Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?

Yet more agreement!The difference, I suspect, is that I hold faith in very low regard.

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.

Yes I think I would.As detailed in my last post I don't think atheism is derived from science. Rather I would argue that both are derived from the same advocacy of objective evidence based conclusions. Hence I would argue that they share a 'common ancestor' in many regards (yes this anology is pushing the boundaries of my argument unnecessarily but I think you will get what I mean and I just could not resist the phraseology!!) Science 'fans' who are also theists seem able to apply objective evidence based thinking to the physical world whilst totally abandoning the same principles in other areas. Areas which mosts atheists would dispute have any validity at all.Atheists, in my view, are just more consistent. As a result atheists are not faced with the same philosophical problems regarding the ability to differentiate between conclusions that they will and will not accept and the basis upon which such decisions are made. Yes and no. Everyone does want answers I agree. But one of the key principles of science I would argue is not declaring solid conclusions in the face of inadequate evidence. Preferring an admission of ignorance and need for investigation above an answer for the sake of an answer alone. Theism often seems to me to be as much about a need for answers that do not exist or are as yet unknown as anything else. I think it takes a certain sort individual to forego this need and I would suggest that the this is another link between science and atheism. In the case of both this attitude is derived and necessitated from the evidence based approach upon which each is founded. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Whether or not we would be able to distinguish between a member of a supremely advanced species and a god is an interesting question.However I think the one thing that might differentiate such a being is an evolutionary past. Will humans ever accept that which itself has evolved from very simple and humble beginnings as a god to be worshipped no matter how advanced it may eventually be?

But seriously why would we want it? And how does one choose exactly what to have faith in? Relying on empirical evidence as the best method of making reliable conclusions most of the time (day to day life, activities as a scientist in particular) whilst simultaneously drawing positive conclusions regarding the existence of things for which there is no empirical reason to even think they might exist........That I think is what onfire means by "juggling".My problem with this is that without any reliable method of filtering every subjective delusion or wish fulfilment based conclusion is considered equally as valid as any other. And presumably equally as valid as any empirical conclusion.There is no method of differentiating between conclusions of the mad, conclusions borne of need and conclusions that are actually true?If somethimg "feels" right and makes perfect "sense" to me then should I just go with the flow regardless of how absurd my conclusion might be considered by many, or indeed all, and regardless of the lack of any empirical evidence for the conclusion in question?All sorts of obviously insane, but no doubt believed to be true with absolute conviction by someone out there, examples could be raised at this point........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes. But also a "miracle" that even as an entire species has existed for but a blink of an eye in relation to the age of the small insignificant planet it finds itself upon. Barely an asterisk to indicate an as yet unwritten footnote in terms of the universe as a whole. A badly designed "miracle" that is unable to dwell upon over 66% of the miniscule rock which it inhabits. A "miracle" which would be totally unable to inhabit 99.9999% of the observable universe. A "miracle" which all the evidence suggests very nearly became extinct at some point in the past. A "miracle" that unless it manages to leave the miniscule rock upon which it is currently restricted is doomed to extinction in the future. The real miracle is that we have survived this long in a universe so hostile to our existence.If this miracle has any long term future it will by by means of science. Not faith.

I do understand that this is what you and other theists think they know. This is exactly what I meant when I implied that many theists cannot cope with ignorance and have a need for answers regadless of whether any valid answers actually exist or not. It seems to me that theists would much rather have an answer that cannot be demonstrated to be valid or reliable than simply and honestly state that some things are extremely difficult to find out or even have no meanigful answer available.You are kind of proving my point..............

I have had this discussion numerous times with various of the more thinking theists on this site.The objections to this boil down to a number of things but I'll briefly raise two of them.1) If two opposing and mutually exclusive "facts" are derived from faith based subjective "knowledge" alone then both are equally evidenced. However both cannot be equally true. Thus faith based "knowledge" is demonstrated to be inherently unreliable. Unreliable to the point of useless in fact.2) If we accept your faith as evidence then we must also accept anything else anyone else has equal faith in as being equally evidenced. The guy who thinks that the invisible immaterail pixies that live inside his bedroom wall need him to skatebopard around the equator of the Earth naked in order to save humanity from the wrath of the mighty Varg is as equally evidenced as is your particular faith based conclusion. As long as the poor fellow in question believes his delusion as strongly as you believe yours. If faith alone is all that is required for a conclusion to be considered evidenced then there is no end to the insanity that must also be considered evidenced.If evidence is that which allows us to differentiate between truth and falsehood then faith is no sort of evidence at all.

On what basis do you decide an answer is valid? Which tells us only that you believe in God. Nobody is questioning your sincerity. I merely question the validity of your conclusion. Some empirical evidence and independent corroboration would go a long way to determining whether or not these sounds actually do exist externally to your imagination. If they do not then I am afraid that they are not 'real' by any standard definition of the term. If they do actually exist then they can be detected.The ability to do this is exactly what is missing from your God comparison.It is on this that I would differentiate between valid conclusions and invalid ones.But I see no basis on which you are able determine whether or not any conclsions arrived at by anyone, no matter how mad, are valid or not. As long as they believe their claim as strongly as you believe yours both are equal by your standards of evidence.

Or to fulfil the undeniable human need for very human answers to uniquely human questions. Regardless of whether they have any meaning or not. Can you give more details? Especially regarding the test part. What exactly is tested and how? Nor logically. Nor any other way as far as I can see. But I await your answer to the above.IF:
Two people arrive at two completely opposite mutually exclusive conclusions via subjective, non-empirical faith based evidence alone
AND:
Each is equally convinced of the irrefutable certainty of his own faith based conclusion
THEN:
How can we tell which one has reached a reliable conclusion and which one has not?Given that both have equal faith in their own conclsion and that one of them at least must logically be wrong can we not conclude that faith alone has no bearing on the veracity of a conclsuion?If evidence is the means by which we differentiate truth from falsehood then the above demonstrates that subjective faith based reasoning is no form of evidence at all and is an inherently unreliable method of drawing conclusions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Which other areas?

