Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 218 of 310 (486397)
10-19-2008 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Agobot
10-19-2008 7:10 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Straggler writes:
You no more know that the universe we inhabit is deeply improbable one of many possibilities than you know that it is inevitable in it's current form.
Aqobot writes:
You proposed that other universes might exist and then you went to say "Which other universes?"
You misunderstood. Probably because you only read half the sentance.
I simply meant that we do not have any more reason to conclude that we are one of many universes than to conclude that we are definitely not. We also have no more reason to conclude that our universe is inevitable than to conclude that it is deeply improbable.
In the absence of any evidence about how the universe came to be nothing, including your improbability assertion, is evidenced.
All is subjective conjecture.
It may be that our universe was inevitable and it may be that however this occurred could only occur such that it would result in our universe and no other.
This is subjective conjecture on my part.
But it is no more or less valid than your subjective conjecture regarding the deep improbability of our universe.
We have no evidence. We don't know how improbable or probable or even inevitable the universe might be.
That is the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Agobot, posted 10-19-2008 7:10 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 225 of 310 (486421)
10-20-2008 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Agobot
10-19-2008 7:49 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Bottomline - all theoretical models of physics require a universe to be produced from energy. To do so by itself, an energy point needs the guidance of physical laws and constants to be integrated into that energy point. A belief that raw energy without physical laws and constants can create a universe is nonsense approaching infinity(I know you haven't claimed that).
Bottom botom line: Until we have any evidence as to what mechanisms or processes are involved, until we even have evidence that such mechanisms or processes are required we can say nothing about what is probable, what is improbable, what is inevitable and what is "nonsense" except by means of subjective speculation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Agobot, posted 10-19-2008 7:49 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 226 of 310 (486422)
10-20-2008 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by JungEinstein
10-19-2008 11:23 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
However, it seems to be the consensus among many atheists and scientists that all faith-based testimony contradicts the universe’s testimony, and so all faith is rejected outright. I wish to convey that this is not the case.
If it’s the consensus among scientists that the universe hasn’t yielded testimony to the existence of an unseen spirit realm one way or the other, why the distaste for faith-based propositions (other than because of a dislike for the common concept of God)?
The default position in science is ignorance.
In the absence of tested and verified hypotheses we do not claim an answer for the sake of an answer alone. Unless conclusions reach the level of reliability imposed by the methods of science they are not accepted as reliable. They are treated with cynicism.
Theistsic faith based conclusions are inherently unreliable and unevidenced. They arguably cannot be rendered reliable by any scientific standard.
Rejection of faith based conclusions in scientific terms is not reliant upon some sort of anti-God bias as you assert. It is a simple statement of their inherent unreliability.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by JungEinstein, posted 10-19-2008 11:23 PM JungEinstein has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 253 of 310 (487702)
11-03-2008 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Bailey
11-03-2008 3:43 PM


Re: science is not in the business of refuting imagination
In conclusion, unless science has forthright objective evidence that supports a specific reality contradicting a specific imagination, science is not in the business of refuting imagination.
That is absolutely fine.
But do you accept that no product of any individual's imagination is any more evidenced or true than any other?
Including your God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Bailey, posted 11-03-2008 3:43 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Bailey, posted 11-03-2008 7:34 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 258 of 310 (487804)
11-05-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Bailey
11-03-2008 7:34 PM


Re: science is not in the business of refuting imagination
I believe I am pleased we agree Straggler.
I concede no product of any individual's imagination is any more evidenced or true than any other.
Unless the imagagination has an evidential basis within a shared framework.
Perhaps, to imagine a house and base the completion of this potential reality from the concepts imagined.
It remains, the God cannot be evidenced apart from faith.
I would be extremely surprised if it was any other way ...
So imagination is not evidence. But faith is?
Is it possible to have faith in an imaginary and non-existant being?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Bailey, posted 11-03-2008 7:34 PM Bailey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by onifre, posted 11-05-2008 10:17 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 261 of 310 (488046)
11-07-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Bailey
11-06-2008 11:37 AM


Re: Imagination Constipation
I suppose if you had an imaginary friend that you hadn't seen in a while, you could have faith you would see it soon.
Though if the character is not produced in your imagination at some point in the future, such faith cannot be considered evidence ...
Not even by the imaginee.
So as long as you have faith that you will see your imaginary friend again AND the imaginary friend does indeed pop up from time to time, the imagination is evidence?
Evidence of what exactly?
Is this any different to the imaginary friend some people call God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Bailey, posted 11-06-2008 11:37 AM Bailey has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 303 of 310 (491674)
12-19-2008 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Blue Jay
12-18-2008 11:45 AM


