Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
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

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


Message 248 of 310 (487438)
10-31-2008 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Bailey
10-30-2008 9:56 PM


Science is only limited to reality
Bailey writes:
People have their own personal measures ...
Science has its own.
Physical evidence.
No, "pysical evidence" is not science's own personal measure.
Science's own personal measure is reality. Things that actually exist. Things that do not only exist in our imaginations.
It's not science's fault that the "god hypothesis" cannot show it is a part of reality any more than anything else in our imaginations.
Science is not limited to the physical.
Science is not limited to the material.
Science is not limited to the natural.
Science is limited only to reality. If something cannot be shown to be part of reality... if it is limited to our imaginations, then yes, these things are not touchable by science.
Science is only limited to any and all parts of reality.
Science refutes the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt because there is nothing to differentiate the god hypothesis from anything else that only exists in our imaginations. There is nothing that shows the god hypothesis to be a part of reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Bailey, posted 10-30-2008 9:56 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Bailey, posted 10-31-2008 5:27 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 251 of 310 (487689)
11-03-2008 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Bailey
10-31-2008 5:27 PM


Refuted Beyond all Reasonable Doubt
Bailey writes:
I was under the impression science employs objective physical evidence to declare that which is reality within our natural material world.
I must be mistaken ...
As I cannot recall any, would you be as kind as to enlighten us as to what subjective facets of reality can be acceptable to reach scientific conclusions ...
As well, if not by physical evidence, by what other objective means may reality be otherwise declared?
Please be specific.
Yes, you are mistaken. Science is not dependent on objective physical evidence.
Science is merely dependent on any objective evidence. Anything that can possibly be objective in any way.
Physical evidence lends itself to being objective very easily, and is used in some way pretty much across the board.
But Science is not limited to the physical, only the objective. Do not confuse the two or you end up creating a straw-man of the scientific community. Which is, basically, what you've been doing in all your posts in this thread.
You forgot "And can be evidenced as such" ...
Science observes and documents facts that actually exist and can be evidenced as such.
To His credit, the God does not fit such a mold ...
You are correct. God does not fit in this mold. There is no objective information that suggests God exists in any way. The "god hypothesis" is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt simply because God does not fit such a mold.
You have suggested science operates within realities confines.
The God does not evidence whether He is a part of reality.
Correct. In exactly the same way that all other aspects of our imagination do not evidence whether they are a part of reality or not.
If not by your assertions, what precise application of facts and principles would science refute an existence not evidenced in reality?
Please be specific.
I do not assert definitively and officially that God does not exist.
I do not assert definitively and officially that a yellow dragon with greasy hair who plays poker does not exist.
However, with nothing but imagination to support it's existence, the yellow, greasy haired, poker playing dragon hypothesis is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.
However, with nothing but imagination to support it's existence, the 'god hypothesis' is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.
Bailey writes:
Stile writes:
Science is not limited to the physical.
Science is not limited to the material.
Science is not limited to the natural.
Dr. Bishop ... is that you?
lol - I like X Files and Fringe as much as the next guy, but ...
Reality itself is sustained by the options you propose.
Are you sure? Science is not. Science would never say that there is absolutely nothing more than the physical, material or natural. How could we ever know?
Science is not limited by any of these factors. They are just a currently known and easy way for science to work objectively.
What is able to be evidenced outside of the natural, material, physical realm that does not require faith?
I don't know. Science may not know either. That doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist. Yet, it would be immature to assume something specific exists before we have any evidence whatsoever.
It is one thing to acknowlege the unknown. It's another thing to claim knowledge of the unknown without any support. Claiming God exists, without any support is why the god hypothesis is refuted beyond all reasonable doutbt. There's no support for it.
Respectively, outside of the natural, material, physical realm, what realities have been evidenced by the scientific community?
Please be specific.
I don't know. I don't know if science knows. What does it matter? These may be all there is (in which case the god hypothesis is refuted adamantly). This may not be all there is (in which case we need supporting evidence in order to not refute the god hypothesis beyond all reasonable doubt).
Without any objective support, the god hypothesis is rejected beyond all reasonable doubt.
Until the God can be evidenced within reality, science is, for all intensive purposes, off limits from such a defunct proclamation.
Even more so when the God is evidenced.
See the conundrum ...
No, there is no conundrum.
As long as there is no objective evidence for the god hypothesis, it is rejected beyond all reasonable doubt. Just as any imagined hypothesis is. Just as anything that only exists within our imaginations is.
Once (if ever...) there is objective evidence for God, then we can start thinking about what sort of God it is, or what that God has to do with us, or if any religion has ever had any aspect of God correct.
Without objective evidence, the god hypothesis remains nothing more than imagination. Therefore, the god hypothesis is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt as any imaginary concept is.
In conclusion, science is not in the business of refuting imagination.
Unless, that is, science has forthright objective evidence that refutes a specific imagination.
Um.. wait.
I thought the 'god hypothesis' was that God actually existed in reality.
For such a god hypothesis certainly is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.
However, if you actually mean the 'god hypothesis' to be that God exists only in our imaginations.. then I'm sorry, I didn't mean to contend such a statement.
I agree, the 'god hypothesis' that God only exists within our imaginations is not refuted at all.
Absence of evidence is not evidence.
Where did you get this from? Absence of evidence most certainly is evidence when one has gone looking for that evidence.
If I sit on my sofa (and can't see my kitchen), the absence of evidence is not evidence that a cup of water does not exist on my kitchen table. You are correct in this scenario.
If I walk into my kitchen, and I see that there is no cup of water on my table. Then the absence of evidence of that cup of water most certainly is evidence that a cup of water does not exist on my kitchen table. You are sorely incorrect in this scenario.
When one goes looking for evidence, an absence of evidence most certainly is evidence for absence. Man has been looking for evidence of God for longer than he's been looking for anything else. That evidence does not seem to exist. Such a huge absence of evidence most certainly is evidence of God's non-existance.
It is for this very reason that the 'god hypothesis' is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Bailey, posted 10-31-2008 5:27 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Bailey, posted 11-03-2008 3:43 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 255 of 310 (487740)
11-04-2008 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Bailey
11-03-2008 3:43 PM