What principles do work in these other areas?

How do you know that these alternative principles work in these other areas?

​

Isn't it disputed through circular reasoning though?

​

Such as?

​

But what's the value in bbeing consistent if you're not covering everything?

​

What is the value in abandoing principles that you know to be reliable in relation to things that you reliably know to exist, in order to instead examine 'other areas' which do not reliably exist with 'alternative principles' that you do not know reliably work in order to obtain unreliable answers to questions that do not reliably have any meaning in the first place?

​

And a blind person wouldn't have to decide exactly where yellow stops and green starts...

​

He would gain litle by doing so. But if determined to take part in such a debate a light frequency detector could be built so that the objective reality under discussion could be represented to him in some other way. Changing sound with frequency of light detected being the obvious method.

​

Can we build a God detector?

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Exactly. Unevidenced equally believed but mutually exclusive conclusions can both exist but cannot both be logically correct. Therefore subjective belief cannot logically be a reliable method by which to draw conclusions.The same applies to opposing faiths involving large groups of people

Then what role does faith have in drawing conclusions? If any?
You seem to be saying that faith is not enough and that empirical evidence is not enough. So on what basis exactly do you draw conclusions? "Knowledge outside of conclusions"? What knowledge? can you give an example of this "knowledge" that is neither founded in faith nor empirical in basis? This just amounts to: "Whatever anyone thinks is true is actually true. Unless I either think it isn't true or I decide that I don't like the results of it being true". Which obviously gets no-one anywhere regarding any sort of "knowledge" worth having. In fact it just leads to unresolvable dispute as to what actually is true and what is not. So on the basis of not liking the results of this subjective conclusion I subjectively refute your conclsuion as false. Do you see the problem? Lets examine your example as a case in point: "Saw" as in received reflected or radiated electromagnetic radiation within the visible wavelength into my eyes? Or "imagined" as in did not actually physically "see" except in my "mind's eye"? Is it possible to distinguish between the two?In some situations very probably not. But do you take everything you imagine or dream to actually exist? Is every image within your minds eye equally valid? On what basis do you decide which to claim as real and which to disregard as mere figments of your imagination? Why is the ghost more likely to be real than a ghost experienced in a dream?Your ghost example "seems" more empirical and therefore seems more "real" than a mere dream experienced while you are asleep. But if empiricism is not the basis on which you consider such things to be valid then why does this matter? Your example defies your own argument!!If empiricism, or in this case the appearance of empiricism, is unimportant why do you put any more stock in your ghost example than images within a dream? I could say the same to you about every dream that you have ever had or everything that you have ever imagined and disregarded as imposible or absurd. The only difference with your ghost example is a superfiacial level of empirical realism. A form of realism which you say is not the basis on which such judgements are made anyway.This is inconsistent. It is you that is using an example that relies on it's superficially empirical nature to give it any credence at all.
Why do you not ask the same question about me having dreamed about a ghost who says hello and then disappears just before I wake up? Why does this example appear to be less relevant to your argument? I'll tell you - Because your argument relies on the unconscious assumption that empirical knowledge is the only basis on which reliable conclusions can be made. Deep down you actually know this to be true and your chosen example unconsciouslesly demonstrates this. Why do you "open your eyes" to the superficially empirical appearance of a ghost but choose to "close your eyes" to the various other imaginings that occurs to you whilst awake or asleep? Hmmm. A subjective conclusion that would appear to have been made as a result of a superficially empirical but probably unverifiable experience.You really need to explain on what basis you differentiate between the subjective experiences that you rely upon and the subjective imaginings that you do not.If it is not greater approximation to empirical experience then on what basis is a ghost of the type you describe any more or less real than a ghost that I imagine as part of a conscious daydream?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Speaks to you directly does he? Can anyone else hear him when he does that? Not really. You have given a pretty decent indication and it is as much about what they are not based on as what they are. If your hearing doctor has a problem with the concept of sound then I would suggest that you need a new hearing doctor? Not all points of view are equal. Some conclusions have had the most reliable methods, tests and examinations known to man applied to them and have still come out unscathed. Some ideas have had such tests applied to them and come out in shreds. And yet other ideas have never been tested or resist such tests for fear of being found wanting.No not all points of view are equal and tellingly it is usually those with the obviously inferior position that make the claim that they are.

I have demonstrated to you that faith itself is not a form of evidence and that it should thus be disregarded as such. Faith based on objective empirical evidence is true faith....? What? Is that not the very antithesis of the whole concept of faith?"If you show me evidence I'll have faith" Frankly this is a pile of very confused and hairy old bollocks.Welcome to EvC by the way You seem to be saying that where objective evidence supports your beliefs then that objective evidence is to be relied upon. But where objective evidence is either absent or contradictory to your beliefs then such evidence is unnecessary and/or inferior to faith as a means of making conclusions. So you have your beliefs and whatever evidence you can define as evidence in support of those beliefs is to be considered valid. This is not the strongest of positions........To decide what one thinks and then seek only evidence to support that view is the very antithesis of scientific, or for that matter reliable, investigation.It is not often that someone manages to reverse the meanings of both faith and science based investigation in the space of a single post!!!! Why the bible? Why not any other holy book? Or even other random theories by people like Brendatucker (look her and her thread up on EvC if interested)All are equally uncorroborated. But lets start a new thread or join an existing one if you want to discuss the veracity of the bible itself as that is not really the topic here.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.