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

If someone has complete faith and conviction in the notion that God not only exists but also wants him to strap some explosives to himself and blow up a busy airport....Is that evidence for both the existence of God and the wishes that God has regarding the fate of that individual?The conviction and faith of the individual is evident. What is the causee of this faith? If faith is evidence what is this faith evidence of exactly?

I have asked on what basis you judge one piece of subjective "knowledge" to be more reliable than another and your answer effectively amounts to "I just know".In effect two people debating on the basis of subjective "knowledge" is as futile as two people debating whether chocolate fudge cake is "better" than strawberry cheesecake. Or whether red is "better” than blue. It is a matter of personal preference and nothing more.Faith that God exists, or any other subjectively derived "knowledge", is no more or less valid than the statements that "cheesecake is better than fudge cake". Such statements tell us nothing about the objective existence of God. Or the relative non-subjective merits of cheesecake and fudge cake.Which pieces of subjective experience we choose to consider important or meaningful and which we disregard as of no consequence are a matter of personal subjective preference.That is fine. On one level such choices are incredibly important because they largely define who we are as individuals.But when theists claim that faith is "evidence" or that they subjectively "know" something to be true they are confusing and conflating the level of personal importance such choices have with an indication of meaningfulness in more objective terms.Such preferences are not "evidence" or "knowledge" by any meaningful definition of either term. So let’s not pretend otherwise.I guess that if one places such phenomenal importance in an unverifiable subjectively derived personal preference such as which God to worship then it is kind of difficult to acknowledge that this choice has no more objective validity basis or meaning regarding the external world than ones choice of dessert.But it really is no different at all.

Hi Bluejay
Firstly I would like to say that was a really really fine post.It sounds like a quite a journey you're on. Whilst I don't think I envy you that journey it sounds to me as if wherever it is that you end up the journey itself will have been worthwhile. If your eventual position is as well considered as your account suggests it will be then whatever conclusions you eventually make are going to be the right ones for you personally. And you will have the added depth, empathy and understanding that can only really be obtained from having seriously considered the alternative and opposing views.I too have a little son. He is two years old. Like you I marvel at the way he asserts his little independent spirit on the world and never cease to be amazed at the way in which his personality is developing before my very eyes. Whilst I don't think there is much danger of me converting any time soon, I do sometimes wonder if the love that I feel for him and the joy that I get from his life suggests that there is something more out there. His existence has caused me to question my own, at times overly rational and unwaveringly physicalist, stance. It is funny how similar experiences have led us both to ponderings that are so at odds with our initial starting point and yet so completely different in direction to each other.But I guess that is all part of the human condition. The need for meaning and the ability to ask questions that we are destined to be unable to adequately answer. Education, especially scientific training, I think leads to a questioning style of thought that just further highlights these inherent dilemmas.Whether 'thinking theist' or 'thinking atheist' the key word is 'thinking'. It seems that that you are in little danger of abandoning that principle. On that basis I would be optimistic for the future of both you and your son whatever eventual position you take.

Well from a debating point of view it sounds like a winning formula!!! Personally I do find the whole God concept so improbable that I really am an atheist. Functionally and literally.But I have also concluded that even if there is a God there seems no real way for me to ever actually know that. There is no form of God that requires me to worship that I would actually want to worship. There is no form of God that would require faith of me that I would want to have faith in.If such a thing as God exists then to be the only sort of God that I could have any respect for he would have to be the sort of God that let me make the choices I have made with the tools he has provided me with without reference or fear of him.So if I did ever conclude that God exists then, as you suggest, I would still be a "functional atheist". As I think the relevant conversations in this thread, this whole forum and the wider world generally show there is ultimately nothing else to base such decisions upon.But that really need not be as damning as it maybe initially sounds.It is only a problem for believers if they deny to themselevs that this is the case or, even worse, if they need there to be more.It is only really a problem if you consider it a problem*(* Other than being a potentially difficult position to present and justify on debate forum that is )

In an "unstable", "eternal" and "infinite" "nothingness" would not the formation of such a universe be potentially inevitable rather than impossible?

What do you think a universe that did not have any such laws would be like?

