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

Yes, this is true. The entire point of "reasonable doubt" is not to be "100% certain" because such a goal is unattainable (by any known method, anyway).But you need to be careful. Onifre's "what we know" was "a tribe in the rainforest", and Onifre's "where we've been told to look" was "where a tribe in the rainforest might try to look.Now, with my example "what we know" is what all of humanity knows. And "where we've been told to look" includes all possible places we can know of to look in.That's a big difference. Yes and no. The same kind of form, but certainly not just "to me".The same kind of form, but "to everyone" with "everything that we know to date".How can we (human race 'we') reasonably claim anything beyond what which we know?That's the whole point of "reasonable doubt". It absolutely is not "100% certain", but just correct-as-far-as-we-are-able-to-tell.

I was using the standards of a democratic court system. Since that's where I believe the term is derived from.You're getting into semantics, and I do not care to follow such a discussion (I find semantics incredibly boring). I fully concede to you that if we take "reasonable" to be anyone in the coloquial sense then you are correct.However, I am taking "reasonable doubt" to mean what it means in a court system. That is, bascially, "using what we're have available to us to show that what we say is true".That is the only argument I am interested in, one where we can show our stance to be true. If we use your definition of "reasonable", this restriction is not necessarily included. I am uninterested in what people think yet cannot show. Well... about the existence of God, anyway I'm sure they would, seems like a very sweeping statment to just spit out in the general sense. I should make sure I qualify it so that people understand what I'm trying to say:They understand that their faith is not rational or reasonable in the sense that it can be shown to be a part of reality.Oh yeah, I did. Waste time much? As I said to Bluejay, by "confines of reality" I mean that which we have available to us, and that which we know.It may certainly well be incorrect. But we'll never know beyond all reasonable doubt unless we can show something. Although you mentioned this may be corney, I think this is a very important point to clarify. It's along the same lines as CS talking about me loving my mom.I look inside myself and claim that I have love.
I am claiming that love is an attribute of myself.
I am claiming that without me, there is no "my love".
I am claiming that without intelligent beings, there is no love.
I can show love exists because I can show I exist, and I can do actions that show I am engaging in a loving manner.
I can disprove that my love exists because I can do actions that would show that I am not engaging in a loving manner.God, even an internal "within myself" God, is not the same thing.
I've yet to hear anyone claim that God is an attribute of intelligent beings.
I've yet to hear anyone claim that without intelligent beings, there is no God.
We cannot show or disprove that God exists by engaging in a "Godly" or "Un-Godly" manner. That is, whatever manner we may apply the term "Godly" to, can also be duplicated by those who do not claim it is "Godly".The point is that when claiming something like love, people are claiming it internally as an internal attribute. However, when claiming something like God, people are claiming it internally as an external attribute. To any system (like a democratic court) that is interested in understanding what is true.
The only way people have ever been able to understand something is true with as little doubt as is possible is by showing it to be so within reality.Therefore, this makes "showing something" the highest (yet known) court in the land.Yes, such a system is subjective. It is only significant to those who find understanding truth to be valuable. But it is proven "beyond all reasonable doubt" to anyone who finds understanding truth to be valuable, and therefore will only accept the highest court in the land (showing).I've been assuming the "to anyone who finds understanding truth to be valuable" part as inherent in the phrase "reasonable doubt". Hopefully that will no longer cause any confusion.

Agreed. But people certainly have ran every possible test they can think of or know about. And nothing. That's reasonable doubt.Why would it be reasonable to worry something may be detected by a test we aren't capable of thinking about?Reasonable doubt. Not 100% certainty. 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.This does not mean there are "no doubts" about the conclusion.
This simply means that we are unable to SHOW that there are any REASONABLE (reliable... valid) doubts about the conclusion. Then what was the reasonable doubt?
Why should people have rationally thought bacteria could exist before they had any indication that bacteria may exist?Remember... when they found indication, they did a test. And that test came out positive. And we found that bacteria did exist. That's exactly why it would be okay. Once a reasonable doubt is raised (one we can show to be true), then we need to change our minds and do a test. Once we find the result of the test, we can go back to our original "non-existence beyond reasonable doubt" conclusion or perhaps we actually showed that it does exist. 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"?I am assuming that the following are uncontestable by intelligent, rational people:-truth is determinable and valuable
-the best (and only) method we have available to know that a claim is truly a part of reality is to show that is. (The best method within this subset is the scientific method, but there is no such restriction to "only the scientific method").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". 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. Delusion certainly have been shown to exist. Delusions of God answering prayers have been shown to exist. 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 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. The scientific method is simply the best way we know of to SHOW things. It is certainly not the only way.I claim to have love. I certainly am real and am capable of love. I can show these things.
If someone claims to be God, I'd want to make sure they can show me they exist. I'd want to make sure they can show me they are not "human" or any other kind of being we already know exist. I'd want to make sure they are capable of the sorts of things a God should be capable of.That most certainly would be able to put "reasonable doubt" on the non-existence of God. Still hasn't happened yet.

