|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Abogot,
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? If it's percentage you want then I'd say that theres a 1% chance. And I say 1% percent just to not be absolute about it. But as my post stated, God is an imagined entitiy. It no more is real than unicorns or faries. It is derived from the same creativity that humans use to create so many other far out ideas. We are born knowing none of this, then someone begins the indoctrination process which leads to peoples beliefs. Also, fear is coupled together with guilt, so people won't think for themselves and will just follow blindly never questioning their religions. You said in you post to Logic, 'what if God is not like the Bible', well heres the problem with that. God is part of religions and mythology, and ONLY those avenues have spoken about gods, so all your doing is molding the concept of the gods to fit modern scientific discoveries. Why don't you just use unicorns or faries instead of God? Because you've been programed to believe that a creator has to be a God. These are silly human intuitions that we can't seem to shake out of our culture for one reason or another. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: One would have thought that by now you'd be aware of the dangers of defining god as questions science has yet to answer. On the other hand, I'm sure we've all heard the aphorism that every answer raises two more questions. If that's true, then every question that science answers actually strengthens the god of the gaps argument, just like every transitional fossil doubles the problem for evolution because it adds another gap to fill. .... *blink* .... Damn, this science stuff is tougher than I thought. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
A conclusion is what you come too after examining the evidence In terms of the scientific method this would be called a hypothesis rather than a conclusion. Scientific conclusions are based on verified hypotheses. If no testing takes place then no verification is possible.
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. If you want to define your God in terms of the physical universe then that is up to you. By this definition your God was created in the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago by any scientifically verified standard of evidence. This is more pantheistic than theistic however and not, I don't think, what you really mean.
So how does science that starts with a god refute my God hypothesis? Your God hypothesis is wholly unsupported by scientific evidence as previously explained. Assuming that by "God" you do not just mean the universe.
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. I am sure that you are very confident. But just saying "God is everything" is no more defined, meaningful or evidentially supported than saying "the omniverse is everything". Meaningless labels that tell us nothing. If you are able to express your "God hypothesis" such that you can detail the physical observational tests that we can do to verify or refute that hypothesis including empirical predictions regarding as yet undiscovered physical phenomenon which must logically exist if the hypothesis in question is actually true - Then we might be getting somewhere. If you are unable to do that then lets stick to the main purpose of this thread which is to examine to what extent non-theistic positions consider themselves to be supported by science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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. I very broadly agree in the wider context. I would also describe myself as an atheist. But just to play devils advocate........ The default position of science is ignorance. In the absence of reliable or adequate evidence we have at best untested hypotheses that border on mere guesses and at worst just plain good old fashioned ignorance. For example take any of the contentious unknowns of current scientific understanding. Abiogenesis, cosmological beginnings pre the planck time, the existence of a multiverse etc. etc. etc. No scientist worth the name would decalre these things to be anything other than unknowns that require investigation before any reliable conclusions can be drawn. Is the question of God or gods really any more or less of an unknown than these sort of questions? If not why are we not equally scathing of these ideas as we are supernatural godlike entities? Should the scientific default position be an acknlwedgement of ignorance regarding such matters? In which case agnosticism not atheism could be said to be the position derived from science? I don't hold this position and have my own answers to these questions but I am interested in the your views and the views of others who consider themselves to be atheists or deists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: If you want to define your God in terms of the physical universe then that is up to you. I did not define my God in the terms of the physical universe. I described my God as everything that ever was, is, and will ever be.I do not limit God to this universe, it is a small speck in eternity. Exod 3:14 (KJV) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. God Himself claimed to be everything there is.
Colo 1:17 (KJV) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Everything exists by His power.
Straggler writes: Then we might be getting somewhere. Straggler we will never get anywhere.Everyone here wants God proven beyond a shadow of doubt. I want the scientific god, entity, or whatever you want to call that thing that expanded into what we see and call the universe. Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I say:In the beginning God (everything that ever was, is or will ever be) created the heaven and the earth. Science says:In the beginning that hot, dense little thing, that was everything that ever was, is or will ever be (that we don't know anything about) expanded to be the universe we see today. Therefore, science confirms in the beginning everything that ever was, is or will ever be is responsible for the universe being here.This confirms my belief that "In the beginning God". Since there is nothing to debate I rest my case. You or anyone else my have the last word. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Hi Onfire
Good to have you on board. I agree with much of what you say regarding the nature of atheism, the nature of science and the nature of religious conclusions. BUT unlike you I do think that there is a correlation between the non-theist and the scientific view points that demonstrates a more fundamental link between the two. That is not to say that, as some of our more hardcore theistic members seem to think, that science sets out to "prove" atheism or that science in itself is in any way atheistically inclined. Not at all. Such views are a complete misunderstanding of what science is and what it sets out to do. However I don't think it is mere coincidence that the EvC atheist and deistic contingents are also the keenest advocates of science here. Nor do I think this correlation of positions is unique to EvC members alone. But I am still thinking through why it is that this correlation exists. Hence the starting of this thread to explore that very question. I don't have all the answers and my opinions are not fully formed on this matter but for what it is worth here is my thinking so far: If it is not science per se that supports an atheistic point of view then is it the principle of evidence