Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 310 (486042)
10-15-2008 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Straggler
10-14-2008 5:46 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
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.
Its because the principles don't work in the other areas.
Areas which mosts atheists would dispute have any validity at all.
Isn't it disputed through circular reasoning though?
Atheists, in my view, are just more consistent.
But what's the value in bbeing consistent if you're not covering everything?
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.
And a blind person wouldn't have to decide exactly where yellow stops and green starts...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 5:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by kjsimons, posted 10-15-2008 1:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 2:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 92 of 310 (486043)
10-15-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by onifre
10-15-2008 12:41 AM


Re: Answers
onifre writes:
I think you missed my point. Current cosmological models (aka factual evidence) limits us to the moments after the BB.
I understand that at the moment science has no evidence for anything prior to T=10-43. I know there are those trying to find evidence. But since that was a time the temperature was a trillion degrees what evidence could still exist.
Concerning your "cosmological models (aka factual evidence)". I would like to see some of those facts discussed.
The reason I asked the question was because you had said, "but if factual evidence is required for the origin of the universe," concerning my faith based evidence.
So when it comes to factual evidence of the origin of the universe where is science's evidence?
Lets stay on a level playing field don't require more of faith than you do of science.
onifre writes:
Also, it is a personal subjective interpretation because as Catholic Sci said, his understanding of science does not in anyway interfere with his religious beliefs, yours does,
No my understanding of science does not interfere with my religious beliefs.
Your understanding of science disagrees with my religious beliefs.
I have very little understanding of what CS believes and practices. But in message Message 73 I said:
You don't seem to understand that a theist who believes in God, has been born again washed in the blood of the lamb and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption does not have any unanswered questions that makes a difference. He/She has also received all the evidence needed to support his/her faith.
This is not just any religious person, or just anybody that claims to be christian. This is a specific person that has met certain requirements, that make them a son or daughter of God.
Roma 12:3 (KJV) For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
Everyone here seems to think the faith we talk about is something that comes from within a person.
Saving faith comes from God. I only have the measure of faith that has been given to me by 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 78 by onifre, posted 10-15-2008 12:41 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 10-15-2008 6:27 PM ICANT has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 93 of 310 (486047)
10-15-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by New Cat's Eye
10-15-2008 11:13 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
Hi Catholic Sci,
I'll respond to the rest of your post a bit later but,
And then he goes on about how if Jesus had been electrocuted, would we all be wearing little electric chairs around our necks?
That was Lenny Bruces' joke...now you can see who Hick's was influenced by.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2008 11:13 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 94 of 310 (486050)
10-15-2008 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Agobot
10-15-2008 4:38 AM


Re: Answers
Agobot writes:
The one thing i admit i admire most about christianity is the structure of churches and the grand feeling of peace and calm inside them. It does give you a very weird feeling of disconnection with the outside world and reality
Agobot the buildings you are talking about is the place where the church meets, they are not the church.
Agobot writes:
Sadly, I am unable to find anything even remotely related to reality, life and science in the ancient books. They say most religions started by their leaders taking psychedelic plants, psychedelic mushrooms, etc
There are 34,000 + religions in the world. I don't know how many was started as you say.
The one I follow was started by a man walking by the sea of Galilee calling 4 fishermen to follow Him and become fishers of men.
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 83 by Agobot, posted 10-15-2008 4:38 AM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2008 12:54 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 95 of 310 (486051)
10-15-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ICANT
10-15-2008 12:49 PM


Re: Answers
Agobot writes:
Sadly, I am unable to find anything even remotely related to reality, life and science in the ancient books. They say most religions started by their leaders taking psychedelic plants, psychedelic mushrooms, etc
There are 34,000 + religions in the world. I don't know how many was started as you say.
The one I follow was started by a man walking by the sea of Galilee calling 4 fishermen to follow Him and become fishers of men.
I call your attention to John M. Allegro's The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross.
Allegro was one of the early translators for the Dead Sea Scrolls.
http://www.amazon.com/...hristianity-Fertility/dp/0340128755

