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

It is impossible for science to refute something that it invisible to it. A God that doesn't do anything we can detect can't be disproved scientifically at all. Maybe some God concepts can be disproved scientifically, but it is hard to see how the general case can be dealt with.Instead of stating that there is no God based on solid science we should take a more tentative position based on philosophical considerations.

quote:

---

However i need to see proof that true randomness exists and hence the random mutations that brought our existence, before i can consider seriously atheism.

---

In the strict mathematical sense, mutation need not be "truly random" . The point is that there is no direct connection between circumstances that make a particular mutation beneficial and the probability of that mutation (rather than some other) occurring. And - despite some excitement a while back (which turned out to have another explanation) - that is what is observed in experiments.

I don't see any way to prove that a past mutation was "random".However, the evidence that "randomness exists' would be precisely what I was talking about. We have to show that mutations are "random" in the sense that evolutionary theory says that they are random - and not some other sense (which would be irrelevant, at best).

quote:

---

What if they are random most of the time, and only at certain times they become directed. Or what if the creator is trying to hide its presence from us orchestrating evolution in an apprehensible manner

---

Unless we can predict when it will happen and test it, then it's invisible to science.

quote:

---

IMO the only way to avoid this possibility is by proving that true randomness exists, and hence we'd no longer have doubts that what we perceive as chaos can actually be 'orchestrated' order that we don't comprehend and mistake for chaos.

---

Your opinion is, I am afraid, disconnected from reality. Even if we proved that "true randomness" existed (whatever you mean by that) it would not tell us if a specific past event was random or not.

quote:

---

So far we can only guess if determinism and hard determinism are true and valid, and what you percieve as randomness is or is not the only available state/choice there is(whether there is a creator or not). A seemingly random event can be an inevitability when all the forces of nature dictate the only available outcome of what you perceive as randomness(even if there is no God).

---

I won't argue with any of this, but it is completely irrelevant.Firstly because neither option lets us show that a particular past event was definitely random (which was what you wanted).Secondly because "random mutations" are STILL random in the sense meant, even in a deterministic universe.Thirdly because neither option seems to get us anywhere near determining if there is or is no God.

quote:

---

They are? What if a creator devised an equation that governs how the universe works and the outcomes of "randomness"? Would that be random?

---

Unless the creator intentionally arranged things os that those particular mutations ocurred, yes.But then, if we showed that normal mutatiosn were random in any sense you like we couldn't show that specific past mutations weren't intentionally arranged by some undectable influence. Which kills your whole approach.

quote:

---

But we need to show that true randomness exists, and by that I mean complete unpredictability of the outcomes.

---

Not for any reason we have been discussing or any reason relative to this thread. Or any reason I can think of.

quote:

---

To theists, and I suppose to everyone else too, objective evidence-based thinking isn’t the only valid kind of thinking. Even some scientists and mathematicians hail the roles of intuition and imagination in the discovery process.

---

And in both cases intuition and imagination only aid the evidence-based and logical methods of discovering the truth. So your assertion here is really off the point.

quote:

---

Even more to your point, to rational theists, faith is a type of evidence.

---

I would say that that statement is self-contradictory. On what rational basis could faith be considered evidence ?

quote:

---

Evidence of the quantum world has always existed; it has always been right before human eyes. So why was it only a century ago that the quantum world was discovered? Because only a century ago did we start to develop the “eyes” to “see” it. Is there evidence of the things not seen in the quantum realm? Are not laser beams, superconductors, and transistors evidence of things not seen?

---

If you could show an example of someone who discovered the quantum world through faith, before the evidence became available to our eyes you would maybe have a point. However there seems to be no faith involved in the discovery - only instruments that augment our sense to the point where the evidence becomes apparent.

quote:

---

Faith is evidence for people who understand that physical reality is not the only reality. The quantum world is populated with objects that don’t have a physical reality, and yet there’s evidence of their existence. Scientists are still trying to fit them into a physical paradigm, but some realize that non-physical dimensions of reality may be necessary to account for quantum objects. I’m not a Tao Physicist. I’m pointing out how the requirement of "objective evidence based thinking" (assumed to mean "empirical evidence") alone may be insufficient for the goal of science.

---

I don't think that there is any truth to this at all. At most you could point to theoretical entities that have yet to be detected, but it is only through evidence that we will decide that the theory invoking them is correct. Evidence is still the scientific basis for discovering truth.So where is the rational basis for considering "faith" to be "evidence" ?

quote:

---

so , if faith has a given cause , then it is evidence for that cause .... faith is the responce ...

---

That would depend on the relationship between faith and its cause, and whether it is such that the belief held on faith is likely true.Those who wish to claim that faith IS evidence would need to establish that that is the case.

If faith is to be counted as evidence we can't rely on going into each individual case. We would have to establish that it was generally true that there was some relationship between faith and its cause that meant that beliefs taken on faith were very likely to be true.Yet nobody arguing that faith should be taken as a "way of knowing" seems to even try. Instead we get Bible quotes, as if that settled the issue.

quote:

---

I'm suggesting that evidence-based and logical methods are also only aids to discovering truth. If Reality is an iceberg, science's requirement of empirical evidence does a triumphant job at explaining the reality of the tip. But by imposed constraints on what are valid means of discovery, science doesn't consider (yet?) the bigger picture. My concern is that human objectivity and the scientific method will serve to establish the reality of only the “tip of the iceberg”.