No support. No work. No God.
Bailey writes:
Stile writes:
Science would never say that there is absolutely nothing more than the physical, material or natural.
Why not?
Because they would simply say that it is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt. Not that there is "absolutely nothing" else.
It is ridiculous to definitively and officially state something does not exist when our knowledge of the universe isn't perfect.
It is, however, fully justifiable to state that anything without supporting evidence is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.
Bailey writes:
If it would be immature to assume something specific exists before we have any evidence ...
Surely, it would be immature to assume something specific does not exist before we have any evidence.
But we do have evidence. We have a mellenia of people looking everywhere they think God would exist... and all of them are left with God only in their imaginations.
It is shown that God only exists in our imaginations.
There is more evidenciary support that the god hypothesis is refuted beyond any reasonable doubt then there is evidenciary support that centaurs don't exist.
Bailey writes:
Absence of evidence is not evidence.
Stile writes:
Where did you get this from? Absence of evidence most certainly is evidence when one has gone looking for that evidence.
Nope ... even then it's not.
Even if you looked in the kitchen ...
Ask the big scientist if you don't believe the lil' one.
Your defense is "nuh-uh"??
I hope you'll excuse me if I'm not swayed by your powers of persuasion.
If you hypothesize that something is an actual part of reality and you go looking for that real thing in all the places it should be and you don't find anything that indicates the something is real at all. Then your hypothesis is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.
People have been looking, craving for an observation of God, for over 5000 years. Nothing.
Mere lack of evidence of the God's importance and existence is not, instead, somehow 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.
Your playing with words doesn't change the facts. If you think your keys are in your pocket, and you check your pocket and there are no keys there. This absence of evidence for the existance of keys in your pocket most certainly is evidence for the absence of keys in your pocket.
If you think God is a potent part of our reality, and you check reality for signs of God and you never find any... for over 5000 years with the majority of the planet searching... Then this absence of evidence for the existance of God as a potent part of this reality most certainaly is evidence for the absence of God actually being a potent part of this reality.
Of course, if you'd like to alter the 'god hypothesis' to mean:
-God only exists in our imaginations
-God does not influence our reality in any way that cannot be easily duplicated by mundane methods anyway
-God never leaves any objectively detectable trace of Himself for anyone to find, ever
Then this God is as impotent as the yellow, greasy, poker playing dragon I created in my imagination and I would always agree that such a silly god hypothesis is not refuted in any way.
Nevertheless, wannabe "scientists" with no integrity will work within the boundaries of argumentum ad ignoratiam to establish imaginary concepts as such.
Respectively, actual scientists with integrity will work within the boundaries of reality, and their professional scope, to establish evidential facts as such.
Do not be deceived, any "scientist" operating outside of this reality is a charlatan, and a disgrace to his peers. No better than a pharisee ...
I don't think you understand. No scientist is doing any "work" on this at all. There's no evidence. When there is absolutely no evidence, the work is already done. There's nothing to do. There's nothing to study. There's nothing to ponder or consider or give a second thought about. Scientists do not "work" to refute the god hypothesis beyond any reasonable doubt. The hypothesis is refuted as soon as it is expressed because there is no objective support for it. The "work" is instantaneous and isn't done by anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Bailey, posted 11-03-2008 3:43 PM Bailey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 10:02 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 257 of 310 (487746)
11-04-2008 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by New Cat's Eye
11-04-2008 10:02 AM


