Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 9:45 AM
27 online now:
caffeine, Coragyps, edge, jar, JonF (5 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,897 Year: 8,933/19,786 Month: 1,355/2,119 Week: 115/576 Day: 16/99 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
onifre
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 241 of 310 (487186)
10-28-2008 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Bailey
10-28-2008 9:54 AM


Hi Bailey,

In conclusion, science cannot refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt.

That depends on what is considered 'reasonable doubt'? To me the fact that the universe functions without outside interference seems reasonable enough to doubt all beliefs about a God who actively plays a roll in reality, which at least would disprove the Abrahamic God, IMO. However, this may not be enough evidence for someone who has faith that the Biblical accounts of creation are literal. So to me the God hypothesis is disproven, to others it may not be enough to disprove it. This becomes a matter of interpretation.

As faith is the evidence for things unseen, all science need do in order to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt is disprove faith and testably demonstrate that faith invariably leads to incorrect conclusions. We all know that this cannot be done.

There have been alot of beliefs about the nature of the universe and its origins, going back before mythology, that have been shown to be wrong. The acceptance of these mythological accounts were done by appling faith to the stories, as is done now with the current religious beliefs. What makes one a more accurate faith based belief than the other? IMO it doesn't, and as such all faith based beliefs should be held as attempts to answer questions about reality where not enough empirical data is given. So it forces most beliefs into a God of the Gaps conclusion.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Bailey, posted 10-28-2008 9:54 AM Bailey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Bailey, posted 10-28-2008 3:44 PM onifre has responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2353 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 242 of 310 (487205)
10-28-2008 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Bailey
10-28-2008 9:54 AM


I stated Yes, which is why this topic is rather an exellent example of argumentum ad ignoratiam.

you stated
I thank you for conceding to this end.

In conclusion, science cannot refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt. As faith is the evidence for things unseen, all science need do in order to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt is disprove faith and testably demonstrate that faith invariably leads to incorrect conclusions. We all know that this cannot be done.

Any assertion that a faith based method is false only because it has not been proven true fits squarely within the argumentum ad ignorantiam. And so, faith based assertions remain as hypothesis' that - without conclusion and henceforth, any testability - cannot be wholly refuted beyond all reason or logic.

I concede nothing, I realized this when I first saw the topic.

Edited by bluescat48, : correct db codes & missing line


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Bailey, posted 10-28-2008 9:54 AM Bailey has not yet responded

    
Bailey
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 243 of 310 (487210)
10-28-2008 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by onifre
10-28-2008 12:51 PM


Thank you for the reply onifre ...

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

In conclusion, science cannot refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt.

That depends on what is considered 'reasonable doubt'?


C'mon onifre, you know it doesn't depend on that definition.
Realistically it depends on what is considered an 'argument of ignorance'.

lol - but I'll spare with you nonetheless ...

If proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required for conviction of a criminal defendant, and we are to assimilate the term scientifically, it should follow that reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral and evidential certainty that a hypothesis is false or a particular fact exists.

It must be more than an imaginary doubt. It is often defined judicially as such doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance.

When considering the possibility of God, personal or impersonal, one could certainly hesitate before voting guilty given the lack of evidence considering God's existence or non-existence, as well as the relativity of his existence being a matter of importance.

To me the fact that the universe functions without outside interference seems reasonable enough to doubt all beliefs about a God who actively plays a roll in reality, which at least would disprove the Abrahamic God, IMO. However, this may not be enough evidence for someone who has faith that the Biblical accounts of creation are literal.

I would not be impressed with disproving an arbitrary peoples God.
Any evidence acquired should expose Him as a fraud universally, as opposed to personally.
Irrefutability beyond all reasonable doubt should defy demographics.

So to me the God hypothesis is disproven, to others it may not be enough to disprove it. This becomes a matter of interpretation.

You're absolutely right.
This can be equivocated to a matter of faith ...
Faith in the non existence of the Abrahamic God of Judeo-Christian scriptures.

Though your logic would seem flawed by deducing God does not exist because a biblical Abrahamic deity was not factually evidenced.

What if God had nothing to do with him and his descendants in reality?
If God does exist, and you uncover his "emulators" and "imitators" as frauds, does this somehow negate God's existence.

