Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 1 of 310 (485855)
10-12-2008 1:05 PM


Is it possible for science to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
Has science in fact already achieved this?
What exactly is the "god hypothesis"? What must such a hypothesis entail if it is to be able to be subjected to scientific enquiry (which after all is the very meaning of the term hypothesis)?
Is it even possible to apply the term "hypothesis" to such a concept as God/gods/deities/supernatural creators? Or are such concepts inherently beyond the restricted nature of scientific investigation?
  • Does science provide the founding principles for atheism or not?
  • Does science provide the founding principles for deism or not?
Do EvC members consider science to be the foundation upon which their own individual position is founded?
Where members do consider science to be the foundation upon which they base their beliefs, are such conclusions valid?
Here at EvC we have a vast variety of beliefs. From biblical creationists to ardent atheists. With everything in-between. Including theists who neither seek nor require physical evidence for their beliefs and deists who claim that none is possible. The atheists, and I include myself in this category, seem almost without exception to consider their position scientifically valid. But is it?
I want to try and split the usual pack of EvC anti-theists to examine the validity of our own beliefs. Are they consistent? Are they scientifically justified? How much do we actually agree with each other beyond a mutual non-theist position?
Creationist assertions that their views are equally evidenced I am going to ignore as trivially refuted for the sake of this debate. This whole forum constantly and repeatedly examines those issues. I want this thread to explore a different question.
What I am really interested in is - To what extent do atheists, deists and the most rational of theists require science to be necessary to their world view.
And to examine how justified, in scientific terms, such world views actually are.
Personal position: As regulars at EvC will be fully aware I am part of the full blooded atheist contingent. I am also a keen advocate of the scientific method and broad scientific position. And yes I do consider these to be related. However I have had a brief dalliance with deism and can see why some might default to this position.
Is any position regarding the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities scientifically verifiable?
If not what is it about the atheistically and deistically minded that results in a correlation with their advocacy of science as the reliable method of investigation?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed the topic title from "Beyond Reasonable Doubt?" to a variation (needed to shorten for it to fit) of the message 1 opening sentence: "Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?"
Edited by Admin, : Limit bold text to just the list.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2008 2:21 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 10-12-2008 3:01 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 9 by dogrelata, posted 10-12-2008 3:44 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 27 by ikabod, posted 10-13-2008 3:47 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 40 by Logic, posted 10-13-2008 8:20 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 41 by Logic, posted 10-13-2008 8:21 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 42 by onifre, posted 10-13-2008 10:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 310 (485857)
10-12-2008 2:11 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 310 (485860)
10-12-2008 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-12-2008 1:05 PM


Invisible to Science
It is impossible for science to refute something that it invisible to it. A God that doesn't do anything we can detect can't be disproved scientifically at all. Maybe some God concepts can be disproved scientifically, but it is hard to see how the general case can be dealt with.
Instead of stating that there is no God based on solid science we should take a more tentative position based on philosophical considerations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 1:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 2:30 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 4 of 310 (485862)
10-12-2008 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
10-12-2008 2:21 PM


Re: Invisible to Science
How far removed from any physical effect on the universe at all are theists or deists willing to go regarding their particualr entity?
I would also say that all scientific conclusions are tentative to some degree. Even the most well founded, generally accepted and unambiguous are potentially refutable. This does not mean that to all practical intensts and purposes some theories are "true". Nor does it mean all POV are equal.
The question I ask is to what degree do atheists or deists consider the findings of science to support their view. Or, more to the point, do atheists and deists consider their views to be derived from science and if so is such thinking valid?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2008 2:21 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 3:09 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 33 by ICANT, posted 10-13-2008 12:53 PM Straggler has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 5 of 310 (485865)
10-12-2008 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-12-2008 1:05 PM


quote:
Is it possible for science to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
This question cannot be answered without specifying exactly what the "god hypothesis" is.
quote:
What must such a hypothesis entail if it is to be able to be subjected to scientific enquiry (which after all is the very meaning of the term hypothesis)?
At a minimum, it must include some real world, observable consequences. In addition, if the postulated consequences are something that could occur even in the absence of god (the "good guys" beating the "bad guys" in a war, for example), there must be some way to distinguish a god-influenced outcome from a non-god-influenced outcome.
I am not of the belief that postulated miracles cannot be scientifically investigated, to a degree. To the extent that the means of creating a miracle are supernatural, the means cannot be scientifically investigated. But, to the extent that a particular observed phenomenon is attributed to a miraculous agent, I think that can be investigated. In the process of this investigation, one must be particularly careful of not simply falling for an argument from ignorance.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 1:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 3:18 PM subbie has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 6 of 310 (485867)
10-12-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Straggler
10-12-2008 2:30 PM


Re: Invisible to Science
All options are still on the table IMO. However i need to see proof that true randomness exists and hence the random mutations that brought our existence, before i can consider seriously atheism. But proving that randomness exists will likely come with the eventual Theory of Everything, so it might take quite a while.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 2:30 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2008 3:21 PM Agobot has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 7 of 310 (485869)
10-12-2008 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
10-12-2008 3:01 PM


Physical?
I think I agree.
It all comes down to what extent the supernatural entity in question is supposed to have influenced, or continue to influence, the physical world.
If the supernatural entity in question has never had any interracation with the physical world at all then such an entity would be wholly invisible to science.
However any such entity which has had any physical effect at all, whether it be creation, supervision, answering prayers, instigating the initial laws requiredf for creation or whatever then such an entity is at least theoretically possible to deduce and examine via empirical means.
Do any theists or deists really claim that their entity of coice has absolutely no physical role in the universe whatsoever?
Is the atheist conclusion that no such thing is at all likely to exist, regardless of physical effect, borne of science or philosophy? And how does this relate to the broadly scientific advocacy of atheists?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 10-12-2008 3:01 PM subbie has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 310 (485870)
10-12-2008 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Agobot
10-12-2008 3:09 PM


