Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 310 (491474)
12-16-2008 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Stile
12-16-2008 8:12 AM


Re: Reasonable thinking is not the same as reasonable doubt
It is a fact that we can show that belief in a higher power does not add any significant "goodness" to one's life.
No you can't.
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 you method of detection is not flawed?
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.
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.
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Stile, posted 12-16-2008 8:12 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 9:53 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 310 (491547)
12-17-2008 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Stile
12-17-2008 9:53 AM


Re: R-E-A-S-O-N-A-B-L-E D-O-U-B-T
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".
Wait, what?
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?
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".
Not in my opinion.
and if it does, then "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a worthless qualifier.
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.
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?
Because of the nature of philosphical naturalism versus the nature of god.
A god that is both intelligent and supernatural is outside the scope of science.
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.
No, its not the same thing for god.
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.
Sure our detection method may be flawed.
Sure we may not understand the detection method required to find God.
What is so unreasonable about those doubts?
It's also quite likely (since we take many precautions) that the detection method is not flawed.
For detecting a freakin' GOD!? Seriously?
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".
This is circular reasoning. You're defining "real evidence" as that from the methods we know about and then saying that since we have nothing from the methods that we know about then we don't have any real evidence and therefor it reasonably doesn't exist.

Let me take the other approach to this....
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.
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
-We have NEVER, EVER found any real evidence supporting the position that love may exist
-We are unable to identify a difference between "love existing and is undetectable" and "love doesn't exist".
-We are unable to identify a difference between "love" and "imagination".
Therefore, it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that you do not love your mother.

Actually, I thought of one more aproach.
You're basically arguing Positivism here. But what about the social sciences?
quote:
Among most social scientists and historians, orthodox positivism has long fallen out of favor. 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.
source
quote:
Antipositivists then add that positivism is restricted to phenomena that can be constrained within an analytical and verifiable fragment of the reality, i.e., that it is impossible to study freedom, irrationality and various unpredictable actions that are common in individual human behaviour.
source
Are many of the findings of the social sciences false beyond all reasonable doubt as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 9:53 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 310 (491569)
12-17-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Stile
12-17-2008 12:31 PM


Re: Reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt
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.
And science may not have run any tests for god at all too.
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.
But this is only for scientific tests. If a man prayed to god and saw and heard god's reply, then that was a "method" and it came up with something. This has happened before, its just has not be verified by science.
That science has failed to "come up" with something does not remove all reasonable doubt that something could still be there.
If you think "not doing anything" is equivalent to "doing everything we can"... you're not understanding me.
I don't think that.
This very nicely shows the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "100% certainty".
I'm not arguing that anything less than 100% certainty is a reasonable doubt.
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.
I don't think it was beyond reasonable doubt that the bacteria didn't exist.
Since you think it was, then you're just turning "beyond all reasonable doubt" into a worthless qualifier like I said before.
The lack of doubts that you considered to be reasonable said absolutely nothing about the actual existence of the bacteria.
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.
I guess I just don't agree with how you apply the label of "beyond all reasonable doubt".
Uncertain methods and measurements are reasonable doubts to me. You can define your label to not include those, but all your doing is taking value from the label.
Basically, you're just saying that you don't think the doubts are reasonable. So what?
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.
From a scientific standpoint, sure. But from a personal and subjective standpoint, no.
A rational person could be convince that their imagination was real and they would have a reasonable doubt that it wasn't.
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.
Your argument is circular.
The man who heard god answer his prayer has detected god. He has a reasonable doubt that god does not exist.
But this is not scientific evidence. You're arguing that because we don't have scientific evidence, then we have absolutely no evidence, so then there's no room for reasonable doubt. But that's because you disqualify the reasonable doubts a priori:
quote:
The point with God is that there are no findings in the first place.
It's that we have NOTHING from God.
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.
But there is no scientific evidence that love even exists in the first place. Now you have lowered your standard of evidence to include this as "real" evidence but you won't do the same for evidence of god. See how your argument becomes circular?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 12:31 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 2:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 310 (491575)
12-17-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Stile
12-17-2008 2:09 PM


