Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 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 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 134 of 310 (486170)
10-16-2008 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Agobot
10-16-2008 12:59 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
Abogot writes:
just to see what my mind is capable of producing in terms of other realities.
Think you might enjoy this video, you too CS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v905fhCqq2Y
Perhaps the road to viewing our reality in a differnt way IS in psychedelic drugs like DMT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Agobot, posted 10-16-2008 12:59 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Agobot, posted 10-16-2008 8:18 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 144 of 310 (486240)
10-17-2008 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by dogrelata
10-17-2008 6:51 AM


Re: Answers
dogrelata writes:
As such, the extent to which we, as average laymen, need to trust or place our faith in scientists seems greater than it ever has done, if we are to accept their findings.
Science is a self-correcting institution though. The fact that you can actually win a Noble Prize by disproving your own theory wrong gives me the comfort that if somothing is wrong within any particular theory, there will be thousands of scientist trying to expose it. So I don't think we, the laymen, need to place faith not so much in scientist, but in the scientific method.
Does that make them the new gods, in which we either chose to place our faith or not?
That depends on what we define God to be. If it is the God of Genesis, or Zues, or some other mythological God then I don't see how scientist could ever be thought of as the creators of the universe, but if God is that which explains the universe, then sure, they can be God-like.
You brought up a good point on a previous post, "can a civilization advance enough to give the impression of being gods?".
I would say yes, in fact, and this is obviously a far fetched idea but, say primitive man did see what they thought were gods, they could very well have been travelers from another galaxy so far advanced that primitive men couldn't explain it other than to consider them gods.
Even our current society would seem godly to primitive men. Say we had a Delorean that when you hit 88mph would become a time machine. If we went back in time(100,000years) with iPods, cellphones, digital cameras, and the Delorean it's self, wouldn't they consider us gods?
Edited by onifre, : spelling
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 140 by dogrelata, posted 10-17-2008 6:51 AM dogrelata has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by rueh, posted 10-17-2008 12:48 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 147 of 310 (486243)
10-17-2008 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Blue Jay
10-17-2008 1:17 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
Hi Bluejay,
Great post.
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.
This is one of the very reasons im glad to be an atheist, it removes the burden of always feeling something is looking over your shoulder, judging you, determining the path your life will take. It always seemed like a control method to me, even at an early age. Its almost like placing non-working survalence cameras in work places to give the illusion that someone is monitoring, believe it or not people behave. What better way to control a free thinking species than to tell him/her that everything they do, even if no one is there, is being seen by an invisible God? Believe it or not, people behave.
I believe the people who organized these religions were not stupid or believers themselves. They knew all to well what a society that lacked fear would be like...uncontrolable. They understood quite well the human psyche and knew that if people thought that they would be punished for eternity, then they would follow the rules, even when no one was watching. To steal a line from Dawkins, 'It's the big survalence camera in the sky'. The method works. It works so well that even scientist like yourself, who understand nature, still fear the reprocussions of simply stating your opinion because you've been programmed to fear the 'watchdog in the sky'.
I don't know what the future will hold for religion, and the way people follow it. Hopefully it continues to be less and less dogmatic and literally accepted, and more along the lines of Catholic Sci or yourself.
--Oni

"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 136 by Blue Jay, posted 10-17-2008 1:17 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by bluescat48, posted 10-17-2008 1:41 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 149 by Blue Jay, posted 10-17-2008 3:43 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 150 of 310 (486250)
10-17-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Blue Jay
10-17-2008 3:43 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
Bluejay writes:
So, my direct answer to Straggler's OP question is that I am afraid to become an atheist because I am not comfortable with the amount of certainty science offers that there is no God.
I agree that science can never remove the possibility of a God-type-energy that put together the fundamental forces of the universe, in fact if that was the definition of God then I would believe that there is a God. I mean, why not? There is no other truth than the fact that existance exists. But, the God I argue against is the one depicted in the scriptures. The one that men claim to have a personal conversation with. The kind of God that answers prayers and takes special interest in the lives of each individual. I believe that type of God has empirical claims attached to it, and those claims can be challenged. In your first post you wrote that you don't believe God intervenes, but you still hold to the ideas of heaven and eternity, seems like a tough paradox to deal with. Especially when the concept of a God that intervenes preceeded eternity and heaven. A type of God that put together the fundamental forces, even I as an athiest, wonder about, eternity and heaven however, seem to be attached to specific religions and there is where I lose faith.
The bottom line is that, if no religion existed, and people were all rational, no one would ever decide that religion needed to be started unless some God actually came and showcased the whole thing for a lot of people.
I agree, and I also see that relgion has helped thousands of people over come major issues in their lives, for this, and this alone, I respect it. But, then again I have a few friends who fell into hard drugs who now get by smoking pot, it's been their religion so to speak. There is alot to be said for the necessary evils that we as humans find as a crutch to get through a complicated existance.
What is "onifre" anyway, and how do you pronounce it?
Lol, that is my name. Oni-fre. I'm a stand-up comic, if you, or anyone else, is on myspace I have videos you can watch. It's rather edgy comedy so if you don't like crude language or topics I don't recommend watching.
myspace/oniperezcomedy.com
Edited by onifre, : spelling

