Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5312 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 31 of 310 (485928)
10-13-2008 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
10-12-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Straggler writes:
The point of this thread as I intended it is to ask the question as to whether people think that their beliefs, or lack of them, are justified or even derived fom science.
My view is that I see no evidence for the existence of any ”supernatural’ entities that approximate the various god hypotheses currently ”doing the rounds’, or any that have done so in the past. Additionally, I feel no emotional need to believe in such entities.
So I guess the first part of the above is derived from what science has taught us, whilst the second part probably says more about my temperament than any adherence to scientific endeavour. That said, had I been born 200 years earlier, it seems likely that the chances of my believing in something would have been significantly higher, so even my temperamental tendencies are probably influenced to a certain degree be exposure to scientific knowledge.
There is another consideration, which I feel has a great bearing on my views in this area. It concerns the tendency for modern theisms to portray their deities as some sort of ”super human’ entity. This has never made much sense to me, and seems a bit like a subliminal desire by humanity to project itself onto the fabric of the universe by suggesting that not only has the universe been put here for our benefit, but that the force(s) behind its existence can be explained in terms of ”humanoid’ purpose and creativity.
A classic case in point is the ID movement, who seek to suggest that design processes used by a single species of biological life form in a remote corner of an astronomically large universe should represent whatever processes brought the universe to its current state of being.
Instinctively, this whole hypothesis seems comical and nonsensical to me, which I accept is an argument from incredulity, but it forms part of my view of reality, so I offer it as such.
This leaves the problem of whether anything can satisfy the criterion of being a god hypothesis and still be amenable to scientific research. I don’t believe any of the current hypotheses do. Which is why I suggested in Message 9 that any paradigm shift may need to be scientifically driven, in the sense that some branches of theism may be prepared to temper their expectations of personality-based super beings and move towards a more process orientated model . which hardly sounds like faith at all, but today’s gods bear little resemblance to many of their polytheistic forebears, so what’s new?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 5:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 10-13-2008 12:28 PM dogrelata has replied
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2008 5:41 PM dogrelata has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 32 of 310 (485940)
10-13-2008 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by dogrelata
10-13-2008 10:17 AM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
There is another consideration, which I feel has a great bearing on my views in this area. It concerns the tendency for modern theisms to portray their deities as some sort of ”super human’ entity. This has never made much sense to me, and seems a bit like a subliminal desire by humanity to project itself onto the fabric of the universe by suggesting that not only has the universe been put here for our benefit, but that the force(s) behind its existence can be explained in terms of ”humanoid’ purpose and creativity.
Greek and Roman, and even many Native American, deities were "super human" as well. Or is that included in your "modern?"
And...
quote:
A Man Said to the Universe
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Stephen Crane (1871-1900)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by dogrelata, posted 10-13-2008 10:17 AM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by dogrelata, posted 10-13-2008 6:39 PM Coyote has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 33 of 310 (485943)
10-13-2008 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Straggler
10-12-2008 2:30 PM


Re: Invisible to Science
Hi Straggler
Since the argument is about two totaly different things I don't see where much headway can be made.
Straggler writes:
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?
My personal belief's were brought about by my reading a KJV Bible.
I later went to college and studied Hebrew and Greek language so I could examine the original texts as close as we can get to them. Being able to understand what the Hebrew words say added to my belief.
I then came to EvC some 19 months ago to expand my knowledge base.
I have learned many things in my journey here contrary to what many may think.
What I have learned here has made me more sure of what I believe.
I have stated my God hypotheis on more than one occasion.
God = everything that ever was, is, or ever will be. I have no visible proof other than what you can see with your eyes.
Science begins with just such an entity. With no scientific explanation for that entity. There is no visible proof other than what you can see with your eyes.
Science then proceeds to explain how we got from there to here. In many instances it does a very good job. Along the way many good thing's have been produced for the betterment of mankind.
I have no problem with science or the accomplishments of science.
I do have a problem with being told the scientific entity is different from my unscientific entity.
Rahvin has told me that entity always was.
cavediver has told me it just is.
Others have said there was no time that it did not exist.
Son Goku and cavediver has told me that everything that is, was contained in this entity at T=10-43.
Everything I believe is founded on "In the Beginning God".
Everything Science teaches is founded on a point "we know nothing about"...It is nonsensal to even ask about it.
My question then is, how can something that starts out with, everything that ever was, is or ever will be refute the existence of God (everything that ever was, is or will be)?
Straggler the answer to your question, "Can science refute the God hypothesis beyond all reasonable doubt is, it would be impossible.
Because at the moment science declares there is a God.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 2:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2008 3:20 PM ICANT has replied

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


(1)
Message 34 of 310 (485946)
10-13-2008 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ICANT
10-13-2008 12:53 PM


