Relativity with Quantum Field Theory to understand what happened at the time when GR predicts a singularity.

[Stranger]

But no little purple, multi-dimensional pixies ever came into our universe, becoming one of us in order to witness to the existence of what exists outside and offer us the choice and means to join them in eternity.

I see no more substantial evidence that any god did this than any purple, multi-dimensional pixies did...

[torridon]

But no little purple, multi-dimensional pixies ever came into our universe, becoming one of us in order to witness to the existence of what exists outside and offer us the choice and means to join them in eternity.

but if they had done, in antiquity, allegedly, would you accept said little purple beings as your saviour ? The main difference is that Jesus was not purple. So far as we know.

[Stranger]

I take it that you have not read (or understood) his book "A Brief History of Time"

Further to my last post - for an entirely different view, try Cycles of Time by Roger Penrose (who has published joint papers with Hawking). Not for the maths-phobic, however.

[Alan Burns]

I see no more substantial evidence that any god did this than any purple, multi-dimensional pixies did...

So you are deliberately ignoring the historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
And the thousands of personal witness stories concerning life changing events relating to Jesus?
Like many others, you choose to think up reasons to dismiss the reality and walk away from it - despite all the evidence which is there to discover for anyone who chooses to seek it.

[Gordon]

So you are deliberately ignoring the historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

There is no historical 'evidence' of any resurrection, Alan: just fantastical anecdotal dates of uncertain provenance that are, as I've often said, indistinguishable from fiction.

And the thousands of personal witness stories concerning life changing events relating to Jesus?

On what methodological basis do these tales represent hard evidence of Jesus, as opposed to faith-based wishful thinking?

Like many others, you choose to think up reasons to dismiss the reality and walk away from it - despite all the evidence which is there to discover for anyone who chooses to seek it.

Nope - if the 'evidence' is there then so is the method used to gather, analyse and quantify it: since you have no method then you have no evidence worthy of the term.