"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 149 by Blue Jay, posted 10-17-2008 3:43 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Blue Jay, posted 10-17-2008 9:34 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 161 by Blue Jay, posted 10-17-2008 9:37 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 154 of 310 (486261)
10-17-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by ICANT
10-17-2008 6:12 PM


Why do we feel we deserve this?
ICANT writes:
But it does not answer the most important questions that I have.
Why am I here?
What is the origin of the universe?
What is the origin of life?
It's funny how such a young species feels that in it's meer 200,000 years of existance it deserves the answers to these questions, without having the knowledge to figure it out yet.
It's no wonder we developed faith as a trait if those are the type of questions we demand answers for. Why can't we just take pride in being the only species to even come remotely close to figuring out some aspects of reality, even if we don't fully comprehend it? Why do we make stuff up just to satisfy a stubborn curiousity?
We are truly self-centered.

"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 151 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2008 6:12 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 157 of 310 (486266)
10-17-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by ICANT
10-17-2008 7:42 PM


Re: Answers
ICANT writes:
That is the reason I asked, How can science that starts with a god refute my God hypothesis?
You needed to read one more line further.
Straggler writes,
quote:
Has science in fact already achieved this?
Then he specifies,
quote:
What exactly is the "god hypothesis"? What must such a hypothesis entail if it is to be able to be subjected to scientific enquiry (which after all is the very meaning of the term hypothesis)?
Is it even possible to apply the term "hypothesis" to such a concept as God/gods/deities/supernatural creators? Or are such concepts inherently beyond the restricted nature of scientific investigation?
So again, how do we know the God hypothesis is even valid?
That is the reason I asked, How can science that starts with a god refute my God hypothesis?
Because the OP does NOT say "how can we disprove ICANT'S God hypothesis", it say the God hypothesis. This will require people of faith to let go of that self-centered attitude that there is only one God hypothesis, theirs. There are many, lots of which precede your God hypothesis.
Then he specifically says,
quote:
What I am really interested in is - To what extent do atheists, deists and the most rational of theists require science to be necessary to their world view.
So to what extent do YOU, within YOUR God hypothesis, require science? None, some, alot...
However, it does say rational theist.
The only thing I put forth concerning my God was that He was everything that had ever been, is, or ever will be. (That does not leave anything out.) I gave no details of how He accomplished anything.
Yes but the details is what we want. Can science refute the details? Lets use your God hypothesis as an example but it could be applied to any God hypothesis. Can science provide enough empirical evidence against certain claims in the Bible? Just because you take it on faith doesn't mean we have to.
So I ask the question again. How can science that starts out with a god refute my God?
Science does not start off with a God. Unless you have YOUR OWN type of science now too???

"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 155 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2008 7:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2008 8:36 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 159 of 310 (486269)
10-17-2008 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by ICANT
10-17-2008 8:36 PM


Re: Answers
But Straggler said he did not want to discuss origins here.
I don't want to put words into Stragglers mouth so I will let him address this further since it is his thread, agreed?
Everything that ever was, is, or ever will be was present at T=10-43. That fits my definition of a god.
I have heard it called existence, pure energy and eternal existence.
So what would you call it?
If that is your sole definition then I have no issue with it.
However, IMO once you give human emotions to that energy, or say that it had a hand in the creation of things (i.e. matter, planets, organisms etc, etc...), then we can debate the facts and include science.

"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 158 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2008 8:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2008 9:39 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 179 of 310 (486319)
10-18-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Agobot
10-18-2008 11:28 AM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Got a busy day but I will get back on the thread soon, just wanted to leave a quick comment.
Abogot writes:
In the end the question remains open - does DUMB energy possess the greatest mind and intelligence that anyone could ever imagine?
We as humans are limited in our understanding of intelligence because the only model we have fo intelligence is ourselves, therefore it is impossible for us to know what are the potential limits of intelligence. Can energy be intelligent? By all observable models, no.