Re: Invisible to Science
Straggler the answer to your question, "Can science refute the God hypothesis beyond all reasonable doubt is, it would be impossible.
Because at the moment science declares there is a God.
Hmmmm. If science were to consist of poorly defined concepts and meaningless labels plugged into the gaps in our knowledge on the basis that any answer is better than no answer at all, then your rather woolly "God = everything that ever was, is, or ever will be" would be a valid scientific conclusion.
As things stand however a little more is required. Positive physical evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the theory in question above and beyond all other alternative explanations and competing theories. In the absence of any such evidence conclusions are to be considered unreliable. In the absence of conclusions that have been rendered scientifically reliable ignorance must be declared regardless of purely subjective preferences for one theory over another. This is the scientific way.
Although you may think that this is all just a way of removing God from the equation it really is not. It is simply the method by which the most reliable and objective conclusions are logically reached. And given that there most certainly is not any "positive physical evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the God hypothesis above and beyond all other alternative explanations" it is simply untrue to say that science supports the God hypothesis.
Now whether or not this means that the atheist or deist positions are any more valid in scientific terms remains to be seen. I hope to explore that question in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ICANT, posted 10-13-2008 12:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 10-13-2008 8:08 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 35 of 310 (485947)
10-13-2008 4:07 PM


Just want to add something - while Straggler was writing his post, his body ran several hundred trillions of processes and operations per second in an amazing sync throughout his body. Each of his 100 000 000 000 000 cells carried out various vital metabolism tasks(taking in chemical energy from molecules, coverting it, etc.), replication tasks, cell division tasks, etc. So silently and unconsciously, while we are at rest, the machine of your human body is working for you at 300 trillions of operations/ctivities per second. I will not go to the quantum level and claim how many synchronous interactions there are in your body per second between the atoms as it will approach infinity, but shouldn't we be thankful to the trilllions of trillions of atoms, randomness and survival of the fittest principle for devising such a wonderful machine for us to enjoy life?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"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

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Admin, posted 10-13-2008 4:10 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 36 of 310 (485948)
10-13-2008 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Agobot
10-13-2008 4:07 PM


Hi Agobot,
Unless you can address the topic, please stop posting to this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Agobot, posted 10-13-2008 4:07 PM Agobot has not replied

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


(1)
Message 37 of 310 (485951)
10-13-2008 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by dogrelata
10-13-2008 10:17 AM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
I think I agree with much of what you are saying.
I too think science either refutes or makes redundant and trivially unnecessary the existence of all current and historical gods. I had not really considered your rather novel idea that a future form of the "god hypothesis" might be more amenable to scientific investigation. Whilst I think the prospect is intriguing it seems unlikely. But I do like the idea.
Where science does not (yet?) provide answers to questions regarding nature the insistence by theists that their particular unevidenced assertion should be deemed superior to any other unevidenced assertion just smacks of subjective wish fulfilment and provides little reason to accept any one assertion over any other. Better to stick to the standards of science and remain knowingly ignorant than just lower the standards of evidence to get an answer for the sake of an answer.
I also think that ignorance in science is a driving force for progress, technology and increased understanding. Even if we never unlock the secrets of the universe through science, even if the path has no reachable end, the journey itself is in many ways just as important.
There are many of us, deists and atheists, here at EvC who have fully formed opinions as to why the theistic position is not, or even cannot be, scientifically evidenced or valid in any objective sense.
However what I am interested to know is to what extent deists and atheists are of the opinion that their own position is, or is not, supported by science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by dogrelata, posted 10-13-2008 10:17 AM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 4:12 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 64 by dogrelata, posted 10-14-2008 4:58 PM Straggler has replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5312 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 38 of 310 (485952)
10-13-2008 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
10-13-2008 12:28 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Coyote writes:
Greek and Roman, and even many Native American, deities were "super human" as well. Or is that included in your "modern?"
No, not really. I used the word quite loosely. I had in mind the major monotheistic theisms, which tend to focus on a personality-based super being - almost a human super-ego in some respects.
It’s kind of interesting you should home in on one word though - it got me thinking. Thinking about the analysing of things to the nth degree and contrasting that with how I came to choose atheism over theism.
I grew up in a culture and home environment where the robes of religion were worn very loosely, and I choose to discard mine at the age of ten. What’s interesting is that this was an entirely intuitive decision - I simply felt that the whole god thing was pure nonsense. In the forty years that have since passed, I’ve seen nothing to make me think that gut reaction was wrong.
I think the point I’m trying to make is about the part feel or intuition or good old-fashioned gut-reaction plays in what each of us believes. I hold my hand up, it played a big part in what I came to believe and probably still does.
As such, I’m always going to be drawn more to scientific explanations rather than theistic ones, as they tend to be a much better fit for my intuitive model of reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 10-13-2008 12:28 PM Coyote has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 39 of 310 (485955)
10-13-2008 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Straggler
10-13-2008 3:20 PM


