Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 226 of 310 (486422)
10-20-2008 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by JungEinstein
10-19-2008 11:23 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
However, it seems to be the consensus among many atheists and scientists that all faith-based testimony contradicts the universe’s testimony, and so all faith is rejected outright. I wish to convey that this is not the case.
If it’s the consensus among scientists that the universe hasn’t yielded testimony to the existence of an unseen spirit realm one way or the other, why the distaste for faith-based propositions (other than because of a dislike for the common concept of God)?
The default position in science is ignorance.
In the absence of tested and verified hypotheses we do not claim an answer for the sake of an answer alone. Unless conclusions reach the level of reliability imposed by the methods of science they are not accepted as reliable. They are treated with cynicism.
Theistsic faith based conclusions are inherently unreliable and unevidenced. They arguably cannot be rendered reliable by any scientific standard.
Rejection of faith based conclusions in scientific terms is not reliant upon some sort of anti-God bias as you assert. It is a simple statement of their inherent unreliability.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by JungEinstein, posted 10-19-2008 11:23 PM JungEinstein has not replied

  
Deftil
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 227 of 310 (486495)
10-21-2008 12:18 PM


I feel like most, if not all, major god hypotheses in a literal sense are refuted by science. For example the christian young-earth-creationist god hypothesis is simply not viable from a scientific standpoint. Either it is wrong, or the entire foundation of science is wrong (and given the successes and general reliability of science, I feel pretty confident it's not science that is wrong). I feel like this is the case with all personal gods that I've ever heard of.
But science doesn't completely refute the idea of a god in general. A deist type god doesn't seem to be refuted by science to me. Specific claims about god have always been scientifically refuted, but that could just mean that all the specific claims are wrong, and that a god, of some sort, does exist, or at least did exist when he/she/it created the universe(s).
I consider myself an atheist when it comes to the idea of a personal god, but agnostic when it comes to the idea of some sort of "creator". I don't feel that science refutes beyond all reasonable some sort of "creator".

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Agobot, posted 10-21-2008 2:41 PM Deftil has not replied

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


Message 228 of 310 (486498)
10-21-2008 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Deftil
10-21-2008 12:18 PM


+ and -
Deftil writes:
I consider myself an atheist when it comes to the idea of a personal god, but agnostic when it comes to the idea of some sort of "creator". I don't feel that science refutes beyond all reasonable some sort of "creator".
+ and -, that's all there is to us, our lives, your house, reality, the Earth, the whole near infinite Universe. Only a god can do this, think of god as an architect, aliens, creator, whatever... just don't think of god as randomness, luck, chance or coincidence. To do otherwise would be blind faith, take Einstein's word for it:
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
Take all of the above from someone who is embarassed for having been an atheist towards all gods, personal or impersonal.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Deftil, posted 10-21-2008 12:18 PM Deftil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Richard Townsend, posted 10-21-2008 3:10 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 229 of 310 (486501)
10-21-2008 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Agobot
10-21-2008 2:41 PM


Re: + and -
Agobot,
Einstein did not believe in a personal God either.
'I do not believe in a personal God and I have not denied this but have expressed it clearly'
Great Physicists, By William H. Cropper, P225

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Agobot, posted 10-21-2008 2:41 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 230 of 310 (486504)
10-21-2008 3:27 PM


Short Answer
I believe the answer to the question is yes. Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean 'for absolute certain' to me, otherwise virtually no-one would get convicted of a crime.
If science reaches a point where we have a very clear picture of how the universe and people work (including spiritual beliefs and spiritual experiences) without involving a God, we will have cracked it as far as I'm concerned. There would then be no reasonable grounds for believing in God.
Personally I look forward to the day. I don't believe we would end up without spirituality or a sense of meaning. The truth about the Universe is far richer than anything we have invented.