Of course not ... we know where this assertion leads.

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

As faith is the evidence for things unseen, all science need do in order to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt is disprove faith and testably demonstrate that faith invariably leads to incorrect conclusions. We all know that this cannot be done.

There have been alot of beliefs about the nature of the universe and its origins, going back before mythology, that have been shown to be wrong.


And others have proven insightful in retrospect.

The acceptance of these mythological accounts were done by appling faith to the stories, as is done now with the current religious beliefs.

Indeed ...

What makes one a more accurate faith based belief than the other?

Nothing, as the conclusion of faith is the very evidence which would be needed to establish it's specific degree of reliability.
[argumentum ad ignoratiam peeks through curtains]

IMO it doesn't, and as such all faith based beliefs should be held as attempts to answer questions about reality where not enough empirical data is given.

I agree with this assertion.

So it forces most beliefs into a God of the Gaps conclusion.

This is the conclusion of your personal conviction, blended with your interpretive reasoning abilities ... I'd run with it.

If God is, He will catch up ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by onifre, posted 10-28-2008 12:51 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by onifre, posted 10-28-2008 8:12 PM Bailey has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 244 of 310 (487236)
10-28-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Bailey
10-28-2008 3:44 PM


Hi Bailey,

C'mon onifre, you know it doesn't depend on that definition.

And why not?...

Realistically it depends on what is considered an 'argument of ignorance'.

Sure, but not just that. I feel people have a measure of what they consider reasonable doubt. It is subjective wouldn't you agree?

If proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required for conviction of a criminal defendant, and we are to assimilate the term scientifically, it should follow that reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral and evidential certainty that a hypothesis is false or a particular fact exists.

And I agree, but we are talking about religion where facts are hard to come by, and evidence is subjective as well.

as well as the relativity of his existence being a matter of importance.

How is it a matter of importance, aside from winning a debate? What would be the importance of it?

Though your logic would seem flawed by deducing God does not exist because a biblical Abrahamic deity was not factually evidenced.

I agree, but what then does the word God mean? Outside of religion, God as you are using it to mean, doesn't make sense.

You just choose the word God for lack of a better word. As Abogot is doing. If you are going to say for example that God is the forces of the universe, or he is everything and anything, or some other eloquently delivered set of words that sound mystical, you are just creating your own God concept using old religious names. Im not saying you are doing this but others do. If God is not the God of Biblical texts, or religious texts, or spiritual books, then you are not describing God, you have given some new description of what you see nature to be and placd the label of God on it because it seems proper. We lack a new word...perhaps science? ;)

You're absolutely right.
This can be equivocated to a matter of faith ...
Faith in the non existence of the Abrahamic God of Judeo-Christian scriptures.
Though your logic would seem flawed by deducing God does not exist because a biblical Abrahamic deity was not factually evidenced.

See above answer.

And others have proven insightful in retrospect.

Good reads at best.

If God is, He will catch up

Tell me which one is coming so I can hold up a greeting sign.;)


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Bailey, posted 10-28-2008 3:44 PM Bailey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Bailey, posted 10-29-2008 11:10 AM onifre has responded

    
Bailey
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 245 of 310 (487270)
10-29-2008 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by onifre
10-28-2008 8:12 PM


Thank you for the reply onifre ...

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

In conclusion, science cannot refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt.

That depends on what is considered 'reasonable doubt'?


C'mon onifre, you know it doesn't depend on that definition.

And why not?...

I digress - the definition does indeed play a factor to an extent.
In reality, to establish the essence of "reasonable doubt" requires a preponderance of evidence.
It should follow that a scientific preponderance of evidence must be objectively evidential.
We have not a stitch of objective evidence to this end, much less a preponderance thereof.
In light of the lack of such evidence, reasonable doubt can surely not be established by definition.

Henceforth, it is the definition of reasonable doubt, combined with a complete lack of verifiable evidence, that forces such a debate into the argument of ignorance that it realistically is.

The scientific community is of course free to adapt and modify the processes and requirements of reasonable doubt to serve it's agenda.

Although it is my understanding that they are better at finding facts than changing them. Actually, it is for this reason I admire them so much ...