I wasn't very clear
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
-God never leaves any objectively detectable trace of Himself for anyone to find, ever
Then this God is as impotent as...
How does that follow?
You're right, that one alone doesn't really follow. But, as you guessed, that's not quite what I meant. I don't think I put that list together very well, though.
Stile writes:
Of course, if you'd like to alter the 'god hypothesis' to mean:
-God only exists in our imaginations
-God does not influence our reality in any way that cannot be easily duplicated by mundane methods anyway
-God never leaves any objectively detectable trace of Himself for anyone to find, ever
I suppose I was meaning a kind of "either 1 or 2, and add 3 on if you'd like..." sort of way.
In hindsight, I probably should have left that last one off the list and had an "either/or" of the first two options.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 10:02 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 263 of 310 (491154)
12-12-2008 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Ex-Believer
12-12-2008 12:33 AM


Re: Is it possible for science to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt
Ex-Believer writes:
Just because science can not prove the existence or non-existence of God does not make an argument for or against God.
This is incorrect.
If people say that God exists, and that God's followers' prayers will be answered... they are making a prediction.
If we test that prediction by monitoring the answering of prayers for God's followers and the answering of prayers for God's non-followers and the regular life of non-praying people, we can see if there is any correlation.
If this test comes up without any significant bias (eg. the prayers of God's followers aren't answered any more than the prayers of God's non-followers or even non-praying people) then this is evidence that a God who rewards praying does not exist.
If people claim God does all sorts of things, and we go looking for those things, and realize there is no God behind them... this is evidence for that God not existing.
This evidence is only valid for considering a God who is involved in the human population. This evidence cannot be used to say an uninvolved God doesn't exist. But it certainly is evidence for the non-existence of the God it tested for... the God generally discussed by Christians.
I can tell you that I get revelations from God. There is no science that can prove or disprove it, but that doesn't make it any more true.
If I can use science to show you that what you think are revelations from God are actually a delusion you've created in your own mind; then yes, this certainly does provide evidence that a God that gives you revelations does not exist. It does not provide evidence that any God that gives anyone else revelations doesn't exist... (although they can likely be tested in the same manner) but it most certainly does show you to be wrong.
As more and more 'tests for God' come up with no evidence in favour of God there are less and less places for 'a possible God' to actually exist. At some point, it becomes very plausible to simply assume that no God exists until we actually find some positive evidence. This is the same sort of reasoning that we use to not believe in fairies until we actually see some positive evidence for their existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Ex-Believer, posted 12-12-2008 12:33 AM Ex-Believer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by iano, posted 12-12-2008 9:34 AM Stile has replied
 Message 266 by Ex-Believer, posted 12-12-2008 4:30 PM Stile has replied
 Message 268 by Bailey, posted 12-12-2008 7:16 PM Stile has replied
 Message 269 by onifre, posted 12-13-2008 1:37 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 265 of 310 (491165)
12-12-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by iano
12-12-2008 9:34 AM


If there's no difference, then it doesn't matter
iano writes:
Uncircumventable problems abound
Not any I can see. Especially not anything meaningful:
there is no reason to suppose that because someone self-identifies as a believer they actually are a believer
This is correct. But if all tests for this sort of thing come up negative (which they do) by anyone and everyone who professes to be an actual believer (as seen so far) we end up with one of the following two conclusions:
1 - They are all non-believers, in which case God doesn't answer any prayers because there are no actual real believers to do the praying
2 - Some actually were believers, in which case the test is valid and God doesn't interfere with those prayers any differently than anyone elses wishes
In either case, it ends up with the same result. Sure, we can't tell the difference between which case it is, but it doesn't matter... same result.
- if the mechanism of a person coming to know that God exists is individualistically personal and God intends for it to remain that way, there is every reason to suppose he'll remain 'hidden' for the duration and from the instruments of your observation.
Very true. It's quite possible that God makes sure all tests come out inconclusive. Again, this isn't a problem. If there's no difference between someone who believes in God and someone who doesn't... we're left with the conclusion that it doesn't matter if you believe or not.
It's not quite "God doesn't exist". But, "God exists but doesn't make a difference" isn't really all that different. Certainly not meaningfully different.
iano writes:
I was given a dvd recently on which lots of people claim that God had given them golden teeth to replace ones they had lost. They even open their mouths up to the camera to prove it. Personally, I'd love to see an xray of divine dentistry to see what sets it apart from it's commoner garden relative.
Exactly. If there's no discernable difference, it doesn't really matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by iano, posted 12-12-2008 9:34 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 12-12-2008 6:44 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 270 of 310 (491373)
12-15-2008 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by onifre
12-13-2008 1:37 PM