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 231 of 310 (486772)
10-24-2008 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Blue Jay
10-17-2008 1:17 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
Bluejay writes:
Where a myriad of unprovable and unevidenced alternatives are available, you really only have two choices: choose one, or don’t choose one.
Not choosing is the rational choice.
And that's basically why I think the "god hypothesis" is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt. Not so much because science has anything to do with it, but more so because the "god hypothesis" doesn't have any more claim to reality than anything else in my imagination.
Bluejay writes:
In leaving God, you stand to lose a whole lot if you’re wrong (Pasqual had something to say about this, I think). But, sometimes, I feel like it might be worth it, just to remove all the pressure of thinking that the Almighty Lord of the universe, who can cause torment beyond my imagining, is watching my every move.
Then don't leave God, I never have.
I call myself an atheist, and I argue a lot like an atheist, but I certainly wouldn't identify myself as someone who "left God".
God is, if He exists, the being that is beyond this realm (universe, life... whatever you'd like to call it). Maybe there's lots of beings beyond this realm, maybe only one. Maybe He's immortal, maybe not. Maybe He has similar morals as we do, maybe not, or maybe He's just an evil dink... or maybe not. These are all things we'll never answer until we meet God.
What I have left behind, is all the man-made descriptions of what other people think God is like. I'm a man. I can make up my own description for what God is like, it'll be just as awe-inspiring and just as... utterly useless... for describing what the actual God is like, if He even exists. Haven't you ever had someone tell you "Oh, you'll be meeting Jack tomorrow... he's an ass, watch your back." And then you think to yourself "Okay, I see you don't like him, but I'm going to wait 'till I meet Jack myself and then I can see if you're telling the truth or not." Sometimes they're right about Jack. Sometimes they're ridiculously wrong. If you give this sort of first-impression respect to let Jack introduce himself before you get preconceptions about him... why not respect God in the same way?
I don't understand why you would not worship (and be thrown into the pit of Hell) a God you don't think should be worshipped... yet you're afraid of leaving God because you could lose a lot. If those things you'd lose are worth not-losing, then perhaps the God you're afraid to leave isn't worth worshipping either.
Why do you assume a just, noble God would put anyone in Hell simply because they didn't fully accept that He existed? Especially in a world where any supporting testimonial for this God seems remarkably similar to everything else we find only in our imaginations?
Personally, I think a just, noble God would greet an atheist and say "Ha! I do exist! Glad you're finally here. Sorry about the no evidence thing... it's just the way it worked out." Then a hearty laugh would be shared and then God would get to judging whatever it is He judges... if anything at all.
To me, "leaving God" would simply mean to leave those things I think a God would value most. Love, peace, enlightenment, growth... Maybe God doesn't actually value those things. But, well, that sort of God is the kind of God I don't think is worthy of worship. I can't think of anything greater, not in my wildest dreams or deepest imagination. Perhaps there are greater things I should be pursuing. I'll pursue those as soon as I hear about them, then. And I'll start saying God exists as soon as I hear from Him, too. In the mean time, I'm sure the Guy can judge the circumstances and subtleties involved. After all, if He can't... he's probably unworthy of worship again.
I wrote this for myself just as much as I wrote it for a reply to you, Bluejay. But if you want to continue discussing these sorts of things, feel free to start a new thread. These are exactly the kinds of things bring 80% of the EvC population here in the first place. I'm sure the thread would get a lot of attention. Then again, that my very well be why you don't want to start such a thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Blue Jay, posted 10-17-2008 1:17 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 232 of 310 (486993)
10-26-2008 6:03 PM


MaimonidesThe only path to knowing God is through the study of science - and for that reason the bible opens with a description of creation.
A dedicated believer in God will not be swayed by science bearing man's continued responsibility to name things without names nor will he be swayed by the most complex mathmatical equations...
As faith is the evidence for things unseen, all science need do in order to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt is disprove faith and testably demonstrate that faith always leads to incorrect conclusions.
No end time predictions.
No mutation predictions.
What will it take to dismantle the concept and essence of faith from our world?
No educated guesses, as they require faith - lol.