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

Realistically it depends on what is considered an 'argument of ignorance'.

Sure, but not just that. I feel people have a measure of what they consider reasonable doubt. It is subjective wouldn't you agree?


Man ordains the definitions ... reality sustains them.

I concede peoples interpretation of the definition of reasonable doubt is subjective.

The definition itself is objective though.

That somebody applies an alternate method of reasoning to reach a subjective, unverifiable conclusion, and then claims the method as reasonable doubt does not make it so.

The exception being in their own mind ...

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

If proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required for conviction of a criminal defendant, and we are to assimilate the term scientifically, it should follow that reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral and evidential certainty that a hypothesis is false or a particular fact exists.

And I agree, but we are talking about religion where facts are hard to come by, and evidence is subjective as well.


lol - we're talking about the God associated with religious thoughts, where facts are impossible to come by, and objective evidence is nonexistent apart from faith ... which can, of course, not be verified as objective until the faith is concluded, thus rendering it, for all intensive purposes, useless and irrelevant.

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

as well as the relativity of his existence being a matter of importance.

How is it a matter of importance, aside from winning a debate? What would be the importance of it?

Winning a debate does not support the importance of God's existence, as victory in a debate will only provide subjective evidence.

Your second query is the important one if we are to adopt and utilize the method of reasonable doubt onifre.

How can we employ a method that requires "a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance" if we have not first established what is important.

That is ...

If we do not truly understand the importance behind a matter, how can we know when to hesitate?
If we cannot hesitate before the appropriate matters of importance, we cannot employ reasonable doubt ...

We need to establish these matters of importance primarily, before we can employ the method.

For instance, hypothetically speaking of course, if it is a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity, wouldn't it cause one to hesitate before voting He does not exist.

Respectively, if it is not a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity it would be nice to evidence this as well before hearing the case.

Being that we can't evidence either, apart from faith, this too can be assigned an 'argument of ignorance' tag.

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

Though your logic would seem flawed by deducing God does not exist because a biblical Abrahamic deity was not factually evidenced.

I agree, but what then does the word God mean? Outside of religion, God as you are using it to mean, doesn't make sense.


This implies to me, that the Abrahamic God of Judeo-Christian scripture makes the most sense to you.

I can see that line of thought, but perhaps from a different perspective.

His scriptures support the fact that no evidence will be provided as to His existence other than faith.

Eye witness testimony must fall in this category, for even if one of Abrahams descendants miraculously lived 3000 years to tell us the tale, we would not believe him ...

Chances are we could also identify the processes within his body that allowed him to succeed into such a ripe old age - so even his
curious evasion of death would become no more than a matter of faith.

Though some may still refer to it as a miracle, or evidence of some sort ...

Again, His scriptures support the fact that no evidence will be provided as to His existence other than faith.

At least He is consistent and honest regarding this fact.

To His credit, no other evidences have surfaced to His end.

You just choose the word God for lack of a better word. As Abogot is doing.

Have you deduced this because I have not conceded to the God of Judeo-Christian scripture?
Rest assured, He has not been discarded, lest He is The One ...

If you are going to say for example that God is the forces of the universe, or he is everything and anything, or some other eloquently delivered set of words that sound mystical, you are just creating your own God concept using old religious names. Im not saying you are doing this but others do.

Apologies if I offended you, as this was not my intent.
I may agree that God is responsible for the forces of the universe and that He is everything and anything, yet you are also guilty, if such a decree could be made, of creating your own God concept.
You are the one slingin' 'roun old religious names, and rightfully so.
Culturally, we are inundated with traditional dogmatic ideologies.
They seem as good a place as any to begin making any deductions.

If God is not the God of Biblical texts, or religious texts, or spiritual books, then you are not describing God ...

lol - is this assertion certified and official?
What aspects of reality establish it as such?

Apart from Judeo-Christian scripture, of course, exactly what religious texts and spiritual books qualify to infer descriptions of God?

... you have given some new description of what you see nature to be and placd the label of God on it because it seems proper.

I, personally, have yet to divulge any description of how I view nature, much less callously slapped a God label on it.

That is not to imply I have not seen it done, or that I agree with others doing it.