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 10-15-2008 12:49 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 96 of 310 (486052)
10-15-2008 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Straggler
10-15-2008 9:37 AM


Re: Answers
Hi Straggler
Straggler writes:
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.
What may be a valid answer to me may not be a valid answer to you.
I can not prove to you that God exists. But to me it is real.
I can not prove to you that birds sing me to sleep every night, or that I hear other strange sounds. The other morning I was hearing a sound like I have heard on shows that had a submarine in it when they do the sounding. I can hear these noises when it is quite and when it is noisy. But not all the time.
There is no way I can prove I hear these sounds to you. But that does not make them cease to exist. They are real.
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 87 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 9:37 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 1:39 PM ICANT has replied

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


(1)
Message 97 of 310 (486056)
10-15-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
10-15-2008 1:08 PM


Re: Answers
What may be a valid answer to me may not be a valid answer to you.
On what basis do you decide an answer is valid?
I can not prove to you that God exists. But to me it is real.
Which tells us only that you believe in God. Nobody is questioning your sincerity. I merely question the validity of your conclusion.
I can not prove to you that birds sing me to sleep every night, or that I hear other strange sounds. The other morning I was hearing a sound like I have heard on shows that had a submarine in it when they do the sounding. I can hear these noises when it is quite and when it is noisy. But not all the time.
There is no way I can prove I hear these sounds to you. But that does not make them cease to exist. They are real.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 10-15-2008 1:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 10-15-2008 4:44 PM Straggler has replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 98 of 310 (486057)
10-15-2008 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by New Cat's Eye
10-15-2008 11:32 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
But what's the value in bbeing consistent if you're not covering everything?
From an atheist's point of view their is no spiritual world, the physical world is all there is and science covers it (ie there are no "other areas").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2008 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


(1)
Message 99 of 310 (486059)
10-15-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by New Cat's Eye
10-15-2008 11:14 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
To know the ultimate truths of our world.
Or to fulfil the undeniable human need for very human answers to uniquely human questions. Regardless of whether they have any meaning or not.
Investigate, guess, test and conclude.
Can you give more details? Especially regarding the test part. What exactly is tested and how?
There is no method of differentiating between conclusions of the mad, conclusions borne of need and conclusions that are actually true?
Not empirically, no.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2008 11:14 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2008 2:10 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 127 by dogrelata, posted 10-16-2008 1:22 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 100 of 310 (486060)
10-15-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
10-15-2008 1:54 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
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.
That is why falsified ideas in science fall from view (except for a few internet kooks).
But in religion there is no way to falsify a belief, so you have a schism. That is why there are so many religions and so many denominations within them: there is no way to evaluate the beliefs against evidence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 1:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 2:27 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 101 of 310 (486062)
10-15-2008 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by New Cat's Eye
10-15-2008 11:32 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
Its because the principles don't work in the other areas.
  • 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.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2008 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2008 4:30 PM Straggler has replied

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


    (1)
    Message 102 of 310 (486063)
    10-15-2008 2:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 100 by Coyote
    10-15-2008 2:10 PM


    Re: Science and Atheism
    But in religion there is no way to falsify a belief, so you have a schism. That is why there are so many religions and so many denominations within them: there is no way to evaluate the beliefs against evidence.
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2008 2:10 PM Coyote has not replied

      
    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 103 of 310 (486068)
    10-15-2008 4:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 101 by Straggler
    10-15-2008 2:14 PM