Re: Reasonable Doubt?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Is this always true?
On what basis do we conclude that herds of buffalo do not inhabit NY City if not absence of evidence? How confident are we of the conclusion that herds of buffalo do not in fact roam NY city based on the abswence of any evidence that they do?
On what basis do we conclude that the Earth does not have two moons rather than one?
With regard to God absence of any evidence is arguably just as conclusive.
The main difference, to my mind, is to what extent individuals are willing to convince themselves that an all powerful, eternal, supreme creator of everything wishes to obscure or selectively reveal his existence. Once we start accepting a being who is hiding his existence, selectively revealing himself to the chosen few or deliberately testing our faith in him then the doors to delusion are wide open. At that point any perecived evidence can be interpreted to support ones preconceived notion that such a being exists. Equally any lack of evidence can be dismissed as irrelevent.
There are numerous instances where absence of evidence is in fact validly taken as evidence of absence. The question is should this apply to God. Unsurprisingly I would say yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Blue Jay, posted 12-18-2008 11:45 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Blue Jay, posted 12-19-2008 1:02 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 308 of 310 (496006)
01-25-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Blue Jay
12-19-2008 1:02 PM


Re: Reasonable Doubt?
Obviously, the rules are somewhat different when you're looking for someting secretive and elusive (like a single mosquito or an immaterial God) than when you're looking for something blatant and big (like a hurricane or a herd of buffalo). It would also depend on the magnitude of the area you're searching.
Exactly where God should fit on the spectrum is anybody's guess.
Surely an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of everything, immaterial or otherwise, is about as big as it gets? Dwarfing herds of buffalo and far from in the category of detecting a single mosquito?
Especially if we add in that this being is seeking a personal relationship with each and everyone of us.
As for the claim that this being is intentionally secretive, elusive or selective in any way - Well as I said before:
Straggler writes:
Once we start accepting a being who is hiding his existence, selectively revealing himself to the chosen few or deliberately testing our faith in him then the doors to delusion are wide open. At that point any perecived evidence can be interpreted to support ones preconceived notion that such a being exists. Equally any lack of evidence can be dismissed as irrelevent.
Which is more likely - Selective subjective interpretation and personal delusion on the part of irrational and imperfect human believers or the existence of an all powerful and perfect but rather shy being?
As I argued before, I think the absence of evidence is sufficient to rule out the widespread usage of God as an explanatory hypothesis for natural phenomena.
Widespread?
This would seem to leave the door ajar enough for Godly intervention to be claimed sometimes by those inclined to believe whilst not enough to allow anything to be conclusively verified or refuted such that this belief can be fully challenged. An example of exactly what I meant in my quoted paragraph above.
But, His non-existence is a different question, and would require the proven absence of a whole lot more evidence, I think.
In the case of a purely deistic god (in which case whether one believes in them or not is more philosophical than theological) I would somewhat agree.
But generally speaking the Christian God seems to be attributed with a far more interventionalist, and thus detectable, approach to his Godly ways.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Blue Jay, posted 12-19-2008 1:02 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Blue Jay, posted 01-25-2009 7:44 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 310 of 310 (496213)
01-27-2009 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Blue Jay
01-25-2009 7:44 PM


Re: Reasonable Doubt?
Holy cow, Straggler!
I’d forgotten all about this thread.
Somebody posted to it recently and I saw that I had not replied to your post. I felt duty bound to comment......
Bluejay writes:
But, if “likelihood” is all you want, your thread is boring.
Well said. I concede.
Straggler writes:
But generally speaking the Christian God seems to be attributed with a far more interventionalist, and thus detectable, approach to his Godly ways.
It’s a good thing I’m just a stereotype, then, isn’t it? Otherwise “generally” might not apply to me.
Well said again.
You know I'm not going to complain if you say most religious beliefs are delusional and erroneous. But, I think that using this to relegate all religious beliefs to the loony dustbin is a composition fallacy: there may be some truth to some religious belief somewhere, so I'd prefer to remain overly cautious and shrug my shoulders, instead of committing to a specific belief (I've already had bad experiences with that, if you remember).
Can science refute the God hypothesis beyond all reasonable doubt? That was the question initially posed.
Proof is neither the aim nor possibility of science.
Likelihood (as boring as that is) is the best we can hope for.
On that basis I conclude God (esp the conventional Christian God) to be unlikely enough to have been effectively refuted.
You consider the possibility of a less interventionalist God to still be possible enough to remain a hypothesis.
Fair enough.
If people didn't have different perspectives on what is essentially the same position (regarding the facts such as they are) then life really would be boring.
Take it easy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Blue Jay, posted 01-25-2009 7:44 PM Blue Jay 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