Re-Wooly God
Straggler writes:
Hmmmm. If science were to consist of poorly defined concepts and meaningless labels plugged into the gaps in our knowledge on the basis that any answer is better than no answer at all, then your rather woolly "God = everything that ever was, is, or ever will be" would be a valid scientific conclusion.
A conclusion is what you come too after examining the evidence.
I said an entity that is everything that ever was, is or will be is what science starts with.
cavediver had this to say Here
cavediver writes:
All I am saying is that at a particular early time, space is the size of a pea. At that time there is no extra empty space - it is not that everything has been squashed into one small pea-sized corner of the Universe. Space itself is the size of a pea. So anything in space must be confined to that size.
Son Goku had this to say concerning the entity I am refering too.
Son Goku writes:
ICANT writes:
At T=0+ expansion began which created space, time, gravity and everything that it took to create all the things that we see in the universe and the things we can not see.
This is wrong. Nothing is known about T=0 or the short period after it. The earliest thing we know is that the universe was expanding and was hot and dense.
This can be found Here
According to the evidence I have presented there was an entity sometime after T=0 that contained everything there ever was, is and will ever be.
Conclusion. Science starts with an entity that is everything that ever was, is and ever will be.
That is a God according to the definition of my God.
So how does science that starts with a god refute my God hypothesis?
I am very confident in my God hypothesis since science starts with a god and can not refute my God hypothesis without refuting it's own god.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2008 3:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 8:56 AM ICANT has replied

  
Logic
Member (Idle past 5014 days)
Posts: 31
From: Australia
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 40 of 310 (485958)
10-13-2008 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-12-2008 1:05 PM


To me this is simple.
If there was a god, then why does he hide himself from me, why doesn’t he show himself - If he really wants to save me (his child) then just show himself and I will follow him.
There lies the problem until I see a god I will remain an Atheist, not an agnostic because there’s no reason to believe in any deity. When one shows himself I'll go straight from Atheist to religious believer in an instant.
Now regarding science, from my understand science lives by same rules, until god can be shown or proven it won't bother with him / her. After all it can't theorise or predict something that it can't see, feel, touch, or hear.

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 43 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 3:46 AM Logic has not replied
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 11:04 AM Logic has not replied

  
Logic
Member (Idle past 5014 days)
Posts: 31
From: Australia
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 41 of 310 (485959)
10-13-2008 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-12-2008 1:05 PM


...
Edited by Logic, : Double post ... stupid webpage error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 1:05 PM Straggler has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 42 of 310 (485963)
10-13-2008 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-12-2008 1:05 PM


Hi Straggler,
Just for starters great topic, almost a breath of freash air...until of course ICANT intoduced his T=O conspiracy theory again, I hope this thread does not fall into that debate all over again.
First my position: Atheist/Anti-theist.
Does science provide the founding principles for atheism or not?
I would say that it does not. The principles for atheism are inherent in all humans, unfortunatly so is gullibility. Humans by nature are curious; always asking questions, always seeking answers and yet never fully satisfied with the answers. This is the foundation for atheism. However, since we are also gullible, and we are self-centered and ego driven, we tend to answer things way beyond our comprehensional level, hence God began to be a satisfactory answer to the big riddle. It started off very primative but has manifested into a very structured concept that gives the illusion of validity with books, and passages, and prophesies, but todays religions have no more evidence than mythology. I don't know enough about genetics to say that the "God gene" is real, nor do I know if Dawkins is correct with his "memes" theory, but I do know that each generation seems to follow the religious footsteps of their family(with exceptions of course), so religoin at best is a traditional ideology that some take way too fucking serious.
So to me, science just does what science does, it explains the natural workings of nature. Of course it does not take a genius to know and understand what certain scientific theories suggest. Evolution seems to go against certain aspects of Christian mythology, Abiogeneis seems to go against all of the Abrahamic mythologies, and science as a whole seems to weed out most of the other native type, or primitive type, mythologies. But this is only by default. It is NOT sciences' goal to disprove gods, but if a particular God has claimed something about nature, that thru the study of nature we find to be incorrect, then that Godly claim is disproven, but it is meaningless to say that it was disproven because the Godly claim never had any evidence to back it up and therefore should have never been accepted as truth. It's almost like say that everyday scientist don't find a unicorn is one more day unicorns are not real. Unicorns a MADE UP, conjured up, an imagined thing created out of the brain of a a creative species. God follows in the same way.
I, like you, can understand the need for God. I also can understand the traditional respect people give to their families religions. However, I cannot understand why, in light of scientific evidence, and the shady origins of ALL religions, do people still continue to be fanatical about it, without even a trace of skeptisim. That to me is fucking crazy. Not one ounce of skeptism? Wow, thats just beyond my ability to comprehend.
But, back to your OP.
I believe atheism is an inherently human trait, period. Science just helps us understand nature. Science is not working towards a better acceptance of atheistic ideologies, we ARE atheist at birth and are indoctrinated into many different types of religions. People should question the validity of their religions for the sole reason that there is a lack of evidence, and nothing can be questioned. In turn people should accept science on the sole bases that it provides evidence for what they claim and no one man's word is ever final in light of new evidence.
IMO, the God hypothesis is equal to the Unicorn hypothesis; both have no evidence, and both can be refuted by science. Both however, can also be accepted through faith and ignorance. Yet the funniest thing is though...we are born believing in neither.
--Oni
Edited by onifre, : spelling
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