"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 176 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 11:28 AM Agobot has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 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

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 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

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


Message 241 of 310 (487186)
10-28-2008 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Bailey
10-28-2008 9:54 AM


Hi Bailey,
In conclusion, science cannot refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt.
That depends on what is considered 'reasonable doubt'? To me the fact that the universe functions without outside interference seems reasonable enough to doubt all beliefs about a God who actively plays a roll in reality, which at least would disprove the Abrahamic God, IMO. However, this may not be enough evidence for someone who has faith that the Biblical accounts of creation are literal. So to me the God hypothesis is disproven, to others it may not be enough to disprove it. This becomes a matter of interpretation.
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.
There have been alot of beliefs about the nature of the universe and its origins, going back before mythology, that have been shown to be wrong. The acceptance of these mythological accounts were done by appling faith to the stories, as is done now with the current religious beliefs. What makes one a more accurate faith based belief than the other? IMO it doesn't, and as such all faith based beliefs should be held as attempts to answer questions about reality where not enough empirical data is given. So it forces most beliefs into a God of the Gaps conclusion.

"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 240 by Bailey, posted 10-28-2008 9:54 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Bailey, posted 10-28-2008 3:44 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 244 of 310 (487236)
10-28-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Bailey
10-28-2008 3:44 PM


Hi Bailey,
C'mon onifre, you know it doesn't depend on that definition.
And why not?...
Realistically it depends on what is considered an 'argument of ignorance'.
Sure, but not just that. I feel people have a measure of what they consider reasonable doubt. It is subjective wouldn't you agree?
If proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required for conviction of a criminal defendant, and we are to assimilate the term scientifically, it should follow that reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral and evidential certainty that a hypothesis is false or a particular fact exists.
And I agree, but we are talking about religion where facts are hard to come by, and evidence is subjective as well.
as well as the relativity of his existence being a matter of importance.
How is it a matter of importance, aside from winning a debate? What would be the importance of it?
Though your logic would seem flawed by deducing God does not exist because a biblical Abrahamic deity was not factually evidenced.
I agree, but what then does the word God mean? Outside of religion, God as you are using it to mean, doesn't make sense.
You just choose the word God for lack of a better word. As Abogot is doing. If you are going to say for example that God is the forces of the universe, or he is everything and anything, or some other eloquently delivered set of words that sound mystical, you are just creating your own God concept using old religious names. Im not saying you are doing this but others do. If God is not the God of Biblical texts, or religious texts, or spiritual books, then you are not describing God, you have given some new description of what you see nature to be and placd the label of God on it because it seems proper. We lack a new word...perhaps science?
You're absolutely right.
This can be equivocated to a matter of faith ...
Faith in the non existence of the Abrahamic God of Judeo-Christian scriptures.
Though your logic would seem flawed by deducing God does not exist because a biblical Abrahamic deity was not factually evidenced.
See above answer.
And others have proven insightful in retrospect.
Good reads at best.
If God is, He will catch up
Tell me which one is coming so I can hold up a greeting sign.

"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 243 by Bailey, posted 10-28-2008 3:44 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Bailey, posted 10-29-2008 11:10 AM onifre has replied

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


Message 246 of 310 (487329)
10-29-2008 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Bailey
10-29-2008 11:10 AM