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.God not existing is still shown beyond all reasonable doubt. 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?).People hearing things in their heads and claiming it is from God is not 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.People getting feelings and attributing them to God is not 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'm not sure what you're saying by this.If you're saying "The unreliable ways of acknowledgeing truth are reasonable doubts themselves", then you are wrong. The fact that it is unreliable (we can't tell if it's true or not) is exactly what makes it not reasonable to call this a doubt.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. 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 say my love exists because millions of people are convinced their love exists. I say my love exists because I can show I exist, I can show that I have love, and it's possible to disprove that what I say is love is actually love (if I cheat on my wife, I do not love her). Do this with God's existence and I'll certainly concede. Why do people think love is so hard to show? It's really easy.Love
-strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal tiesI can show I exist. (I'll take it you'll take this for granted?)
I can show my mom exists. (I'll take it you'll take this for granted?)
I can show my mom and I have kinship or personal ties. -she raised me
I can show I have strong affection for my mom. -I take time to care for and interact with my mom while I do not take time to ridicule or be negative towards herSuch things show that I love my mom. Your refusal to accept it doesn't change the facts.
Your insistance on Love being some sort of non-defineable, poetry-defying entity does not make it so. Such things certainly are extreme forms of Love, but it is not required to show the extreme possibilities of something when we're simply trying to show that it exists at all. That would be like God actually leaving valid evidence of himself (the words "From God With Love" being found intrinsically etched into the hearts of all humans, say) yet we still say He does not exist beyond all reasonable doubt because there is no world peace. It's ridiculous.I have easily shown you that Love exists beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm still waiting for anything from you about God. Beyond all reasonable doubt: Beyond any doubt that we know is truly an actual part of reality. That is, being able to show that it is true. In other words... if we are unable to know if the doubt is a part of reality or not (if we are unable to show that the doubt really exists in reality) how can we possibly say that the doubt is reasonable?

We may be at an impasse, yes. Essentially the same thing, but I'd word it like this: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. 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. I agree to this. I think this is the difference between "beyond all reasonable doubt" and "100% certainty".The fact that valid parts of reality can be independent of our verification and that we cannot tell the difference between these and the infinite number of purely imaginary things that are equally independent of our verification leads us into requiring two different categories.I am labelling "the things we know are real" as "beyond all reasonable doubt".I am labelling "the things we are not sure if they are real or not because we are (currently?) unable to tell the difference" as "unreasonable doubt".I am labelling these things in the same way a democratic court system does. The same way any system focused on using our best-known resources to identify "true in reality" would do. 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"?You'll have to define what you mean by "love" before I can attempt to tell you if I have it or not. If you don't mean the general dictionary sense of the word then I do not understand what you're trying to talk about and you'll have to define it yourself.If it's undefineable, then we're also unable to *know* if we 'measure up' to it or not. That is obvious.And don't worry about "last words", I'm enjoying this conversation.

But, if we exist as brains in jars... why are you saying you don't know if we exist or not?I didn't say I can show the exact specifics as to how I exist. I said I can show I exist. Real people in real bodies or brains is jars doesn't matter. Either way, I still exist. I cannot. That's the whole point. There is no data showing any group of those who claim to talk with God live in a different manner from those who do not claim to talk with God.I should probably add some context though.I'm not talking about "a different manner" as in they have a different culture. I'm talking about "a different manner" in which people who do not claim to talk with God are unable to live.That is, those who talk with God do not have better lives.
Those who talk with God are not happier.
Those who talk with God are not more depressed.
Those who talk with God are not smarter.
Those who talk with God are not dumber.
Those who talk with God are hit by natural disasters as much as those who do not talk with God.
Those who talk with God do not live longer or shorter than those who do not talk with God.There is no difference between the average "talking with God" person and the average "not talking with God" person.I'm afraid that if you're going to claim that there is a difference, you'll have to be the one who shows it to be so. Because there is no data for me to use since I am not claiming an ability, I'm claiming the absence of any special abilities. No. I never mentioned any accidents. I only want you to understand that the idea of your wife being brought to you by God is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.Maybe your wife is a girl who likes a challenge.
Maybe your wife is a strong individual.
Maybe your wife loves you.Maybe it was God who brought your wife to you. I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm saying we can't tell, and therefore the suggestion is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.There are plenty of mundane reasons for your wife to stay with you.
There are plenty of mundane marriages that have "more possibly-strenuous" relationships then the one you have and they also last longer. No, I want to tell you that we are unable to show a difference between these things being caused by God and these things being caused by mundane forces.I want to tell you that there are plenty of people with more convincing and more seemingly-impossible stories than yours that do not attribute them to God because they have perfectly fine mundane explanations (like all of your stories).I want to tell you that because we can't tell if it's God or not, then the God hypothesis is refuted "beyond all reasonable doubt". This does not mean "100% certainty", it simply means "as far as we know". I'm not telling you that you should have doubts.I'm telling you that the God hypothesis is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm not telling you that you need to accept this, you can go and accept whatever it that makes you happy.However, if you're going to say you follow truth.
If you're going to say that truth is the highest priority.
If you're going to say that you'll use the best methods known to us to discover truth.
If you're going to say that you'll search for this truth honestly,Then you'll have to agree that the God hypothesis is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt. If you do not, then you're lying when you say the above pre-requisites.If you have faith that God exists, it is trivially obvious that "faith" is "beyond reasonable doubt". ICANT... don't take things out of context now. I would never say such a thing. It likely was a part of an "if... then..." statement, or perhaps you are just making this up entirely.And you are correct, if God does exist then I will know for a certainty that He does. I don't even require certainty though, I just require any amount of doubt that we can show is a part of reality.Finding "FROM GOD WITH LOVE" engraved on the hearts of all people does not show that God exists. But it certainly provides reasonable doubt.Take jumping off a bridge.
Reasonable Doubt: Anything that we can show to be attributed to jumping off bridges. Example: I may break a leg. People have been known to break legs when jumping or falling off bridges.
Unreasonable Doubt: Everything else. Example: I may fly. People have never been known to fly unaided.Take God's existence.
Reasonable Doubt: Anything that we can show to be attributed to God (we do not have a mundane explanation for it). Example: Finding "FROM GOD WITH LOVE" engraved on all hearts of humans.
Unreasonable Doubt: Everything else. Example: I have faith that God exists.