Reasonable Doubt, not absolute truth
onifre writes:
If there is an all powerfull God He would not have to be subject to any human testing. He could create conditions that would allow for Him to never be seen.
Yes, very true. There certainly could be an all powerful God that makes absolutely no discernable difference to any human life.
That is, those lives that claim to be followers of such a God are not significantly better (or worse) than those lives that do not make such a claim.
There certainly could be some all powerful God sitting in the background, making sure His people come out "even" with everyone else, and not allowing Himself to be discovered. But, really, who cares? If there's no way to tell any difference, then what exactly is the difference? At this point, it's starting to get rather ridiculous to keep talking about some awesome God who grants His followers... absolutely no advantage at all over anyone else
As far as prayers not getting answered disproving God, I would say, and you seem to agree, maybe just the Abrahamic God, or maybe just the man made concepts of God.
My point was to show that when people grant specific attributes to God (like prayer answering), those specific attributes can then be tested for validity. This doesn't disprove "God", but it certainly disproves a God who grants whatever specific attribute was talked about. And, as more and more attributes are brought forward, and are tested for, and come up negative... there are less and less places for this God to actually be having an impact on this reality. This should lead a rational thinker to lean in the direction that maybe all this grasping at straws is simply just that.
But, I don't think people of faith would lose faith in prayer.
I don't think rational reasoning would make any person of faith lose their faith. Faith is belief in things we do not have reasoning for. I am certainly not attempting to convert anyone. I am simply trying to show that there is a valid arguement that the "god hypothesis" is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.
Faith certainly goes beyond "reasonable doubt".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by onifre, posted 12-13-2008 1:37 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by onifre, posted 12-15-2008 5:17 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 271 of 310 (491374)
12-15-2008 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by ICANT
12-12-2008 6:44 PM


What's the difference?
ICANT writes:
If there is no difference between a person who says he is a beliver and a person who does not believe, then you are right to conclude that the person claiming to be a believer is not a born again believer.
But, ICANT, I have never seen any difference in anyone who has ever said they are a believer. Including anyone on these message boards. Including the Pope. Including Mother Theresa. For any and all people who claim to be believers, there are just as many good and decent and honest folk who do not claim to be believers.
Does this mean there are no belivers anywhere on the planet?
Or are my methods of finding a 'difference' not valid for some reason?
What sort of difference should we actually find in a believer?
You are refering to answered prayer I assume.
Actually, at this point I'm referring to any sort of difference at all. Answered prayer... an easier life... perhaps even just smiling slightly more often than others. Anything at all, really. I've never seen any significant difference from anyone claiming to be a believer. What is it that a believer can have that a non-believer cannot? I have yet to see any valid answer for that question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 12-12-2008 6:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2008 12:56 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 272 of 310 (491375)
12-15-2008 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Bailey
12-12-2008 7:16 PM


Continuous investigation comes up with nothing
Bailey writes:
Yet, if little Billy 'prays' for a baseball glove, and then finds or is given one, is his prayer not answered?
And, even if processes employed by the God to distribute the gift of Love can be otherwise 'clearly evidenced'?
Even if some of Billy's mates also receive a glove and did not pray to the God; but another?
Who shall count to the God's credit, 1000 baseball gloves donated to Billy's school?
That's exactly my point. What's the difference between these gloves being God's credit, and these gloves being from some nice people making a donation? How do we tell the difference? What if no one prayed at all and the gloves still come? Is that just from nice people then? Or is that from God still too?
For this reason, science will testify what is 'true' today, may be 'false' tomorrow.
Respectively, what is 'false' yesterday, may be 'true' in the future.
Very true. That's why tests are always repeated, whenever anyone makes a claim. Anyone can claim, anyone can test. We are all eagerly awaiting any 'true' tests for God, however. I am not against such a conclusion, I am merely pointing out that it hasn't happened yet. Hasn't happened yet with all of humanity searching for it to happen over the course of human history.
But sure, it certainly could happen still, I'm just not holding my breath, that's all.
In what way may such assertion evidence the existence, or otherwise, of a prayer rewarding god?
If this test produces results that lack significant bias, this is evidence arbitrary claims of people are refutable.
No. It's evidence that what you tested for isn't true.
If I think I have keys in my pocket, and I look for those keys in my pocket and there is nothing there... this is evidence that there are no keys in my pocket.
Perhaps one is told I walk by the Tim Horton's up the street from Valero everyday on my way home from ...
If another sits at Tim Horton to witness me walk by on my way, yet does not witness me, do I not exist?
Of course it is evidence that you do not exist, it's just not very much or very good evidence, and can certainly be overturned by some positive evidence that you actually do exist.* However, if this person continues to look for you everywhere you're supposed to be (as people have done with God) and you're no where to be found. Say you never are at home, never at work, never with your wife, friends have never seen you, you never answer phone messages, you don't really have a driver's license or social security number, you have never posted on any internet message board, you don't even have a Facebook page ... then yes, that's certainly some good evidence that you don't exist.
I agree that negative results when testing for prayer do not show God does not exist. But it is evidence towards that end. As we do more tests for everything else God is supposed to do... and they all come up with negative results... this is more and more evidence that God does not exist. When no one, anywhere, is ever able to come up with any positive evidence for God existing at all... in the history of the world... then that certainly is some good evidence that God does not exist. Certainly enough to show beyond all reasonable doubt.
Edited by Stile, : *Added some clarity to this sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Bailey, posted 12-12-2008 7:16 PM Bailey has not replied