Re: Reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt
But people certainly have ran every possible test they can think of or know about. And nothing.
No.....I think you're equivocating here.
The man who heard god's reply to his prayer ran a test and he got something.
But this is only for scientific tests. If a man prayed to god and saw and heard god's reply, then that was a "method" and it came up with something. This has happened before, its just has not be verified by science.
Yes, the claim certainly has happened. Multiple times. Of course, there are many, many reasons to doubt these claims.
Add in the fact that on a world-wide scale, no group of those who claim to talk with God live in a different manner from those who do not claim to talk with God.
God must not be telling them anything very interesting or new. Perhaps the God they're talking to is only telling them things they already know because they're talking to themselves since God doesn't exist.
Reasonable doubt. Not 100% certainty.
Wait, this is a seperate claim.
I agree that there are reasonable doubts to the existence of god.
What I don't agree with is that non-existence of god is beyond reasonable doubt, or rather, there are reasonable doubts to the non-existence of god.
I don't think it was beyond reasonable doubt that the bacteria didn't exist.
Then what was the reasonable doubt?
That your method of detecting the bacteria was inadequate.
I guess I just don't agree with how you apply the label of "beyond all reasonable doubt".
Uncertain methods and measurements are reasonable doubts to me. You can define your label to not include those, but all your doing is taking value from the label.
Basically, you're just saying that you don't think the doubts are reasonable. So what?
When I say "reasonable doubt" I am not saying my own personal reasoning. It is said in the sense of searching for truth. And the best (and so far only) reliable way we know of to acknowledge truth is by showing it to be a part of reality.
If one does not want to search for truth, or if one does not accept the best (and so far only) method available and does not offer a better method... how can you possibly say the doubts are "reasonable"?
The "unreliable" ways of acknowledging truth can yield doubts that are reasonable.
That's what I mean by "reasonable doubt". Using anything possibly at the disposable of humankind to SHOW what is a part of reality. Anything else is unreliable and certainly contains "reasonable doubt".
That millions of people are convinced of god's existence is reasonable enough to doubt god's non-existence, at least as much as your reasons for doubting that love doesn't exist.
The man who heard god answer his prayer has detected god. He has a reasonable doubt that god does not exist.
I would say that an intelligent, rational man who accepts the above statements for SHOWING things to be true only has reasonable doubt that he may be having a delusion.
And you may be having a delusion that you love your mom.
But the point is not that the man has shown god's existence to be true, its that he's casted a reasonable doubt on god's non-existence.
God has not been shown to exist yet. The first piece of evidence to begin "reasonable doubt" as to God's non-existence must necessarily be SHOWN in reality. If we could be mistaken about the evidence, then it does not contain "reasonable doubt" with the knowledge we have of the human mind and how we make mistakes and errors.
I don't agree with your criteria for what is reasonable.
I have not lowered the standard at all. I've never demanded "scientific evidence", just the ability to SHOW that it is a part of reality.
We can't show that love exists.
I claim to have love. I certainly am real and am capable of love. I can show these things.
No, you can't.
You're not applying the same criteria, for "reasonable", towards love that you are towards god.

ABE:
Do you also think that we can claim, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is no other life in the Universe?
We don't have the means to nor have we detected any yet so following your logic I'd have to say that you do.
I, otoh, think there are reasonable doubts to the non-existence of other life in the Universe and that our inability to detect them has not removed all doubt to their non-existence.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 2:09 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 310 (491580)
12-17-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Stile
12-17-2008 3:28 PM