---

Of course, this is Catholic Scientist's argument - but it begs the question of whether faith should be considered evidence. If all faith can do is delude you into thinking that you know things which you do not know then it is worthless for finding the truth. And something that a rational person - theist or not - should reject.

quote:

---

That is my point. No one discovered the quantum world through faith. Faith would have required revealed knowledge of quantum physics at a time before people developed the instruments to probe it. I used quantum physics to illustrate how it’s possible to find evidence of things not seen.

---

Then your point does not address the issue of whether faith is evidence.

quote:

---

Let me be clear about my position on faith. As I said, faith is a type of evidence. It's only slightly equivalent to scientific evidence. If anything, faith is closer in substance to theory, but even this is a poor analogy. Faith is similar to theory in that it requires support from objective reality, but it's also similar to evidence in that it gives support to non-objective reality. Faith is required for experience and knowledge because there's an experiential and epistemological gap between the physical and spiritual domains. (This "gap" has a Scriptural explanation). Faith attempts to bridge that gap by providing a link from the physical to the non-physical. It's aim is to provide a complete picture of human reality, one that objective reality alone cannot give.

---

All you are offering is assertions with no support. It seems that you have blind faith in faith.

quote:

---

Objective evidence that supports or substantiates faith includes not only natural phenomena, but the Bible as well. This, of course, leads to other questions and arguments, as does the suggestion of a "spiritual domain". But I just wanted to clarify the meaning of faith as I use the term. I don't know how people in world religions define it, or how individuals of personal religion define it. I can only speak to the meaning of faith as it's used in the Bible.

---

Again this is mere assertion, without any of the so-called objective evidence. I asked for the rational basis for your claim that faith is evidence. YOu haven't offered one.

quote:

---

My point was to address the issue of whether faith is evidence of things not seen. If the quantum world had been discovered through faith, that faith, based on a necessary source of revealed knowledge in the absence of scientific instruments, would have qualified as evidence of things not seen.

---

Except that that Quantum world WASN'T discovered through faith as you admit. Thus your point does not address the issue, just as I said.

quote:

---

I have offered a rational basis for my claim that faith is evidence. (Rom 10:17; Jam 2:24; and the description of faith in Message 110) You haven’t recognized it as rational.

---

"Because the Bible says so" isn't exactly rational. The Bible is not exactly infallible. And the rest is mere assertions without explanation - and so no basis at all.

quote:

---

PaulK, please read my post again. Where do I admit that the quantum world was discovered through faith? Your argument on this matter proceeds from a simple misunderstanding.

---

Reread what I wrote. I stated that you admitted that the Quantum world WASN'T discovered through faith. As you did in Message 110:

quote:

---

This same line of reasoning can be applied to scientific evidence. Scientists believe that only scientific evidence is valid "because science says so."

---

Except that it isn't the same line of reasoning. You're simply echoing my statement, without applying reasoning at all. If you did you would see that your statement is absurd.

quote:

---

I quoted the Bible’s statement that faith is “evidence of things not seen.” (I understand completely why Straggler and others don’t accept this statement, because it isn't evidenced by science alone.)

---

The problem is that it isn't evidenced at all.

quote:

---

I attempted to make an analogy between the unseen quantum world and the unseen spiritual world. I believe this is where I failed, because I didn’t explicitly say that I was using the quantum world as an analogy to the spiritual world.

---

If you had your argument would have done no better. By assuming that a spiritual world exists and that faith is a reliable guide to it you beg the question.

quote:

---

I in no way meant to imply that lasers, etc. were identical to faith, or that the quantum world was identical to the spiritual one. I meant simply that the idea of “evidence of things not seen” is not such an irrational concept, because such evidence exists within our physical world in the case of the quantum domain.

---

Yet the problem at hand is the assertion that faith IS evidence. And it should be noted that you objected when I pointed out that your argument did not touch on that point. Yet now you say that it was an analogy, not intended to address that point.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, it isn't. If there is a consensus it is that faith is simply not useful for telling us about the universe, and therefore faith-based propositions have no more value in science than unsupported speculation.

quote:

---

And why is it that scientists allow themselves an appeal to the universe at large, but people of faith are dismissed for making an appeal to a creator of the universe? If scientists say it's because there is evidence that the universe actually exists, but not so for a creator, is this not an appeal to people, or scientists, who must be able to recognize that evidence? Because what is evidence? Just natural phenomena in and of itself? No, it’s a major ingredient to the scientific process. So I don't agree that "There is no appeal to science or to scientists in the process."

---

There IS no comparable appeal. therefore even if the rest of your argument stood it would fail. But it does not stand. At most you can say that it is usually convenient for non-scientists to accept the word of scientists. However that is not part of the scientific process - the scientists are merely relaying the outcome.

quote:

---

Also, it’s interesting that you should mention a “very gross mischaracterization of scientific philosophy,” because I’ve been trying to convey that there is a very gross mischaracterization of God and faith within this thread.

---

Of course the idea of God you object to is derived from faith-based propositions. If think that it is a "very gross mischaracterisation" then it only proves that you do not consider faith-based propositions a reliable source of truth either.