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


Message 273 of 310 (491389)
12-15-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Ex-Believer
12-12-2008 4:30 PM


Thinking it so cannot make it so
Ex-Believer writes:
My point was to say that people can say they believe in anything but that doesn't make it true.
Agreed, very much so.
The belief in God comes from primitive origins that man used to try to explain things they didn't understand.
Likely. I have no argument agaist this. I'd just be wary to put forth such a definitive statement about something that happened so long ago. I think that many beliefs in the supernatural came about through a variety of different means. But that's simply what I think, and I certainly think the one you've offered here was one of those ways (perhaps the majority, even?).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Ex-Believer, posted 12-12-2008 4:30 PM Ex-Believer has not replied

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


Message 275 of 310 (491394)
12-15-2008 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ICANT
12-15-2008 12:56 PM


Your say-so, even with the bible, is not beyond reasonable doubt
ICANT writes:
Stile writes:
What is it that a believer can have that a non-believer cannot? I have yet to see any valid answer for that question.
Eternal life.
Thanks. But you'll have to forgive me for not believing you. You offer no reason for me to take your word for this claim of reality. I don't think you, or whatever God you claim to support, have the ability to offer me this.
If there is a just God that offers such a gift, He will make Himself known to me. If He does not make Himself known to me, then perhaps I am unable to receive His gift as my search has yet to yield any results.
Nothing you have offered makes any sense for implying that such a God actually exists. I have met many false prophets in my time (many of them preaching from the same Bible you propose), and you have not offered anything to identify yourself as different from them.
Perhaps it is my path of seeking truth in this reality that actually makes me a believer, and perhaps it is I who already has eternal life, if such a thing is even available at all. I do not know, and by what you have shown so far, neither do you. Unless you are hiding some way of showing that what you say is actually true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2008 12:56 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 278 of 310 (491447)
12-16-2008 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by onifre
12-15-2008 5:17 PM


