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

Yup, that's it, because belief in God requires faith.Limiting yourself to the principle of evidence based objective investigation leaves no room for faith.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

I just have a minor quibble with that word often. I think you might be conflating theists and Creationists^TM.Most theists have no problem with most natural processes occuring without guidance. While some thiests have a problem with a few natural processes occuring without guidance, I wouldn't say that you find them "often".But whatever, its no big deal. And that's a Catch22, because once you have proof for the God in question, you move from faith to knowledge. So really, you guys can't ever have faith. I was an atheist for a while aroung the time I was in college (after being raised Catholic). It did coincide with my science education, though. My god before that was of the god-of-the-gaps type, and my science education pretty much closed all the gaps. With no room for god, and a kind of apathy to the situation, I just stopped believing.I had some experiences (that I don't really like, or intend, to get into here) that convinced me that there's more going on here than what science investigates (like a spiritual plane for example). Heh, kinda like Bill Hick's story about eating 5 dried grams of shrooms and laying in a field of green grass going "my god, I love everything.", except I wasn't tripping for all of the times, although I was for some.I studied various religions for a while, although Christianity always seemed like best one (probably having something to do with being raised that way). Then Jesus saved me. I was totally fucked one day so I fully submitted myself to him (as a last straw) and he came through and un-fucked me. That was quite an experience itself that I just might get into here one day. On top of that, members of my family, who I trust over no other, have confirmed my beliefs with their own. What do you mean here? Certainly religion has much value for most people? Is the emphasis on their claims about the natural world? Maybe it could be worded better... Well, there's Animism.... that's atheistic and has other stuff than "the truth about nature". I agree that science is the truth, but I don't think that all truth is covered by science. That's mean. What a daft comment! What about people that don't have access to a scientific education but instead became, say, a Buddist Monk. They could have knowledge that you couldn't dream of having (like regulating their internal body temperature and heart rate, etc.). Then who's the ignorant one? Man, that was a really conceited thing to say. Heh, oh yeah..... context. I see what you're saying but Math is different than science. Science has more subjectivity. Oh yeah, that's why I replied. Sorry, I've been getting up and doing stuff an then comming back to this.I'm convinced that the "supernatural" exists because of paranormal activity. Philosophical naturalism is internally consistent, but limits itself, through circular reasoning, in what it can consider and examine.It turns out that it works though. I mean, here we is conversating over these Internets with 'puters.The successes of science is what brought me to it (that and I was really good at it in school). But I don't limit myself to the philosophy that it is all there is. And combined with my personal experiences, I have no problem being a thiest while agreeing with science.I don't know what you mean by "juggling my common sense with my spiritual beliefs".... My spiritual beliefs seem to be common sense.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

You go even further too, and reject the existance of anything supernatural.I was convinced the supernatural exists before considering which man made concepts were consistant with my observations. Huh? What do you mean comes from? How did the religious texts get the idea of god if the idea of god had to come from the religious texts? Es imposíble! And then he goes on about how if Jesus had been electrocuted, would we all be wearing little electric chairs around our necks? "It makes you realize that everything you've learned is, in fact, learned and not necessarily true."That includes your rejection of the supernatural.But "these experiences" have not been confused with what is claimed by the organized religions. "These experiences" led to the realization that there's more to the universe than the natural. And it really was like a realization.Philosophical naturalism precludes religious belief because religious belief relies on the existance of the supernatural. Realizing that the supernatural does indeed exist then allows for the exploration of the religious beliefs as possible truths. I don't, really. I tried to help myself to no avail so I asked Jesus for help and it worked immediately. In the end, I do have to have faith that it was Jesus. Can you think of any other reason why people reject scientific facts? I cannot. A shame. Well, I had other experiences first that convinced me that the supernatural exists. And I didn't immediately apply a label to it. I did go: "what the fuck is it?" Throught the exploration of various possibilities, I came up with ideas that fit both my common sense and my experiences.The Jesus thing was much later. Oh ok, then I did use common sense. I'm a scientist who happens to be a christian, not a christian who happens to be a scientist, if you know what I mean. Yup, that makes sense. My common sense says that god does exist.The first step is realizing that philisophical naturalism doesn't see everything. I don't hold the OT to a very high regard. You trust the people who tell you not to trust the people who put the NT together? What about the people that tell you not to trust the people who tell you not to trust the people who put the NT together? Honestly, I don't think we need to get into the Bible to much for this discussion.