based objective investigation that underpins such views?It is certainly on the basis of such principles that I personally dismiss irrational, un-evidenced, subjective and desperately improbable notions of God and gods. But what is science if not evidence based objective investigation into the physical world?Is evidence based objective investigation even possible with respect to anything other than the physical world? Thus I find that the principles on which I reject religion are the same broad principles on which I advocate science. So while I wholly accept that it is perfectly possible to be both a scientist and remain a theist I think it very unlikely that an atheist would not be a keen advocate of science. Of course different people have different reasons for their beliefs and atheism is no exception. But I think most thinking atheists would cite objective evidence based investigation, in some form, as a founding component of their point of view. Thus I would say atheism is, in practical terms at least, intrinsically linked to science. Even if the reverse, i.e. that science is intrinsically linked to atheism, does not necessarily follow and in fact does not actually appear to be true. Hence I would expect the vast majority of atheists to be "pro-science" in position whilst not necessarily expecting the vast majority of scientists to inevitably be atheists. How the deistic position fits into all of this, if at all, is something I am interested to explore. Any deists in the house.....?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
ICANT
I am as ever happy to discuss the origins of the universe and related questions with you. But not in this thread. Everyone here wants God proven beyond a shadow of doubt. No. We just demand the same standards of evidence, prediction and verification as we would do any other theory or hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Straggler writes: How the deistic position fits into all of this, if at all, is something I am interested to explore. Any deists in the house.....? You were right when you said i didn't come out as a theist in my opinions on EvC. I misunderstood deism to mean something else, so if i had to go again about my position on EvC, it will be closer to deism than anything else. Edit: Is there a definite clear difference between deism and theism? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If it is not science per se that supports an atheistic point of view then is it the principle of evidence based objective investigation that underpins such views? Yup, that's it, because belief in God requires faith. Limiting yourself to the principle of evidence based objective investigation leaves no room for faith. Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science" He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
CS writes: Yup, that's it, because belief in God requires faith. And beleif in constantly expanding and shrinking universe(aka eternal universe) requires what, if not faith? Or a universe that sprang out of the uncreated? How does it not require faith? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Yup, that's it, because belief in God requires faith. Limiting yourself to the principle of evidence based objective investigation leaves no room for faith. Yet more agreement! The difference, I suspect, is that I hold faith in very low regard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
I meant deist in this sort of sense:
"The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation" But the term deist does seem to have a wide variety of meanings so I see your confusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Straggler writes: BUT unlike you I do think that there is a correlation between the non-theist and the scientific view points that demonstrates a more fundamental link between the two. This is true. I will agree that non-theistic people are more inclined to be pro-science, and the link between the two I would say comes from the same line of thinking that drives people to be satisfied with God...people want answers. We non-theist see no problem with natural explanations, those who have a prior belief in God often cannot believe natural process occur without guildance, both use the same mental tools to access and determine...God however, is not evidence based and requires faith, that is the leap non-theist cannot make without proof for the God in quesition.
If it is not science per se that supports an atheistic point of view then is it the principle of evidence based objective investigation that underpins such views? It is certainly on the basis of such principles that I personally dismiss irrational, un-evidenced, subjective and desperately improbable notions of God and gods. I can see this supporting your position, but would you still be an atheist if science didn't know as much about nature yet? Say 4000 years ago? I think I would still be an atheist, for the simple reason that God requires MORE answers than the original questions about nature. Science to me just helps my position, but it did not determine my position. I was an atheist at about the age of 10 or 11. At that age all I knew was that dinosaurs lived on this planet long ago and stars were very far away. But, the idea of a God that was omni-present seemed ridiculous to me, without knowing much more from a scientific PoV. So science helps me, but it was not the determining factor. Religion, and God are far fetched concepts that merit no value for their claims about the natural world.
So while I wholly accept that it is perfectly possible to be both a scientist and remain a theist I think it very unlikely that an atheist would not be a keen advocate of science. I would agree with this, but of course what else is there other than the truth about nature? We are keen to science because science is the truth. Those who are not keen to science are stupid and ignorant, period. It's like not being keen to math, who would value such a persons opinion if they flat out reject factual evidence? Everyone should be keen to science, theist or atheist alike.
Hence I would expect the vast majority of atheists to be "pro-science" in position whilst not necessarily expecting the vast majority of scientists to inevitably be atheists. Like I stated, everyone wants answers. Science satisfies athesits questions. If there were some other form of study that better explained nature then we'd all follow that. We want the truth. We do not accept any religions claims, science is the truth, thus we are satisfied. Those who are theistic AND agree with science juggle their common sense with their spiritual beliefs, to me this seems impossible, perhaps those who do this can explain their PoV better for us? "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Abogot writes: And beleif in constantly expanding and shrinking universe(aka eternal universe) requires what, if not faith? Or a universe that sprang out of the uncreated? How does it not require faith? It would still be a natural process, leaving out the enormously complex intelligent diety that would require a bigger explanation that the original question. Faith in natural process is normal because we know natural processes occur. Faith in a complex intelligent entity lacks any evidence and as such requires a HUGE leap. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
...the enormously complex intelligent diety that would require a bigger explanation that the original question. Its intelligent designers all the way up? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024