I do however feel, that if God Is, ultimately nature and the universe will be tied to his essence in some way.

If it is a matter of importance, and God Is, then He will relay it unequivocally.

Being that it cannot be evidenced yet, I feel it is unimportant to be able to establish such a perspective.

Even tho He may, I do not require the God to supply His plans regarding nature and the universe at this time.

We lack a new word...perhaps science?

Whoaa - easy fella ... lol
How does this instance differ from ...
oni writes:

... you have given some new description of what you see nature to be and placd the label of God on it because it seems proper.


This is nothing more than the behavior you abhor.

However, I do think that some traditional dogmatic trigger words may benefit by being repainted, providing their definitions are not watered down in the process.

Man's ordained definitions of these words have been biasly effected by his own irresponsible nature.

Yet to interpret things properly we would be wise not to lend any bias to each word, as well as it's corresponding definition.

For instance - upon hearing the word salvation, many will associate it with Christianity and it's blemishes before they associate salvation with an act, source, or state of protection.

Whether or not Christianity can truly offer an act, source, or state of protection is subjective on the basis that we can't evidence what we need protecting against unless we place faith in the concept of sin.

Respectively, upon hearing the word the word evolution, many will associate it with an attack against God before they associate evolution with a peaceful process of gradual, progressive change or development.

Whether or not evolution can truly offer a complete account of the gradual, progressive changes and developments our universe has undergone is subjective on the basis that we can't evidence the past unless we place faith in the concept of science.

To borrow from the distinguished Rrhain, since we interact with the universe via observation, and since observation can never be known to be perfect, then it should, and does, follow that the best we can come up with are statements that we treat as axioms but which will be tossed as soon as we come up with new observations that contradict them.

These truly are matters of interpretation and faith ...

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

And others have proven insightful in retrospect.

Good reads at best.


lol - fair enough ...

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

If God is, He will catch up

Tell me which one is coming so I can hold up a greeting sign.


By all rights, He knows what you look like, whether you recognize Him or not.
If He Is, He will recognize you.
No sign necessary...

Just bring a book as the waiting time is currently indefinite.

Again, thank you for the exchange onifre.

Edited by Bailey, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by onifre, posted 10-28-2008 8:12 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by onifre, posted 10-29-2008 9:20 PM Bailey has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 246 of 310 (487329)
10-29-2008 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Bailey
10-29-2008 11:10 AM


Hi Bailey,

Henceforth, it is the definition of reasonable doubt, combined with a complete lack of verifiable evidence, that forces such a debate into the argument of ignorance that it realistically is.

Understand that I agree with you here, but reality doesn't play off so easy, especially when the evidence is challenging someones faith. Personal faith may make people blind to certains evidence.

The scientific community is of course free to adapt and modify the processes and requirements of reasonable doubt to serve it's agenda.

What agenda?

concede peoples interpretation of the definition of reasonable doubt is subjective.

That is not what I meant. I meant that people have their own personal measures for what they consider evidence for placing reasonable doubt on a specific issue.

we're talking about the God associated with religious thoughts, where facts are impossible to come by, and objective evidence is nonexistent apart from faith ... which can, of course, not be verified as objective until the faith is concluded, thus rendering it, for all intensive purposes, useless and irrelevant.

Agreed, faith based evidence is useless and irrelevant.

For instance, hypothetically speaking of course, if it is a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity, wouldn't it cause one to hesitate before voting He does not exist.

Depends on who told me it was important to commune with God.

Respectively, if it is not a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity it would be nice to evidence this as well before hearing the case.

Some matters do not need to have disprovable evidence. Some things are just in the imagination and are just conjured up ideas. Like unicorns. Do we really have evidence that they don't exist? No, it is suffice that there is no evidence that they exist. As would be the same with God. We don't need evidence that he doesn't exist, it is suffice that there is no evidence that he exists, outside of religious faith based beliefs, and like we agreed, faith based beliefs are useless and irrelevant.

Science does not need to show evidence against anything, the onus is on the faithful to show existance for him.

This implies to me, that the Abrahamic God of Judeo-Christian scripture makes the most sense to you.

No, I am an atheist. None of the relgious or spiritual ideas of God have ever made sense to me. From mythology to Abrahamic, all nonsense.

is this assertion certified and official?
What aspects of reality establish it as such?