Exactly.So concluding what is or is not possible, or is or is not inevitable, or is or is not likely is just arm waving conjecture and subjective philosophising.We really know nothing about the reality or otherwise of any of these concepts and they are so far removed from human experience that I would suggest we don't understand the concepts even in quite abstract terms never mind practical ones.On this basis your conclusion that it is all just too unlikely to have happened without divine intervention of some sort seems grossly unwarranted.On common sense level I might partially agree with you. If I was not sitting here existing in this universe I might well conclude that such a universe and such a being as myself were indeed "impossible".However common sense notions are about as relevant as the price of haddock and as reliable as the average investment bank. This universe does exist. We know that. We have evidence for that. If we want to reliably know how that happened then we can try and undertake evidence based investigation into that question.If we do not really care about the quality and reliablity of the answers that we achieve then I guess we can invoke even more complex unevidenced beings which themsleves potentially require creation as some sort of answer. Purely for the sake of having an answer. You are welcome to do that if you so wish.I would rather await an evidenced and more reliable answer and am quite content to acknowledge my ignorance regarding that question in the meantime. I am also willing to accept that there may never be a reliable answer. I remain optimistic. And I am damn sure that if we ever do get a reliable answer it will be science and not silly notions of subjective "evidence" that provide it. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Exactly.So it should hardly come as a suprise that the universe in which we find ourselves operates in such a way.As a slght aside I was wondering: Do you think that we invent or discover mathematics?

Can we use mathematics to describe things that do not physically exist in the universe?Can we create forms of mathematics that have no application with regard to describing physical reality. Forms of mathematics that are abstract constructs alone.

If mathematics can be used to describe things that do not physically exist and can form abstractions that have no basis in reality then does that not imply that mathematics is not simply a "description of the universe" as you stated previously?Does the universe "obey" mathematical "laws" or is the human construction we call mathematics at times and in part derived from the way that the universe behaves?I don't really have an answer to this. My point is to convey that your statements and assertions regarding the obviousness of these things are overly simplistic.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Exactly.
So it should hardly come as a surprise that the universe in which we find ourselves operates in such a way.
In such a logical and mathematical way. So we have no idea how possible, impossible or even inevitable a particular universe might be. We have no idea whether a range of different universes were or are possible or whether it had to be this one. If any at all.Our ignorance is so complete that any statements of probability or likelihood are themselves nothing more than baseless subjective conjecture.

It isn't.If faith is evidence then two mutually exclusive and contradictory conclusions can be equally "evidenced" with no faith based recourse for resolving this conflict.Obviously both cannot be true. So as a form of evidence faith is obviously inherently unable to differentiate between truth and falsehood.As a form of evidence it is so unreliable as to be totally undeserving of the term by any meaningful or common definition.Thus faith is not evidence. Evidently. No theory that can ever actually be physically demonstrated to be reliable has ever resulted from faith based "evidence". Never mind one as incredibly verified and successful as QM.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This is all subjective conjecture.You no more know that the universe we inhabit is deeply improbable one of many possibilities than you know that it is inevitable and unique in it's current form.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Which other universes? We don't know that any others even exist. Which other universes? We don't know that any others even exist. Which other universes? We don't know that any others even exist. I don't know. Nor do you.All else, including your statements of improbability, are subjective conjecture. Nothing more.Maybe this universe is the only possible universe that there ever could have been and maybe it was inevitable. Maybe it is one of an infinite number and was inevitable. Maybe it is as improbable as you seem to think. Maybe even more so.Who knows?Unless answers are supported by evidence based investigation such statements are as equally baseless as any theistic assertion. This includes statements of great improbability.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If you are determined to find an answer regardless of reliability or validity then I would suggest that you at least consider some of the more potentially evidenced scenarios before you head off down the complex eternal uncaused unevidenced undetectable creator path.I started a thread to examine these some time ago Message 1. Feel free to start that one up again if you so wish.Have you considered the zero energy universe hypothesis?
Maybe (I don't know) the limitation of having an overall energy of zero necessarily limits the possible types of universe in terms of the laws and constants you are considering.Maybe it is worth finding out rather than asserting scales of improbability in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to justify these claims.It's up to you. Just a suggestion.Edited by Straggler, : Correct link