Reasonable thinking is not the same as reasonable doubt
onifre writes:
The advantage would be "life" and the ability for it to adapt, evolve and continue...nothing else would be required.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. This sentence confuses me. We're talking about the difference between followers of God (religious people) and non-religious people. This 'advantage' you've provided is something that (generally) non-religious people accept and religious people tend to reject.
Or are you thinking about some sort of ID-like religion where they believe God is behind evolution/adaptation/everything?
I just don't really understand the point you're trying to make here.
I totally understand that a person with a belief in a higher power may certainly disagree with me when I say their higher power provides no advantage over anyone else.
I'm not really concerned with what anyone thinks though. It is a fact that we can show that belief in a higher power does not add any significant "goodness" to one's life. High's and low's are equally attainable from theists and atheists alike. There is no feeling or attribute that is only attainable by "those who believe". We can show this to be fact, regardless as to who thinks it's actually real or not, they're just simply wrong.
Remember, I'm not trying to convert anyone, or convince anyone.
Reasonable doubt. That's all. And I think you are conflating the term "reasonable doubt". What's meant here is what we can show to be true, not what some people may think is "reasonable".
If God hadn't been arrogantly sequestered by the world religions, who knows where the "God Hypothesis" would be now.
Probably where it is with most Rational Theists right now. They understand that their faith is not rational or reasonable in the sense that it can be shown to be a part of reality. They understand that their faith rests on their personal conviction. With this understanding they do not allow their faith to interfere with other people's life-decisions. They also do not attempt to "prove" or "show" their faith, since they understand that such an act is unnecessary and even counter-productive to what faith actually is.
It could have been just a philosophical ideology that made no hard claims about reality.
Sort of. Rational Theists do make hard claims about reality... those claims are just kept private and personal. They do not make hard claims about reality to other people. That's the difference. For that, they understand that they require the ability to show how it is so in reality. And they understand that their faith is beyond such a restriction. But we must remember and respect that their personal philosophical ideology (or "faith") most certainly is a hard claim about reality to them.
In exactly the same way that I do not accept anything but what can be shown to be true in reality, they are able to accept some things that are not yet shown to be true in reality. Although this isn't possible for me, the personal conviction at the end of the day is exactly the same. My choice to only accept what can be shown is exactly the same as someone elses choice to sometimes accept what is-not-yet-shown. They are equal life-guiding choices. One is not better or worse than the other apart from our personal subjective feelings about them. Rational Theists do not quietly understand that their faith is actually "just an idea". They certainly do make hard claims about reality. They just have the rational ability to understand that these yet-to-be-shown ideas need to remain personal.
onifre writes:
Stile writes:
Faith is belief in things we do not have reasoning for.
I wouldn't say reasoning, I would say evidence.
You are correct, my mistake. I knew I didn't like the wording of that line. However, the context of this word "reasoning" is not the same as the context for the word "reasonable" in the phrase "reasonable doubt".
onifre writes:
Stile writes:
I am simply trying to show that there is a valid arguement that the "god hypothesis" is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.
To me yes, to someone from a tribe in the middle of the rainforest, not so much.
It does not matter who personally accepts an argument for "reasonable doubt". The point is to show, within the confines of reality, that what you say is actually true.
If I claim there are no keys in my pocket, and we turn my pocket inside out on the table and there are no keys there, then we have shown "beyond all reasonable doubt" that there are no keys in my pocket. I'm sure there are plenty of people (perhaps tribes in the middle of the rainforest, perhaps crazy people on the street) that may believe that I do still have keys in my pocket even though they do not see them in front of their eyes. Their refusal to accept reality does not change the fact that there are no keys in my pocket "beyond all reasonable doubt".
In the same way, if we look for God in all the places God is supposed to be (which people are constantly doing) and there is no God there and has never been any God there throughout the history of humanity... then it is shown "beyond all reasonable doubt" that God does not exist.
People can decide not to accept this conclusion all they like, it doesn't matter. Reality doesn't care what other people think, it only cares what we can show.
It doesn't matter if this is a valid argument to someone from a tribe in the middle of the rainforest.
It doesn't matter if this is a valid argument to onifre.
What matters is that this is a valid argument. That's all, period.
And it will remain a valid argument until such time that anyone is able to produce some sort of valid evidence from reality that contradicts this "reasonable doubt".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by onifre, posted 12-15-2008 5:17 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2008 3:19 PM Stile has replied
 Message 285 by onifre, posted 12-17-2008 1:03 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 280 of 310 (491541)
12-17-2008 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2008 3:19 PM


