We've been linking to wikipedia this entire thread...
Here goes:
Basic assumptions of science (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7))
1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order.
2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature. Individuals and social exhibit order; may be studied same as nature.
3. All phenomena have natural causes. Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.
4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.
5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.
6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance. (See Sjoberg and Nett previous link)
These are one of many attempts to define the basic assumptions of science. Assumption meaning: There is no proof, but for practical reasons we believe these to be true and go from there.
Science makes no assumptions, it is simply a method of studying something, logic, common sense, and the vast majority of modern understanding is its only real defence against criticism...
The only assumption you really need to make to give science validity is that our perception of the world is in some way based upon its actual nature. And if you don't accept that one then you may as well just imagine yourself a better world and live there, because it would genuinely have just as much value as the 'real' world...
Once you reach a point in which something you know you have made up is just as valid as something you are not sure about you have reached a point at which no scenario has credibility...
Most other sets of assumptions also clearly define God to be out of scope. Some examples:
- Nature follows fundamental rules/laws
God is unnatural? And/or chaotic? If god has no nature then there is no more reason to worship god then there is to worship random chance.
- The principles that define the universe can be discovered
God did not define the universe?
The simple theory is, that if something interacts with the world, that interaction can be measured, and so the interacting thing can be measured, even if the interaction has ceased you can still observe the evidence of that interaction. The only time you could be unable to study something is if it had absolutely no effect on you whatsoever, at which point it is clearly foolish to believe in it because there is, by definition, no evidence to support believing in it. To do something with no reason is pretty much the definition of absolute foolishness...
If there is evidence of god then god can be studied, understood, and an appropriate method of interacting with god can be formulated.
If there is no evidence of god, then god, by definition, only accepts fools and I want no part of it.
If we define the universe as a system containing absolutely everything which interacts with the system, directly or indirectly, than there is, by definition, nothing which interacts with some part of the universe which is not a part of the universe. If there is nothing outside the system influencing it, than it must be a closed system.
If I define a closed box, then it's closed.
It's still not real. 
I know this is hard, but I'm pretty sure that there is always someone outside of your box. "Then my box increases in size to contain that!", well, there's still someone outside of your box. Ad Infinitum.
If I define my world according to sound, which is something I may well wish to do, on a temporary basis, if I were, say, recording music, then I could define the limits of the world based upon the point at which no external influences
can will create detectable sound. I now have my own little world and all sound within it will be caused by elements of my own little world.
Now I could start thinking about what sounds there are outside my world. I might think about how much I like music(this is a fictional character by the way...) and imagine that out there somewhere is the perfect song. Over time I might forget all this and re-imagine it a few times until all I remember is the idea that there is a nice song playing outside. I finally give in and go outside to hear that nice song, and instead I find roadworks, cars, and old reruns of the brady bunch playing. It turns out that since this song didn't actually have any contact with me, I was completely wrong about it, and there really wasn't any sane chance that I could have been right.
It is the same with the above definition of the universe. It encompasses everything with any influence, no matter how indirect, upon any part of our world. If something is not part of our universe then we do, by definition, have no ability to know about it. Given that people know about god, god is a part of that universe, a fictional part, but a part none the less. If indeed there is something beyond the universe, it will never, has never, and currently does not have any contact at all with our universe, and making any claims about it is preposterous.
Author
Topic: Atheists (Read 409775 times)