To know the ultimate truths of our world. Investigate, guess, test and conclude. And when you have non-empirical reasons to think they do exists? If something that was inherantly non-empirical existed, relying on empirical evidence would never find it. There are methods but as you say, they are not reliable. However, I think we can get to the point where they are not all equally valid. We have to realize that non-empirical conclusions could very easily be wrong, but not necessarily that they must be wrong. Not empirically, no. Perfect sense? Then yeah, go for it.But I think you have to weigh the absurdity with how right it feels and that its a personal decision. Well yeah.... Abraham almost killed his own son! You think it made "perfect sense" to him?

Its because the principles don't work in the other areas. Isn't it disputed through circular reasoning though? But what's the value in bbeing consistent if you're not covering everything? And a blind person wouldn't have to decide exactly where yellow stops and green starts...

From Message 99Since we're talking about subjective things, there is not going to be an objective test. And the results are going to be subjective, themselves. But you can weigh the plausibility of a claim with the knowledge that you do have and come to a conclusion on whether or not you believe the claim. It depends on the conclusions. Some I think you could differentiate between being mad, needed, or true. They couldn't be empirically verified as true, but we could accept them as true. Some conclusions are going to be unable to be differentiated though. From the knowledge that we have outside of the conclusions. How we feel about the absurdity of the claim versus the effect of believing the claim. I agree that faith alone has no bearing on the veracity of the conclusion. I also agree that it isn't reliable compared to empiracal verification. I don't think this means that all subjective claims are equally valid though.The existance of spiritual beings is more plausible than a flying spaghetti monster, IMHO. There no empirical way to verify that, but I can make a subjective opinion on what I think is more plausible. They might be equally valid in an empirical sense though.From Message 101Non-natural ones. Subjective ones. Parallel ones. Imaginary ones Since the priciples that we do have are inherantly empirical, I don't think the principles can be easily identified as such. Also, if there's inconsistency in these other areas, principles themselves could be entirely different. If there's intelligent forces at work, then the principles might only work when they allow them to. To try to figure out what really is going on here.Say you saw a ghost. It appeared, said hello, and then disappeared.To immediately disregard this as impossible because you don't want to abandon your principles would result in a great loss of a potential for extraordinary knowledge. To employ empirical principles against a being that can be visible or not at will would ultimately fail depending on the will of the being. This inability to empirically detect the being doesn't mean the being does not exist or only exists in your head.You can "close your eyes" towards the existence of the ghost and remain internally consistant in your empirical methods, but that doesn't change if the ghost really exists or not.Now, we're not going ot get to the point where the existence of the ghost has been empirically verified, but you can come to a subjective conclusion that you accept the existence of ghosts. And you gain little from avoinding the "philosophical problems" by maintaining principles that you know to be reliable in relation to things that you reliably know to exist to the illogical extension that nothing can exist that you don't know to be reliable in relation to things that you reliably know to exist.