True Randomness
quote:
However i need to see proof that true randomness exists and hence the random mutations that brought our existence, before i can consider seriously atheism.
In the strict mathematical sense, mutation need not be "truly random" . The point is that there is no direct connection between circumstances that make a particular mutation beneficial and the probability of that mutation (rather than some other) occurring. And - despite some excitement a while back (which turned out to have another explanation) - that is what is observed in experiments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 3:09 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 5:17 PM PaulK has replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5313 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 9 of 310 (485872)
10-12-2008 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-12-2008 1:05 PM


Potential for role reversal?
I think it well suits the theistic communities that their god(s) are undetectable, and liable to remain so. However, should science ever start to detect ”supernatural’ phenomena, which might suggest some form of deism, I do wonder about theism’s ability to accept the evidence, given the hopelessly unrealistic expectations that appear to exist within the various communities.
How ironic would it be if we were to end up with the situation where science starts proposing gods and theism feels it has to deny them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 1:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 4:17 PM dogrelata has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 10 of 310 (485874)
10-12-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by dogrelata
10-12-2008 3:44 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
I think it well suits the theistic communities that their god(s) are undetectable, and liable to remain so. However, should science ever start to detect ”supernatural’ phenomena, which might suggest some form of deism, I do wonder about theism’s ability to accept the evidence, given the hopelessly unrealistic expectations that appear to exist within the various communities.
How ironic would it be if we were to end up with the situation where science starts proposing gods and theism feels it has to deny them?
How could science meaningfully draw such conclusions whilst still adhering to the exacting standards of scientific evidence?
Would not such a position effectively be just another religious assertion to all practical intensts and purposes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by dogrelata, posted 10-12-2008 3:44 PM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by dogrelata, posted 10-12-2008 4:48 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 12 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 5:04 PM Straggler has replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5313 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 11 of 310 (485880)
10-12-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
10-12-2008 4:17 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Obviously we’re in the realm of pure speculation here, but given that we are, my best guess would be that nothing approximating the entities proposed by the various theistic communities either exists or can be verified as existing. However, that is not the same as saying new god hypotheses will not emerge to encompass future scientific discoveries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 4:17 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 12 of 310 (485881)
10-12-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
10-12-2008 4:17 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
How ironic would it be if we were to end up with the situation where science starts proposing gods and theism feels it has to deny them?
Straggler writes:
How could science meaningfully draw such conclusions whilst still adhering to the exacting standards of scientific evidence?
Would not such a position effectively be just another religious assertion to all practical intensts and purposes?
But what kind of god are we talking about? What if god is aliens, why wouldn't science be able to study their existence and the methods used for planting life(alien origin of life can hardly be a religion IMHO). I am speaking merely hypothetically, I am not giving more weight to this scenario than the others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 4:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 5:11 PM Agobot has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 13 of 310 (485883)
10-12-2008 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Agobot
10-12-2008 5:04 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Aqobot writes:
But what kind of god are we talking about? What if god is aliens, why wouldn't science be able to study their existence and the methods used for planting life(alien origin of life can hardly be a religion IMHO). I am speaking merely hypothetically, I am not giving more weight to this scenario than the others.
Well yes. Hence the question as per the OP:
Straggler writes:
What exactly is the "god hypothesis"? What must such a hypothesis entail if it is to be able to be subjected to scientific enquiry (which after all is the very meaning of the term hypothesis)?
Is it even possible to apply the term "hypothesis" to such a concept as God/gods/deities/supernatural creators? Or are such concepts inherently beyond the restricted nature of scientific investigation?
* Does science provide the founding principles for atheism or not?
* Does science provide the founding principles for deism or not?
If "god" is an advanced alien species then who, if anything, do they worship? Or have they concluded that all is ultimately the result of wholly natural processes? If they have concluded this is it even posible that this is a viable and evidence based conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 5:04 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 5:33 PM Straggler has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 14 of 310 (485884)
10-12-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
10-12-2008 3:21 PM


Re: True Randomness
PaulK writes:
In the strict mathematical sense, mutation need not be "truly random" . The point is that there is no direct connection between circumstances that make a particular mutation beneficial and the probability of that mutation (rather than some other) occurring. And - despite some excitement a while back (which turned out to have another explanation) - that is what is observed in experiments.
I believe in evolution, I was talking about mutations in terms of certain peculiar human traits - like the emergence of speech. The lowering of the larinx in homo sapiens that allowed them to produce more sounds and hence transfer more information among the species of the population, be more knowledgeable and thus develop better understanding of the world(through information/knowledge exchange). This is impossible to reproduce in a laboratory and a proof that true randomness exists will remove any doubts about why only one species developed high intelligence and others did not. We'd just say - it was random, see here is the evidence that randomness exists. And the case will be closed forever for all theists.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2008 3:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2008 5:24 PM Agobot has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 310 (485885)
10-12-2008 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Agobot
10-12-2008 5:17 PM


Re: True Randomness
I don't see any way to prove that a past mutation was "random".
However, the evidence that "randomness exists' would be precisely what I was talking about. We have to show that mutations are "random" in the sense that evolutionary theory says that they are random - and not some other sense (which would be irrelevant, at best).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 5:17 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 5:42 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 5:45 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024