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by onifre, posted 10-26-2008 7:52 PM Bailey has replied

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


Message 233 of 310 (487016)
10-26-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Bailey
10-26-2008 6:03 PM


Hi Bailey,
A dedicated believer in God will not be swayed by science bearing man's continued responsibility to name things without names nor will he be swayed by the most complex mathmatical equations...
Nor should a belief in God be swayed by the silly stories of the scritures. If one believes in God it does not follow that he must accept these fables as the true accounts for the emergence of the universe, planets, or organisms.
I do not agree that science can disprove God, but more so what science does is put into question the validity of the stories in the scriptures. Also it can put into question where these God concepts came from. Is it just a need to explain nature from a limited scientific understanding and God is invoked to solve the problem, or is there a genuine connection between scentient beings and their surroundings that seems spiritual and seems to give the presence of God?
I submit to the former, but I know many that prefer the latter, so I guess its a personal choice. But in no way do scriptures or religious descriptions of Gods get a free pass simply because homo-sapiens have spiritual experiences. Those clais and stories in the Biblical scripture can be challenged, and should be challenged.

"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 232 by Bailey, posted 10-26-2008 6:03 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Bailey, posted 10-27-2008 3:14 PM onifre has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 234 of 310 (487085)
10-27-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by onifre
10-26-2008 7:52 PM


onifre writes:
But in no way do scriptures or religious descriptions of Gods get a free pass simply because homo-sapiens have spiritual experiences. Those clais and stories in the Biblical scripture can be challenged, and should be challenged.
Rightfully and thankfully so.
Yet, to the matter of debate, I concede that science cannot successfully refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt without first demonstrating in a testable fashion that faith based theories will never lend themselves as a viable and potential means to a conclusive, evidence based reality.
Without this demonstratable test, the "god hypothesis", and other faith based methods can only be deemed more/less reliable than other methods.
Logically, it cannot be wholly refuted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by onifre, posted 10-26-2008 7:52 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by onifre, posted 10-27-2008 7:39 PM Bailey has replied
 Message 237 by bluescat48, posted 10-27-2008 10:21 PM Bailey has replied

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


Message 235 of 310 (487127)
10-27-2008 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Bailey
10-27-2008 3:14 PM


without first demonstrating in a testable fashion that faith based theories will never lend themselves as a viable and potential means to a conclusive, evidence based reality.
You can't be serious that you consider faith based theories to viable? Unless they've been objectively verified its nothing more than an assertion, be it that you may be right or wrong, unless its put to the test no faith based conclusion can be held as a viable conclusion in the face of actual objective evidence.
Without this demonstratable test, the "god hypothesis", and other faith based methods can only be deemed more/less reliable than other methods.
What do you mean by test? I think we can safely say that a faith based conclusion versus a conclusion drawn from objective evidence is less reliable.

"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 234 by Bailey, posted 10-27-2008 3:14 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Bailey, posted 10-27-2008 9:42 PM onifre has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 236 of 310 (487133)
10-27-2008 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by onifre
10-27-2008 7:39 PM


onifre writes:
You can't be serious that you consider faith based theories to viable?
If by viable, you mean necessarily possible then I am serious.
If by viable you imply probable or testable, I'd be hard pressed to stake that claim.
Unless they've been objectively verified its nothing more than an assertion, be it that you may be right or wrong ...
Henceforth, if faith based methods may prove wrong and right in light of their lack of conclusive evidence, some assertions maintain the possibility to lend themselves as a potential means to a conclusive, evidence based reality.
I would discount a method or faith based assertion only if it could be objectively verified it was indeed false, and therefore, a demonstrable assertion in the most true sense.
unless its put to the test no faith based conclusion can be held as a viable conclusion in the face of actual objective evidence.
Agreed.
For this reason it cannot be wholly refuted. You cannot fail a test that hasn't concluded or taken place.
That the method is deemed less reliable does not negate said hypothesis as a potentially successful method of reaching conclusive, evidence based realities ...
It simply makes it less reliable.
What do you mean by test? I think we can safely say that a faith based conclusion versus a conclusion drawn from objective evidence is less reliable.
The tests do not seem as important, as we appear to agree that objectively verfiable methods are, for all intensive purposes, more reliable than subjectively unverfiable methods.
Any method claiming superiority to an evidence based method of deduction may be construed and percieved as arrogance or faith.
They are often held together in high regard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by onifre, posted 10-27-2008 7:39 PM onifre has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 237 of 310 (487134)
10-27-2008 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Bailey
10-27-2008 3:14 PM