I see, but gods must come from something else too. I'm not claiming it does. Not all on its own. The spiritual experience gets you out of philosophical naturalism. That's the first step. You can't hold philosophical naturalism and also be religious.With the conviction that philosophical naturalism is limited, you can then move on towards the concepts of Gods put forth by the different religions. Its not If P then Q, there's steps in between. I think that factuality exists outside of the human concept and that we humans cannot get to absolutely factual. We can get so damn close that it fits all practical purposes though. And we measure that with objective empirical evidence. The problem is that not every fact can be identified as the method is limited in that which it can investigate. Well, everything becomes subjective at some point, even objective evidence. That statement is unfounded. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm convinced it exists. Whether or not it really does, to me it does so I state it as a matter of fact. I realize its not really though. Again, I didn't go from having an experience to concluding Jesus did it. It was a gradual process of realizing, through several experiences, that philosophical naturalism is limited in what it can discover and that there are things to be witnessed that philosophical naturalism denies. Then through another experience I concluded Jesus was responsible for that one. All the others are still in the "it was just an experience" category. I agree. But your applying the standard of objectivity to something that isn't objective. It circular reasoning to conclude this way that only the objective is real. Que?

The role is in drawing subjective conclusions. Objective conclusions should rely soley on empirical evidence.Subjective conclusions would based on both the evidence and your beliefs. Believing that the supernatural exists comes from "knowledge" of the supernatural. You don't actually "know" it was supernatural but if you're convinced by the subjective evidence then you'd believe it. On the other hand, even empirical evidence doesn't lead to really "knowing". And objective evidence can only be aquired subjectively. Independent empirical evidence adds a lot weight to the claims, but on the subjective side, its not like I'm the only one who has seen a ghost. For them, yes, in a subjective sense. I think my "knowledge" of the supernatural is worth having. It doesn't help me at all in the lab, but its useful for philosophy. I do. But the dispute is unresolvable in an empirical sense. There is no dispute between those who have been convinced that the supernatural exists. I dunno. When the radiation is received by the eye, it sends a signal to the brain that is subjectively interpretated. The same signal to the brain would be indistinguishable from whether or not the eye received it.If one ghost can control its emission of radiation (objective) and another can send the signal directly to your brain (subjective), you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Its a subjective basis. You might be convinced by a dream. You might be convinced by a real ghost. Its up to your subjectivity which one you're convinced by and which one you believe actually exists. I'd say that empiricism is the basis, but that your subjective beliefs add weight to one or the other. Empiricism is not unimportant, its just not the sole source for what I find convincing. It not the sole basis for the judgement... No, it was to demonstrate that empirical knowledge is NOT the only basis on which subjective conclusions can be made. I've agreed that the conclusion are not realiable in the empirical sense, but in the subjective sense they can be convincing. Because the ghost you see when your awake is objective. it just isn't limited to empirical evidence. The superficially empirical evidence adds weight to the objectivity of the ghost but it does not prove the objectivity because it is unverifiable. This added weight leads to a subjective conclusion that the ghost was objective. On top of the superficially empirical evidence are the subjective convictions of the observer that lead to the differentiation. The basis is the empirical, but it is not the sole basis, the subjective convictions add weight to one conclusion or the other.

You gotta be careful with that one though.If I hand you an envelope and tell you that there's a dollar in it, how would you determine that there isn't one in there? It would be from the absense of evidence that there is a dollar in there (i.e. its empty). So that absense of evidence would be evidence that the dollar is not in the envelope.However, this does not prove that there is no dollar. You could have simply not seen it. They could....You can have an open mind and remain unconvinced of god's existence.Unless you're talking about people who hold a positive belief that god does not exist...But nobody really holds that.

I'm definately not saying that there is no objective reality.I meant that there could be situations where there is a dollar in the envelope but you just didn't see it. For example, if the envelope was very large, perhaps you didn't look everywhere in side it. Or one side of the dollar could have been painted white and you overlooked it because the envelope is also white. Something like that.

I suppose you could. If you were standing next to me when I saw a ghost, I think that you would have seen it too. If you had, then that lends credibility to there actaully being a ghost there, if you could not, then maybe I was imagining it. Have you ever tripped?

LSD isn't supernatural

I was sober.

Heaven's in a cow's butt!

How does that follow? I assume you meant altering it to any one of the following and not all of the following together. If you meant all of them together then nevermind.