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 45 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 4:41 AM onifre has replied
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 12:25 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 43 of 310 (485970)
10-14-2008 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Logic
10-13-2008 8:20 PM


Logic writes:
To me this is simple.
If there was a god, then why does he hide himself from me, why doesn’t he show himself - If he really wants to save me (his child) then just show himself and I will follow him.
There lies the problem until I see a god I will remain an Atheist, not an agnostic because there’s no reason to believe in any deity. When one shows himself I'll go straight from Atheist to religious believer in an instant.
Now regarding science, from my understand science lives by same rules, until god can be shown or proven it won't bother with him / her. After all it can't theorise or predict something that it can't see, feel, touch, or hear.
"God is hiding" is somewhat rude", I'd say "god wants to remain anonymous".
What if god is not what the bible says about him(omni-benevolent, forgiving creature, bla bla bla...)? What if every single event in the universe was pre-determined for billions of years ahead. Would you want to know that someone/something will choose you wife, will shape your child and generally lead your whole life instead of you? Would you want to know this? I don't, I prefer to have an illusion of free will and that i control my life(that is, if there is a creator, i am speaking hypothetically just to suggest an answer your question why god would want to remain anonymous). If god is not omni-powerful, true randomness would not exist, so if everything is created by a higher intelligence and is governed by mathematics, every event must be pre-determined.

"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 40 by Logic, posted 10-13-2008 8:20 PM Logic has not replied

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


Message 44 of 310 (485971)
10-14-2008 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Straggler
10-13-2008 5:41 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Straggler writes:
I too think science either refutes or makes redundant and trivially unnecessary the existence of all current and historical gods.
Hi Straggler,
I'd like to know what leads you believe this. Do you think science implies there is no creator? Was abiogenesis proven? Would the forces behind the idea of abiogenesis be explained and understood? Does science already know what forces lie behind the emergence of the singularity? Did the Evolution theory explain why there is a pre-programmed death in each cell of our bodies, when natural selection favours replication and hence a longer eternal life would bring more chances of replication and better survival rates? Did science explain what lies beneath what is labelled as "Emergent properties" or do atheist just try to wipe off the uncomfortable questions under the carpet and pretend they don't exist? Does science know all the answers yet?
I always thought we knw too little to make such an interpretation( a clear twisting of scientific facts and findings IMO). Does the theory of evolution imply there is no creator? If yes, why? Does the self-functioning of the whole universe imply there is no creator? I always thought the creator hypothesis was part of all the hypothesises for the origin of the universe. Did science already disprove god( i am not talking about the god from the bible, quran or torah, they are certainly more or less disproven)?
Why is it that most atheists would not question their belief in atheism? If you were riding a Boeng 747 jet and you did not see the pilot or the designer of the plane, would you believe there was no pilot or designer if you saw certain misleading clues suggesting that the plane was self-constructing and self-piloting(abiogenesis of airsraft, eternal Boing 747, multiple/infinite Boing 747's)? Would you at least not think that there is a possibility that there could be a designer of the plane?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"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 37 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2008 5:41 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 10-14-2008 8:54 AM Agobot has not replied

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


Message 45 of 310 (485972)
10-14-2008 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by onifre
10-13-2008 10:09 PM


onifre writes:
IMO, the God hypothesis is equal to the Unicorn hypothesis; both have no evidence, and both can be refuted by science. Both however, can also be accepted through faith and ignorance. Yet the funniest thing is though...we are born believing in neither.
Hi onifre,
I'd be interested to know how you'd rate the possibility that there could be a creator in percentage 0 to 100%? As the the OP states, did science and your interpretation of it refute the creator hypothesis beyond all reasonable doubt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by onifre, posted 10-13-2008 10:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by onifre, posted 10-14-2008 8:31 AM Agobot 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