R-E-A-S-O-N-A-B-L-E D-O-U-B-T
Catholic Scientist writes:
You can show that you cannot detect any addition, but that doesn't show that the addition isn't there.
How do you know that your method of detection is not flawed?
You are correct. I do not know that the method of detection is not flawed. I also agree that I cannot tell the difference between "no detection" and "unable to detect".
That's why I'm only saying it's shown "beyond all reasonable doubt". If we use every means available to us, and we come up with nothing, then it's shown "beyond all reasonable doubt". It's not shown "100% true that this must be how reality is", but it most certainly is shown "beyond all reasonable doubt".
Chatholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
If I claim there are no keys in my pocket, and we turn my pocket inside out on the table and there are no keys there, then we have shown "beyond all reasonable doubt" that there are no keys in my pocket.
But science doesn't even have a possible method for detecting God. You're argument that science's inability to detect something non-phyiscal, based on the lack of physical evidence, shows that the non-physical thing doesn't exist is most circular.
It is possible that science doesn't have a method for detecting God. It's also possible that they do, and they've tried it, and God does not exist.
You cannot say "science doesn't even have a possible method for detecting God", how could you possibly know such a thing?
We are only limited to the methods known to us. How can we use a method of detection that we are unaware of?
Beyond all reasonable doubt.
Not 100%, not "this must be true about reality".
Lets look at the keys in my pocket again. I turn my pocket inside out and we both do not see any keys there.
This shows "beyond all reasonable doubt" that no keys exist in my pocket.
It does not show 100%, it does not show with absolute certainty that there are no keys in my pocket.
Perhaps there is some unknown phenomenon deflecting light away from the keys so that we cannot see them.
Perhaps we are both affected by some toxin that prevents us from visuallizing metal for some reason.
Or, as you say, perhaps our "method of detection" for the keys is flawed.
However, regardless, we have used all methods known to us, and therefore it is shown "beyond all reasonable doubt".
If we were to look everywhere that people said keys existed: vehicles... all people's pockets... houses... mailboxes... safes... locksmiths... Wal-Mart... and we NEVER, EVER found any real evidence of keys. If we used all methods of detection known to man to search for keys and we're unable to find keys anywhere on the planet... then this is some very good evidence that keys do not exist. If this were possible then it would be shown "beyond all reasonable doubt" that keys do not exist.
It's the same thing for God.
Sure our detection method may be flawed.
Sure we may not understand the detection method required to find God.
It's also quite likely (since we take many precautions) that the detection method is not flawed.
We have used all detection methods we know about.
We have attempted to detect everywhere people say we should look.
We have NEVER, EVER found any real evidence of God. Therefore, the "God hypothesis" is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.
Exactly like when I say "there are no keys in my pocket", I am really only saying "I've checked my pocket in the most reliable way I know how and have not found any keys... they may still be there, but I have no way to identify how this could possibly be different from them not being there".
That's what "beyond all reasonable doubt" means.
-We've checked everywhere God is said to be in the most reliable ways we know how
-We've checked multiple times, by many different people, in many different ways
-We have NEVER, EVER found any real evidence supporting the position that God may exist
-We are unable to identify a difference between "God existing and is undetectable" and "God doesn't exist".
-We are unable to identify a difference between "God" and "imagination".
Therefore, we have shown that God does not exist beyond all reasonable doubt.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Plenty of people have seen God here and there. The claim that there is not and has never been any God anywhere is just fallacious. We don't know that.
Sure science has never detected God, but that doesn't mean anything.
It most certainly is not fallacious. It's shown "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is true that science never detecting God doesn't mean anything. What does mean something is that there is never any real evidence that God exists.
People claim things all the time. That's what "doesn't mean anything".
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
In exactly the same way that I do not accept anything but what can be shown to be true in reality
Do you love your mother?
How do you show that to be true in reality?
Yes, I love my mother.
I show this to be true in reality "beyond all reasonable doubt" because I use every method available and known to me to show that love.
We are all limited by the methods known to us. You seem to be suggesting that all the methods we know about are useless compared to all the methods we don't know about.
That's like saying if someone attacks us with a bow and arrow, we shouldn't hide behind a brick wall because it's possible that there's something we don't know about the brick wall that may lead it to not block arrows.
It's not as if I'm saying we shouldn't bother looking for God at all and that shows He doesn't exist.
I'm saying we've looked for God EVERYWHERE He's supposed to be, using ANY AND ALL methods of detection we know about, for the ENTIRE HISTORY of mankind, and we haven't come up with any real evidence for His existence.
This shows that God does not exist "beyond all reasonable doubt".
If it doesn't, then nothing is ever shown "beyond all reasonable doubt". And that's just plain silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2008 3:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2008 11:16 AM Stile has replied
 Message 282 by Blue Jay, posted 12-17-2008 11:42 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 283 of 310 (491556)
12-17-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by New Cat's Eye
12-17-2008 11:16 AM


Reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt
Catholic Scientist writes:
You not knowing if your method is flawed and you not being able to tell the difference between "no detection" and "unable to detect" are both reasonable doubts.
If you took a ring to a jeweler and they said that they've shown that it is not gold beyond a reasonable doubt but they don't know if they ran the right test and they're not sure if they failed to detect gold or if there actually was no gold there in the first place, then you'd claim that your ring is not gold?
No, they are not reasonable doubts.
In your gold ring analogy they are not running all the tests we know about. In fact, they may not be running any tests at all.
With God, we're running EVERY test we know about, using ANY method we can possibly develop. We continually use any NEW method anyone is capable of thinking up, ALL of these methods come up with nothing.
If you think "not doing anything" is equivalent to "doing everything we can"... you're not understanding me.
Before we invented a detection method, you'd claim that there was no reason to doubt that your fork didn't have bacteria on it. That says nothing about whether or not there actually is any bacteria on it.
This very nicely shows the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "100% certainty".
What rational person would claim there's bacteria on a fork before we even knew what bacteria was? How could they claim such a thing?
At this point, it most certainly is "beyond all reasonable doubt" to say bacteria does not exist.
No one ever said we shouldn't look for bacteria. And we eventually found it.
What rational person can claim God exists before we even know what God is?
No one ever said we shouldn't be looking for God. However, we still have yet to find Him. Therefore we are still "beyond all reasonable doubt" that God does not exist.
What rational person would claim their imagination is real before showing it to be so?
No one ever said we shouldn't be looking for things in our imagination. How else would we discover new things? However, until we actually find something to indicate that it exists we are still "beyond all reasonable doubt" that things in our imagination do not exist.
This line of reasoning is exactly what I'm doing. How can we claim something is a part of reality before we can show it to be so? What is it that let us know that bacteria actually exists? We showed that it does exist by looking where it is supposed to be and finding real evidence for it.
We still can't even say with "100% certainty" that bacteria exists. It's possible that something exists that merely is detected by us as bacteria. However, we certinaly can say that bacteria exsts "beyond all reasonable doubt".
We would have been right in the realm of bacteria.
We would be wrong in the realm of Zeus.
We would be wrong in the realm of fairies.
We would be wrong in the infinite realm of human imagination.
There are an infinite number of imaginary things we'll be wrong about.
There are only a limited number of "types of things" that actually exist.
That is why we need to show things before we claim they are a part of reality. It is likely we are mistaken.
A god that is both intelligent and supernatural is outside the scope of science.
Says who? You? Who cares what you say?
What if an intelligent God wants to be found?
What if science can detect an intelligent, supernatural God and they just don't because one doesn't exist?
Looking and feeling around is a great way to find keys, but you're not going to find an intelligent supernatural being that way. Its a false analogy.
No, it's not.
If the only thing we are left with is a God who is undetectable from non-existence, then that alone shows "beyond a reasonable doubt" that God does not exist.
Nothing is ever shown to not exist further than being undetectable from non-existence. Not a single thing in our imagination. This is as far as our tests can take us, ever.
How can we ever possibly tell the difference between "non-existence" and "looks like non-existence but isn't"? We are never, ever able to do this, with anything. That's why we use the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt", for exactly this situation.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile from previous message writes:
Yes, I love my mother.
I show this to be true in reality "beyond all reasonable doubt" because I use every method available and known to me to show that love.
No way. How have you shown it?
We could take your same argument against god and apply it here.
-We've checked everywhere love is said to be in the most reliable ways we know how
-We've checked multiple times, by many different people, in many different ways
Stile writes:
And we find love in intelligent beings
-We have NEVER, EVER found any real evidence supporting the position that love may exist
Stile writes:
Of course we have. Just the other day I wrote my mom a Christmas card that says "I love you" on it. This is real evidence that I love my Mom. It may be wrong, it may not be very good evidence, but it certainly is real evidence. The difference is that we can find "me" in the real world.. we can find where this real evidence comes from. We cannot do so with God. There is a very obvious difference between a letter saying "I love you" to my mom that we can show is from me to her, and a letter saying "I exist" that is simply claimed to be from God. Remember, we're only showing things "beyond reasonable doubt". As far as the existence of my love is concerened we need to show that I exist, and then that I claim I have love, and then that I do not contradict that claim with continued, obviously non-love actions. This shows that I love "beyond all reasonable doubt". I fully admit it doesn't show "100% certainty"... NOTHING is ever shown with "100% certainty".
-We are unable to identify a difference between "love existing and is undetectable" and "love doesn't exist".
Stile writes:
Sure we can, since love certainly is detectable. The card I talked about above is one such example. We can even get into brain-wave scans as well.
-We are unable to identify a difference between "love" and "imagination".
Stile writes:
Sure we can, since love certainly is detectable as noted above.
Therefore, it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that you do not love your mother.
Therefore, it is still shown beyond a reasonable doubt that I love my mother. I am real, my love is real simply because people can love, and I am a person. In order to show my love actually exists, all we need to do is show that I actually exist and promote some sort of action to imply that love.
It's not like we have something from God that we could be unsure about.
It's that we have NOTHING from God.
There is a big difference.
Catholic Scientist's source on Social Sciences writes:
While in agreement on the important role of the scientific method, social scientists realize that one cannot identify laws that would hold true in all cases when human behavior is concerned, and that while the behaviour of groups may at times be predicted in terms of probability, it is much harder to explain the behaviour of each individual or events. Today, practitioners of both the social sciences and physical sciences recognize the role of the observer can unintentionally bias or distort the observed event.
Notice, of course, that there's still "an event". Sure, that event may be distorted, or misinterpreted when intelligent beings are involved in the observations or as the subject. The problem is that with God, there are no observations at all. We don't have an observation that may be mis-interpreted.
Go ahead, name an observation of God that we may have misinterpreted.
Likely, you'll only name an observation that has a perfectly acceptable mundane explanation for it, unless you know something I don't?
If you're going to complain that our mundane interpretations may be faulty, you have a lot of work ahead of you showing how that may be.
I'm not saying we checked once and didn't find God. That certainly would fall into the possibility that we're "missing" an intelligent being.
I'm saying we're checking constantly, and have been for all history. And as long as we still find nothing at all, we are showing "beyond a reasonable doubt" that God does not exist.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Are many of the findings of the social sciences false beyond all reasonable doubt as well?
Of course not. They are intended to show that certain findings on intelligent beings may have different results since intelligent beings do not behave the same way all the time.
The point with God is that there are no findings in the first place. We can't place a wrong interpretation on results when those results don't exist. It's the non-existence of those results that shows God does not exist beyond all reasonable doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2008 11:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2008 1:25 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024