Re: Reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt
He certainly did get "something". But he is unable to tell if his "something" is from where he thinks it is from (God) or from something else (possibly himself). Therefore, since he is unable to know if this doubt is valid, this doubt is unreasonable.
I just don't agree with your definition of "reasonable".
In order to have a reasonable doubt about the non-existence of God, we must be able to show that this doubt is a valid part of reality. Otherwise, the doubt is not reasonable (it may be mistaken... how could we know?).
Yeah... without being able to agree on the terms, this discussion is going to go nowhere.
The ability to be shown to be a valid part of reality is not neccessarily a requirement for a doubt to be reasonable, imho.
Catholic Scientist writes:
The "unreliable" ways of acknowledging truth can yield doubts that are reasonable.
I'm not sure what you're saying by this.
I was saying that the ways of acknowledgeing truth that are unreliable (i.e. not validated, or subjective, etc.), can still give us doubts that are reasonable. You're arguing that valid objective doubts are the only reasonable ones. I think we're at an impasse.
And I still think your argument is circular. It boils down to: its not a valid part of reality until it is validated as reality. I think that valid parts of reality are independent of our varification and that our lack of verification does not remove all reasonable doubt.
Basically, you're defining "reasonable" as verified by science and then saying that everything that isn't verified by science is not reasonable.
If you're saying "The unreliable ways of acknowledging truth can lead to reliable ways of acknowledging truth". Then I agree with you. However, until we actually do find those reliable ways that are possibly-being-led-to, we are left with God's non-existence being shown beyond all reasonable doubt.
I also don't agree with this line of thinking; That discoveries that we haven't made yet are non-existent beyond a reasonable doubt until we do discover them.
I think it makes the qualification "beyond a reasonable doubt" near worthless.
That millions of people are convinced of god's existence is reasonable enough to doubt god's non-existence, at least as much as your reasons for doubting that love doesn't exist.
No. Millions of people being convinced of something does not make it a valid part of reality. There are a multitude of answers for such things. We cannot tell the difference. It is not reasonable to call this a doubt.
I don't think it validates it as a part of reality but I still find it reasonable.
Why do people think love is so hard to show? It's really easy.
Because love isn't what you think it is.
Love
-strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties
There's more to love than just strong affection.
Your insistance on Love being some sort of non-defineable, poetry-defying entity does not make it so.
Of course not, and neither does your dictionary define a word.
I have easily shown you that Love exists beyond all reasonable doubt.
No, you've shown that affection exists, not love.
So now we can't agree what love is, in addition to what is reasonable.
Like I said, an impasse.
I'll let you have the last word (maybe ).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 3:28 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Stile, posted 12-18-2008 8:51 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 310 (491611)
12-18-2008 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Stile
12-18-2008 8:51 AM


Re: Perhaps an impasse
I'd defining "reasonable" in the same way a democratic court system does. That is, you need to be able to show that it is true.
Then you're misapplying reasonable doubt and wrongly defining what it means to be shown to be true.
In a court case, you have to provide reasonable doubt of a person’s guilt. You do not have to show their innocence.
If the claim is that god exists, then I agree that there is reasonable doubt to this claim.
If the claim is that god does not exist, then I also agree that there is reasonable doubt to this claim.
The “guilt” in our case should be god existing. A court doesn’t require that a person’s innocence be shown beyond a reasonable doubt; you have to show a reasonable doubt to their guilt. In this case you are attempting to say that innocence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and I think that is a misapplication of where the reasonable doubt should be. You’re saying that doubt has been removed from a negative claim instead of a positive one.
Also, how a court allows things to be shown to be true is different from how science does it. In court, a personal testimony can be the evidence of a reasonable doubt to someone’s guilt. That doesn’t fly in science.
You’re essentially defining “shown to be true” as “verified by science”, but this isn’t what a court system requires for things to be shown to be true.
If this were a court system, then a person’s testimony of god’s existence would be a reasonable doubt that god does not exist.
And I am certainly saying that those things we cannot show to be true are therefore unreasonable, yes, that's inherent in the definition.
This is not circular. This is simply a definition along with it's opposite. It's a totality. Totalities are not circular.
Your argument, not this definition, is circular. Your argument goes like this:
A doubt is reasonable when it is verified by science.
God’s existence has not been verified by science.
There are no doubts to god’s non-existence that have been verified by science.
Therefore, there is no reasonable doubt that god does not exist.
You’re begging the question by defining reasonable as verified by science and then saying that it isn’t reasonable because it hasn’t been verified by science.

Ah... so you attempted a trick question
If you are going to use the term "love" in an undefineable sense, then I am forced to agree with you. How could anyone possibly *know* that they "love" at all, if we are unable to even define "love"?
Indeed. And funny enough, even though people can’t define love, when they are in love they just know it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Stile, posted 12-18-2008 8:51 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Stile, posted 12-18-2008 11:41 AM New Cat's Eye 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