Hi Bailey,
Henceforth, it is the definition of reasonable doubt, combined with a complete lack of verifiable evidence, that forces such a debate into the argument of ignorance that it realistically is.
Understand that I agree with you here, but reality doesn't play off so easy, especially when the evidence is challenging someones faith. Personal faith may make people blind to certains evidence.
The scientific community is of course free to adapt and modify the processes and requirements of reasonable doubt to serve it's agenda.
What agenda?
concede peoples interpretation of the definition of reasonable doubt is subjective.
That is not what I meant. I meant that people have their own personal measures for what they consider evidence for placing reasonable doubt on a specific issue.
we're talking about the God associated with religious thoughts, where facts are impossible to come by, and objective evidence is nonexistent apart from faith ... which can, of course, not be verified as objective until the faith is concluded, thus rendering it, for all intensive purposes, useless and irrelevant.
Agreed, faith based evidence is useless and irrelevant.
For instance, hypothetically speaking of course, if it is a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity, wouldn't it cause one to hesitate before voting He does not exist.
Depends on who told me it was important to commune with God.
Respectively, if it is not a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity it would be nice to evidence this as well before hearing the case.
Some matters do not need to have disprovable evidence. Some things are just in the imagination and are just conjured up ideas. Like unicorns. Do we really have evidence that they don't exist? No, it is suffice that there is no evidence that they exist. As would be the same with God. We don't need evidence that he doesn't exist, it is suffice that there is no evidence that he exists, outside of religious faith based beliefs, and like we agreed, faith based beliefs are useless and irrelevant.
Science does not need to show evidence against anything, the onus is on the faithful to show existance for him.
This implies to me, that the Abrahamic God of Judeo-Christian scripture makes the most sense to you.
No, I am an atheist. None of the relgious or spiritual ideas of God have ever made sense to me. From mythology to Abrahamic, all nonsense.
is this assertion certified and official?
What aspects of reality establish it as such?
Sure is, cite something I can read that talks about God that doesn't have a religous affiliation.
exactly what religious texts and spiritual books qualify to infer descriptions of God?
Koran, the many Hindu texts, Buddist texts, Greek mythology, Taoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Neopaganism etc, etc, etc. Need more?
I do however feel, that if God Is, ultimately nature and the universe will be tied to his essence in some way.
If God is what?
If it is a matter of importance, and God Is, then He will relay it unequivocally.
Being that it cannot be evidenced yet, I feel it is unimportant to be able to establish such a perspective.
Even tho He may, I do not require the God to supply His plans regarding nature and the universe at this time.
When will you require it? lol
I don't understand what you mean. The fact that no evidence exists for God IS the evidence that shows that his existance is unimportant and nothing more that human made up ideas.
This is nothing more than the behavior you abhor.
Sorry, the was meant to show that the statment was a joke. I agree that science is not the proper word for it, but then again I don't think we need a word, there is nothing to give the word too.
Whether or not Christianity can truly offer an act, source, or state of protection is subjective on the basis that we can't evidence what we need protecting against unless we place faith in the concept of sin.
Sin? lol. I think you are proving my point. Sin is a religious concept, why would anyone give it any validity if they weren't religious?
Whether or not evolution can truly offer a complete account of the gradual, progressive changes and developments our universe has undergone is subjective on the basis that we can't evidence the past unless we place faith in the concept of science.
Faith in the concept of science? I think what is needed is an education in science, there is no such thing as the concept of science.
You're not making sense either. First, evolution does not give an account of anything. I think what you meant to say was "whether or not the Theory of Evolution can offer a complete account...". Which is does, perfectly. However, an education in science, and specifically in the ToE, will be needed to understand. Also, the ToE includes the mechanism by which gradual changes take place, natural selection. Natural selection perfectly explains how gradual changes happen, perfectly. Again, an education in the subject is needed.
Further more...
Bailey writes:
progressive changes and developments our universe has undergone
...has absolutly nothing to do with evolution, nor the ToE.
To borrow from the distinguished Rrhain, since we interact with the universe via observation, and since observation can never be known to be perfect, then it should, and does, follow that the best we can come up with are statements that we treat as axioms but which will be tossed as soon as we come up with new observations that contradict them.
These truly are matters of interpretation and faith ...
Oh you were doing so well...and have exposed yourself.
statements that we treat as axioms but which will be tossed as soon as we come up with new observations that contradict them
This is just your attempt to reduce the legitimacy of scientific theories. Theories are NOT axioms.
These truly are matters of interpretation and faith
Theories are understood when one is educated in science, no faith required. Faith is applied when there is a lack of evidence. The legitimacy we give science is do to the results given by science.
By all rights, He knows what you look like, whether you recognize Him or not.
If He Is, He will recognize you.
No sign necessary...
How do you know this. Who is "He"? How do you know "He" is a male? How did you come to this conclusion?
You see when you wrote,
Bailey writes:
I, personally, have yet to divulge any description of how I view nature, much less callously slapped a God label on it.
You divulged plenty, you just think you didn't.
Again, thank you for the exchange onifre.
Sure thing...
Edited by onifre, : add point.

"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 245 by Bailey, posted 10-29-2008 11:10 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Bailey, posted 10-30-2008 9:56 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 250 of 310 (487471)
10-31-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Bailey
10-30-2008 9:56 PM