I think you are missing the context of what I'm trying to say. But that's probably because I didn't clarify enough I agree that talking to God can make individual people happier. That is, a sad person can become happier from talking to God.The context I'm getting at is that we get the same result if a sad person talks to a therapist.Now, certain things work better for certain people.
I agree that some people may need to "talk to God" to feel happy. That is, talking to a therapist may not allow some people to be happier, or as happy, as talking to God allows them to feel.But again, this isn't what I'm saying.What I'm saying is that there is no one person (or group of people) who "talk to God" and are happier than one other certain person (or group of people) that get their happiness from strictly mundane sources.I am not denying the power of "talking with God".I am denying that the power of "talking with God" is somehow more powerful then the power of "a strictly mundane method" for achieving that same power.

No, I'm not taking "the term reasonable doubt as well as what it is generally applied to".I am simply taking "the term reasonable doubt" and I am applying it to God's existence. Again, I am not, nor have I ever said I'm limiting "showing things to be true" to "the scientific method". In fact, I've explicitly said this a few times now.All you have to do is be able to show that it is a part of reality.Personal testimony is sometimes a good-enough way to show that something is a part of reality. The same as in a court system.There is no court system I've ever heard of that takes any and all personal testimony.
Personal testimony is only accepted in court if you can show that it is a part of reality, or if it's obvious that it has been shown to be a part of reality before.Personal testimony acceptable in a court system: "I have a cat".
Personal testimony unacceptable in a court system: "I have a cat with natural wings that flies on it's own unaided".One is accepted because it has been shown to be true in reality before (people have cats).
One is rejected because it has never been shown to be true in reality before (people don't have cats with natural wings that fly on their own unaided).
It is not said to be "false", it is just said to be "beyond all reasonable doubt" until such time that this person making the claim can come in and show their cat with natural wings that flies on it's own unaided.I've never said I require the scientific method. I've only said that I require things to be shown to be true in reality. The nice thing about my argument is that I get to define it. Not you.
You may "think" that is my argument (and you'd be wrong). But you cannot say that this "is" my argument.
Only I get to say what my argument "is". And this is my argument:Definition - We "know" something when we are able to show it to be true in reality.
Definition - A doubt is "reasonable" when we can know it to be true in reality.
Current Fact - There is nothing that can only be attributed to God that we know of in reality.
Clarification - That is, we may attribute certain things to God, but there is always an equally acceptable mundane answer as well.
Clarification - That is, there is no way for us to (currently) know if something should be attributed to God or not.
Conclusion - Therefore, there is no reasonable doubt that God does not exist.If I define "reasonable doubt" to be "doubt that can be shown to be true in reality".
Then this makes "unreasonable doubt" to be "doubt that cannot be shown to be true in reality".
Which makes a lot of sense. If we are unable to verify if the doubt is actually worth worrying about, why would we ever call it "reasonable"?To remove the validity of this argument you can do the following things:
1. Disagree with the definitions - if anyone does this, they are not using our best available method to honestly search for truth in reality. This makes them lazy, devious, or maybe just not particularly interested in finding the truth.
2. Overturn the current fact - if anyone is ever able to know something in reality that can only be attributed to God, then they will have found a reasonable doubt and the conclusion will no longer be valid.It is important to point out that for every single thing that we know to exist there is always at least one attribute that is unique to that thing. If a thing was not unique, we'ed use the same word/phrase to describe it as one that we already know about. Therefore, in order to identify a new "thing" in existence, we must be able to identify what can only be attributed to that thing. Otherwise, it may just be some of the things we already know exist.