How to discuss religion with believers?

[Scientia]

I expected an answer rather than all those questions in response, but I'm familiar with this so I'll play along (I numbered your questions in your original post for ease):


1) The big bang is the most scientific theory because, unlike religion, it is based on the scientifc method. This means scientists went out in the field, made astronomical observations, formulated hypthesis and built a theory around it. 

2) How would you describe something that defies any physical law and makes no real sense, based on what we currently know of this perceived reality? I've read many colourful definitions of god, either some transcendent being that is everywhere and nowhere, knows everything, is intangible and can't be seen but is there and you can perceive it depending on some conditions. Such elusive and vague descriptions allude to the nothingness from my pov, so I just label it as "magic" for ease of speech.

3) You misunderstood what I wrote. I don't personally have any issue with either theory, but from this topic here https://atheistforums.org/thread-52712.html , I could see that one of the main "counter-response" to atheists was the fact that they "seemingly" support abiogenesis. So in response to their "you don't have enough proof of creationism" you answer back with "you don't have enough proof for abiogenesis". I'm trying to move a step ahead and say "I don't know which one is true, but how are you so confident of your own theory? Do you possess some particular piece of evidence that eludes everyone else?"

The thing is, not being able to explain from where life originated at the present moment, doesn't necessarily imply that we have to hurry and see the answer somewhere else. If neither parties can prove it, then just take more time to investigate it further. 

4) Many details are left out, all descriptions of this god are vague and elusive. It's like describing the nothingness. Even anti-matter has an easier to understand definition. Other uncertain things can be found in my original post but I'll copypaste for ease:


5) Basically any time people ask to "disprove" the existence of their god or when they go on about "How do you explain this phenomenon? Your dear science failed to explain it, while my religion can". It's as if they expected science to be already fully evolved and fledged out. It doesn't cross their mind that perhaps science hasn't YET explained it.

Now that I've answered your questions, would you bother to answer the questions I asked in my previous post?

Thanks for your answer and the organized approach.  Just going to respond back, but may have an additional question or two so as to clarify some things.


1.  Can you clarify which study that used the scientific method? Just curious as to how they applied the scientific method to demonstrate it as being feasible explanation

2. Got the "ease of speech" thing.  I believe how we define things are important.  That way we know how to study something.   In other words, if we don't have a basic understanding of what something is supposed to be, then how can we observe it in the context of which it is.

3.  The "creation vs abiogenesis" thing can end up in a wash a lot of times, but we are talking about the past. We've not observing the creation of matter and/or energy, and observe it as law that we won't see it happen by natural processes.  Abiogenesis isn't something that is naturally observed.  Of course we know biogenesis is observable (life begets life), so it's easy to conclude.  Personally, I'm not just interested in organic from inorganic, but also increases and improvements in genetic information, just because you can't go from A to Z if you're still stuck at B or C.

4. I understand where you are coming from here. For me personally, I would rather define something as it is assumed to be. Not how I might want it to be.  If everything was subject to how I choose to define it, then apples could be oranges, and oranges could be whatever I want them to be.,  But I could never explain to someone else what I meant if they assumed the common definition and I was out in outer space with mine.

5. I would suggest that you don't need to try and "disprove God", but I don' have an issue as to both "God" and science providing viable explanations to things.  In practice, I would rather know before I assume, or even discount something.  Of course I have my moments when I can violate my own rules, be it unintentionally.

Also, I already answered your initial question in post #7, but I'll repeat it.

"Be honest to people. Don't make up definitions for things, then assume they'll accept them. Apply logic and use citations from the Internet or literature you are referring to. If you're using two different standards, there's no point. "

1) They started from the hypothesis that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous, which they derived from Sommerfield's constant that puts in relation all the physical constants. It's like taking all the known constants (eg gravitational acceleration, gas constants, proton/electron charge etc) and fusing them together to obtain a cumulative number that acts as our universe's ID. If this number was already 20% different, then that would mean that all the physical laws would be very different and that it'd be another reality/universe. So physicists at the time made some calculations and concluded that any discrepancy in this constant considering how these parameters changed with time was below 0.001% (and therefore the universe as we know it never changed significantly across time, and so it could be considered constant, homogeneous and isotropic).

But this was still an assumption. So later on more scientists tried to contribute to this theory by providing more physical and actual observations, specifically how nebulous corpses and stars behaved relatively to earth, how things moved in space etc. Basically, astronomists observations took turns with other physicists occupied solving equations and they started piling up all these observations and derived equations and eventually reached the current theory. 

I tried to express it in simple terms, so to highlight where the empirical method came into play. If you wanted to delve more into detail of the theory, I don't need to tell you that you could read the wiki page of it. If you want more accountable references than wikipedia, then I can provide you ways to access peer reviewed journals for free. Astronomics and advanced physics are not my field of expertise, so it would even take time for me to fully digest the theory in detail and properly understand it before passing the knowledge onto you. 