Hello Bailey,
Their pursuit of systematic knowledge regarding our natural physical world.
Science is driven by observation and experimentation in a material world onifre.
By what precise application of facts and principles will they refute the existence of God?
I don't think there is a they refuting God. The evidence points to natural causes, thats good enough for me by my measure of reasonable doubt to the existance of God, perhaps you have a different measure for determining reasonable doubt.
People have their own personal measures ...
Science has its own.
Physical evidence.
If by physical evidence you mean what is found in reality then sure. If you are trying to imply that there is more than the evidence found in reality, I would say no.
Then again, most handicap people are equally useless and irrelevant.
Like Beethoven or Hawking? Or was that your attempt at sarcasm? lol
I don't agree. I think no matter what a persons handicap may be their relevance and importance is determined by their actions.
That will still require faith as the evidence is subjective, tho I digress ...
It would be better for the case if we knew it inherently as a physical truth.
If we could perhaps somehow learn it through physical properties.
We cannot even know if it is a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity until we find a law as conclusive to that end as ...
* "Theory of Don't Jump From Plane Without Parachute"
* "Theory of Don't Kill Your Neighbor"
If only we could establish something solid like those ...
Reasonably, we would have a clearer understanding of whether we wanted to acknowledge His existence or commune back occasionally.
Or we can reject the whole idea of gods till we find proof within nature and reality of his existance. As I've chosen to do.
I am a small voice in the community, but I say we do not have sufficient, if any, physical evidence to observe this conclusion.
Like I said we each a our own measure of what can qualify as reasonable doubt for the existance of God. By my measure the lack of evidence is suffice, by yours it is not suffice because it would then challenge your faith in Gods existance. Like I wrote in the other post,
onifre writes:
Personal faith may make people blind to certains evidence.
Thats just my opinion though.
God concepts belonging to Einstein and other such prominent deists.
They often set forth an interesting perspective.
Their impersonal view causes them to swim in different streams than the damned & glorified.
I personally think Einstein and those with common philosophies about God just used the word God for lack of a better word, but I did ask for an example and you gave me one so I'll concede on that point.
Just wanted to make sure my collection was certified.
Buddist?
When it becomes a matter of survival.
Then I think we're safe for now, lol.
Mere lack of evidence of the God's importance and existence is not, instead, evidence of His unimportance and nonexistence.
Similarly, mere lack of evidence of the God's unimportance and nonexistence cannot be taken as evidence of His importance and existence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence.
The exception being in one's own mind ...
This has been my point. By my measure the lack of evidence is suffice, by yours it is not.
No onifre, this is our point.
We share it ...
Do you disagree with the assertion that believing in sin requires faith?
My bad, I do agree that it requires faith.
Yet sin came before religion ...
Human actions have been deemed sinful, yet there would need to be someone judging. If that someone is God, then your statement requires faith to be accepted. If the judging is being done by humans, then you don't have to call it sin, since it has a religious affiliation, you can just say people have done wrong to other people. Or caused harm to other people. Or commited crimes towards others. But if you like the word sin, which im pretty sure has it's origin in religion, thats cool.
That is, the acts within the concept of sin took place well before it was actually defined as a word.
It’s basically a bunch of religious folk trying to describe human nature.
Now we agree...
It gives an account of evolution - doesn't it?
Now I'm confused - lol
I just took issue with the way you framed the question, sorry to be a stickler, im always on the alert for creation scientist who try to slip in their twist of words.
It is a remarkable collection of observations ...
You're making it sound like a museum exibit, lol.
Nevertheless, considering we interact with the universe via observation and observation can never be known to be perfect,
the best we can come up with are statements that we treat as axioms, even tho they are not as you point out.
If and when we can document new contradictory observations, we discard yesterday's news ...
You disagree ?
I agree...but im suspicious of your meaning behind discard. Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics, but it was not discarded. F=ma is still reality.
I don't ...
I like your honesty...
One word ... I'll give ya three guesses.
(left this one wide open - lol)
And I'll take it!...FAITH, lol. I understand your point.
It's only fair you begin to learn your opponent's position.
I divulged enough so you could deduce a truth.
Chances are you have deduced it ...
As well as a myriad of misconceptions and prejudices.
The misconceptions is what im trying to fix, the prejudices I appologies for...but in my defense, im riddled with a myriad of misconceptions.
I'm not being sarcastic here.
I appreciate debating with you.
Neither was I, your a cool dude/dudet. Your posts are long so it may take me a day or two to reply but don't think im not enjoying this.
Your down to Earth.
Now put on that Marley cd and smoke one for me ...
Done and done.

"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 247 by Bailey, posted 10-30-2008 9:56 PM Bailey has not replied

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


Message 259 of 310 (487817)
11-05-2008 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Straggler
11-05-2008 8:43 AM


Re: science is not in the business of refuting imagination
Is it possible to have faith in an imaginary and non-existant being?
Is this not the foundation for all of religions?
Not for spirituality but for religion. Lets be honest, no person in any religion has 'seen' anything, they just have faith in the concept of God that their particular religion has told them about. Wouldn't that make the relgious God imaginary and non-existant? They seem to place faith not on the existance of God but on the God version of their religion, which brings with it scriptures detailing Earths history, which can be challenged and disproven.
I know you may agree with me on this Straggler but what is Baileys take on it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2008 8:43 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Bailey, posted 11-06-2008 11:37 AM 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