    Re: Science and Atheism
    From Message 99
    Investigate, guess, test and conclude.
    Can you give more details? Especially regarding the test part. What exactly is tested and how?
    Since we're talking about subjective things, there is not going to be an objective test. And the results are going to be subjective, themselves. But you can weigh the plausibility of a claim with the knowledge that you do have and come to a conclusion on whether or not you believe the claim.
    There is no method of differentiating between conclusions of the mad, conclusions borne of need and conclusions that are actually true?
    Not empirically, no.
    Nor logically. Nor any other way as far as I can see. But I await your answer to the above.
    It depends on the conclusions. Some I think you could differentiate between being mad, needed, or true. They couldn't be empirically verified as true, but we could accept them as true. Some conclusions are going to be unable to be differentiated though.
    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?
    From the knowledge that we have outside of the conclusions. How we feel about the absurdity of the claim versus the effect of believing the claim.
    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?
    I agree that faith alone has no bearing on the veracity of the conclusion.
    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.
    I also agree that it isn't reliable compared to empiracal verification. I don't think this means that all subjective claims are equally valid though.
    The existance of spiritual beings is more plausible than a flying spaghetti monster, IMHO. There no empirical way to verify that, but I can make a subjective opinion on what I think is more plausible. They might be equally valid in an empirical sense though.
    From Message 101
    Its because the principles don't work in the other areas.
    Which other areas?
    Non-natural ones. Subjective ones. Parallel ones. Imaginary ones
    What principles do work in these other areas?
    Since the priciples that we do have are inherantly empirical, I don't think the principles can be easily identified as such. Also, if there's inconsistency in these other areas, principles themselves could be entirely different. If there's intelligent forces at work, then the principles might only work when they allow them to.
    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?
    To try to figure out what really is going on here.
    Say you saw a ghost. It appeared, said hello, and then disappeared.
    To immediately disregard this as impossible because you don't want to abandon your principles would result in a great loss of a potential for extraordinary knowledge. To employ empirical principles against a being that can be visible or not at will would ultimately fail depending on the will of the being. This inability to empirically detect the being doesn't mean the being does not exist or only exists in your head.
    You can "close your eyes" towards the existence of the ghost and remain internally consistant in your empirical methods, but that doesn't change if the ghost really exists or not.
    Now, we're not going ot get to the point where the existence of the ghost has been empirically verified, but you can come to a subjective conclusion that you accept the existence of ghosts.
    And a blind person wouldn't have to decide exactly where yellow stops and green starts...
    He would gain litle by doing so.
    And you gain little from avoinding the "philosophical problems" by maintaining principles that you know to be reliable in relation to things that you reliably know to exist to the illogical extension that nothing can exist that you don't know to be reliable in relation to things that you reliably know to exist.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 2:14 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 108 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 6:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


    Message 104 of 310 (486069)
    10-15-2008 4:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 97 by Straggler
    10-15-2008 1:39 PM


    Re: Answers
    Hi Straggler,
    Straggler writes:
    On what basis do you decide an answer is valid?
    The Word of God with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
    Straggler writes:
    Which tells us only that you believe in God. Nobody is questioning your sincerity. I merely question the validity of your conclusion.
    To be able to decide the validity of my conclusions wouldn't you need to know everything those conclusions are based on?
    Straggler writes:
    If they do actually exist then they can be detected.
    My hearing Dr. would disagree with you.
    Straggler writes:
    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.
    I understand this to say anyone that believes their dogma as much as I do mine, is equal to mine.
    I agree.
    Just because I believe something that does not make it right.
    Just because you or anyone else believes something that does not make it right.
    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 97 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 1:39 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 109 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 6:45 PM ICANT has not replied

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


    Message 105 of 310 (486071)
    10-15-2008 4:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 66 by Straggler
    10-14-2008 5:52 PM


    Re: Potential for role reversal?
    Straggler writes:
    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?
    I suspect we can agree that there’s very little likelihood of humans who subscribe to the various current god hypotheses ever accepting such a thing. However, if we look at theism, it does tend towards deities that it believes can bring about change for the better, either in this life or some supposed other. If a super species were to evolve, that had the power to deliver dramatic improvements to the lives of others, it’s not too big a stretch to imagine the type of hero worship that might follow.
    And if we accept evolution as an ongoing process, why are humans to be the sole arbiters of what is worthy of worship further down the line? If we accept evolution, we surely have to accept the possibility, even probability, that our self-appointed position as the pre-eminent species is only temporary. Don’t we?
    However this has all become highly speculative and as such has deviated somewhat from the questions you posed in the OT, which I presume were aimed at matters much more firmly rooted in the here and now.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 66 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 5:52 PM Straggler 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