Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
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: 02-20-2008


Message 46 of 310 (485978)
10-14-2008 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Agobot
10-14-2008 4:41 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 4:41 AM Agobot has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 47 of 310 (485979)
10-14-2008 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Agobot
10-14-2008 4:12 AM


Science: the best friend to the god of the gaps
quote:
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?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 4:12 AM Agobot has not replied

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


(1)
Message 48 of 310 (485980)
10-14-2008 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ICANT
10-13-2008 8:08 PM


Re: Re-Wooly God
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 10-13-2008 8:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2008 12:15 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 49 of 310 (485986)
10-14-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Logic
10-13-2008 8:20 PM


Devils Advocate
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Logic, posted 10-13-2008 8:20 PM Logic has not replied

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


Message 50 of 310 (485988)
10-14-2008 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Straggler
10-14-2008 8:56 AM


Re-Wooly God
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 8:56 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 12:30 PM ICANT has not replied

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


(1)
Message 51 of 310 (485989)
10-14-2008 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by onifre
10-13-2008 10:09 PM


Science and Atheism
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.....?

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 53 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 12:41 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2008 12:45 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 58 by onifre, posted 10-14-2008 1:18 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 52 of 310 (485990)
10-14-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
10-14-2008 12:15 PM


Re: Re-Wooly God
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2008 12:15 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 53 of 310 (485991)
10-14-2008 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
10-14-2008 12:25 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 12:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 12:58 PM Agobot has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 310 (485993)
10-14-2008 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
10-14-2008 12:25 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 12:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 12:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 55 of 310 (485994)
10-14-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by New Cat's Eye
10-14-2008 12:45 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2008 12:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 10-14-2008 1:22 PM Agobot has replied

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


(1)
Message 56 of 310 (485996)
10-14-2008 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by New Cat's Eye
10-14-2008 12:45 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2008 12:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


(1)
Message 57 of 310 (485997)
10-14-2008 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Agobot
10-14-2008 12:41 PM


Deism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 12:41 PM Agobot has not replied

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


Message 58 of 310 (485998)
10-14-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
10-14-2008 12:25 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 12:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2008 3:32 PM onifre has replied
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 5:46 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 59 of 310 (485999)
10-14-2008 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Agobot
10-14-2008 12:48 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 12:48 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Coyote, posted 10-14-2008 1:27 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 61 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 1:27 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 60 of 310 (486000)
10-14-2008 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by onifre
10-14-2008 1:22 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
...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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 10-14-2008 1:22 PM onifre 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