faith based theories
That is an oxymoron. If it is a theory it cannot be faith based. A theory is a tested hypothesis that shows nothing that would reject the hypothesis. If something is accepted by faith it is not tested and cannot be falsified which all theories can if better evidence is found,
ie: oxidation-reduction overturned phlogiston.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Bailey, posted 10-27-2008 3:14 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Bailey, posted 10-27-2008 11:39 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 238 of 310 (487141)
10-27-2008 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by bluescat48
10-27-2008 10:21 PM


bluescat writes:
Bailey and onifre writes:
faith based theories
That is an oxymoron. If it is a theory it cannot be faith based. A theory is a tested hypothesis that shows nothing that would reject the hypothesis.
The term does not seem as opposed to itself as you would suggest.
Unless you overlay the definition of a theory with that of a law.
Tho they are, after all, closely related we need not muddy these waters any further.
Here a faith based theory is simply a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural by its very nature of not yet being concluded.
The question becomes, can it still be classified as faith based once invariable conclusions under the same conditions that demonstrate an evidence based reality can be reached ?

(1) theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
(2) law - (in philosophy, science, etc.) a. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
If something is accepted by faith it is not tested and cannot be falsified ...
Agreed, as I have already stated this numerous times. If it is not falsifiable, logically, it cannot be wholly refuted.
The assertion that a faith based method is false only because it has not been proven true fits squarely within the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
For instance, there's a logical fallacy that presumes that mere lack of evidence of innocence of a crime is instead evidence of guilt.
Similarly, mere lack of evidence of guilt cannot be taken as evidence of innocence.
We all know absence of evidence is not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by bluescat48, posted 10-27-2008 10:21 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by bluescat48, posted 10-28-2008 1:12 AM Bailey has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 239 of 310 (487144)
10-28-2008 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Bailey
10-27-2008 11:39 PM


Here a faith based theory is simply a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural by its very nature of not yet being concluded.
and that is a hypothesis.
Agreed, as I have already stated this numerous times. If it is not falsifiable, logically, it cannot be wholly refuted.
The assertion that a faith based method is false only because it has not been proven true fits squarely within the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Yes, which is why this topic is rather an exellent example of argumentum ad ignoratiam.
Edited by bluescat48, : added paragraph
Edited by bluescat48, : db code error

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Bailey, posted 10-27-2008 11:39 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Bailey, posted 10-28-2008 9:54 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 240 of 310 (487161)
10-28-2008 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by bluescat48
10-28-2008 1:12 AM


Thank you for the reply bluescat.
bluescat writes:
Bailey writes:
Here a faith based theory is simply a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural by its very nature of not yet being concluded.
and that is a hypothesis.
lol - as it seems they indeed share a similiar meaning, I also find that agreeable bluescat. Preferred actually. In light of their potentially circumstantial evidence, as opposed to actual objective evidence, faith based assertions are accordingly reduced within many circles to merely assumptions or guesses.
The majority of the time they have been referred to within my posts as hypothesis, or rather simple assertions. One instance within post 234 being the exception. And altho these inconclusive assertions can be enveloped by the general definition of a theory - that being "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural" - they indeed resonate better as hypothesis.
Yes, which is why this topic is rather an exellent example of argumentum ad ignoratiam.
I thank you for conceding to this end.
In conclusion, science cannot refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt. As faith is the evidence for things unseen, all science need do in order to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt is disprove faith and testably demonstrate that faith invariably leads to incorrect conclusions. We all know that this cannot be done.
Any assertion that a faith based method is false only because it has not been proven true fits squarely within the argumentum ad ignorantiam. And so, faith based assertions remain as hypothesis' that - without conclusion and henceforth, any testability - cannot be wholly refuted beyond all reason or logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by bluescat48, posted 10-28-2008 1:12 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by onifre, posted 10-28-2008 12:51 PM Bailey has replied
 Message 242 by bluescat48, posted 10-28-2008 2:57 PM Bailey 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