Getting back to my first statement, this is why I think the big bang theory is a more scientific approach than creationism, which still remains more vague and mystical. However, taking into account how much I know at the present moment, I can't rule out the latter and so I'm open to both possibilities being plausible explanations of how we arrived here. I don't dismiss it just because the other is more appealing.

2) I agree with you. When discussing more difficult things, I try to put down nails and create a "framework" within which I can discuss with my interlocutor. For example, in my view the concepts of "good and evil" do not exist at all, but for ease of speech I may still use these terms to refer to a set of behaviours and actions, and so I make sure my interlocutor knows what I mean by them in order to avoid misunderstandings.

3) I lost you here a bit . Anyways, I just wanted to point out that I'm not really interested in either of them and that if someone wanted to use any of those as "leverage" in an argument, that I myself put my hands forward and say "I don't know".

4) Reconnecting to point 2), there are some definitions that are more specific and "carved in stone" (eg. anything that is clearly defined in a scientific textbook and typically attributed to objects or physical entities) and harder to misinterpret. Then there are more subjective and questionable concepts such as good/evil, beautiful/ugly, tasty/nasty, etc which are relative to our five senses and to our personal opinion/perception of it. I think the latter do need to be defined, while the former can often go without further clarification. If doubts are still present, it doesn't hurt to ask "what do you mean by X?".

5) What I find hard to accept blindly is not that there is a superior being that created everything. It's a possibility, why not? What I find hard to accept and digest is that this superior being corresponds exactly to the description of god found in quran, or to the description of god found in the bible, etc. 

I can perfectly agree with someone saying "well, maybe we were created by some superior being. Yes, I actually find this more likely to be the case, I believe we were created by some superior and more powerful being that I'm going to label god. It makes more sense this way". 

But when someone comes and says "we were created by this god that said these things and that is depicted as this and that and that orders you to specifically follow these rules, else you go burn in hellfire, as it's written in this book that someone I don't know wrote", my first reaction is "Do you have any hard evidence of this? Did it not cross your mind that whoever wrote that book may have had some bad intention and ulterior motive or was just trying to fool you? How can you be certain that what was written by another man like you corresponds to the truth? How can you be so confident about this specific description of this superior being you call god? What if someone decided to troll humanity on that day and started writing gibberish that eventually became religion? Did anyone have any control over this? What if this religion book indeed spoke the truth but some time-traveler went back in time, rewrote the book at his convenience and went back? You'd be believing some false gibberish written by someone and you'll never be certain.

Can you see my change in position here? I'm fine with not knowing, I'm fine enjoying speculations if I don't have proofs and I'm fine discussing potential views with other people who are aware they don't know. But when someone is so sure about something, and that something does not even follow the commonly accepted procedures of the scientific method (which is, according to me, the most reliable way to understand the reality we perceive at the moment), then I start questioning them to no end. I try to be humble and assume it's ME who overlooked some important information and so I keep asking for further proof.

At this point you could turn the question back to me: how do I know that all the science up to now is 100% true? How can I be so certain that some physicist isolated this or that element? How can I be so sure that the gravitational acceleration is 9.81 m/s2? How can I know for certain that mixing X and Y gives Z? The answer to that is rather simple: it works. 

Do you know why I took chemistry? Chemistry studies the physical interactions of matter at a microscopic level. Its the science that tries to understand the most how things actually work in this world at their fundamental level. I spent a good deal of my time carring out experiments, mixing A + B, confirming what was written books. Most of the time reactions didn't even work as planned, and this would trigger more study of the subject until I understood why it didn't go as planned. At this urrent moment I solved all my questions and doubts relative to my bachelors years, and it was by following science. It works. But now I still have to understand why my last experiment I did on monday didn't go as planned .

Of course I don't have all the time, nor the expertise, to try out every single experiment to confirm that everything science produced so far is foolproof, but it works. It's the reason why airplanes fly, why boats float on water, why burning wood produces heat. It's not because of magic or uncontrollable things. So I would conclude that it's reasonable to assume that science is reliable to a good extent to explain things. Not 100%. I'm in the research field, part of my job is reviewing other peoples' work and I can already tell you that it's not uncommon for people to submit shitty works. But even if I reject their paper, someone else may accept it and so bad science gets published anyways. So in that sense it's not foolproof, but it works to a very good extent. It can evolve, it can reshape itself and adapt to new discoveries and improve itself. Between this and a story book, I'm more inclined to invest in the former. But once again, I'm open to the possibility that the other may be true and so I question and try to understand. So far I didn't change my views though.