Sure is, cite something I can read that talks about God that doesn't have a religous affiliation.

exactly what religious texts and spiritual books qualify to infer descriptions of God?

Koran, the many Hindu texts, Buddist texts, Greek mythology, Taoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Neopaganism etc, etc, etc. Need more?

I do however feel, that if God Is, ultimately nature and the universe will be tied to his essence in some way.

If God is what?

If it is a matter of importance, and God Is, then He will relay it unequivocally.

Being that it cannot be evidenced yet, I feel it is unimportant to be able to establish such a perspective.

Even tho He may, I do not require the God to supply His plans regarding nature and the universe at this time.

When will you require it? lol

I don't understand what you mean. The fact that no evidence exists for God IS the evidence that shows that his existance is unimportant and nothing more that human made up ideas.

This is nothing more than the behavior you abhor.

Sorry, the ;) was meant to show that the statment was a joke. I agree that science is not the proper word for it, but then again I don't think we need a word, there is nothing to give the word too.

Whether or not Christianity can truly offer an act, source, or state of protection is subjective on the basis that we can't evidence what we need protecting against unless we place faith in the concept of sin.

Sin? lol. I think you are proving my point. Sin is a religious concept, why would anyone give it any validity if they weren't religious?

Whether or not evolution can truly offer a complete account of the gradual, progressive changes and developments our universe has undergone is subjective on the basis that we can't evidence the past unless we place faith in the concept of science.

Faith in the concept of science? I think what is needed is an education in science, there is no such thing as the concept of science.

You're not making sense either. First, evolution does not give an account of anything. I think what you meant to say was "whether or not the Theory of Evolution can offer a complete account...". Which is does, perfectly. However, an education in science, and specifically in the ToE, will be needed to understand. Also, the ToE includes the mechanism by which gradual changes take place, natural selection. Natural selection perfectly explains how gradual changes happen, perfectly. Again, an education in the subject is needed.

Further more...

Bailey writes:

progressive changes and developments our universe has undergone

...has absolutly nothing to do with evolution, nor the ToE.

To borrow from the distinguished Rrhain, since we interact with the universe via observation, and since observation can never be known to be perfect, then it should, and does, follow that the best we can come up with are statements that we treat as axioms but which will be tossed as soon as we come up with new observations that contradict them.

These truly are matters of interpretation and faith ...

Oh you were doing so well...and have exposed yourself.

statements that we treat as axioms but which will be tossed as soon as we come up with new observations that contradict them

This is just your attempt to reduce the legitimacy of scientific theories. Theories are NOT axioms.

These truly are matters of interpretation and faith

Theories are understood when one is educated in science, no faith required. Faith is applied when there is a lack of evidence. The legitimacy we give science is do to the results given by science.

By all rights, He knows what you look like, whether you recognize Him or not.
If He Is, He will recognize you.
No sign necessary...

How do you know this. Who is "He"? How do you know "He" is a male? How did you come to this conclusion?

You see when you wrote,

Bailey writes:

I, personally, have yet to divulge any description of how I view nature, much less callously slapped a God label on it.

You divulged plenty, you just think you didn't. :cool:

Again, thank you for the exchange onifre.

Sure thing...

Edited by onifre, : add point.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Bailey, posted 10-29-2008 11:10 AM Bailey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Bailey, posted 10-30-2008 9:56 PM onifre has responded

    
Bailey
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 247 of 310 (487395)
10-30-2008 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by onifre
10-29-2008 9:20 PM


Thank you for the reply onifre ...

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

Henceforth, it is the definition of reasonable doubt, combined with a complete lack of verifiable evidence, that forces such a debate into the argument of ignorance that it realistically is.

Understand that I agree with you here, but reality doesn't play off so easy, especially when the evidence is challenging someones faith. Personal faith may make people blind to certains evidence.

The scientific community is of course free to adapt and modify the processes and requirements of reasonable doubt to serve it's agenda.

What agenda?


Their pursuit of systematic knowledge regarding our natural physical world.
Science is driven by observation and experimentation in a material world onifre.
By what precise application of facts and principles will they refute the existence of God?

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

I concede peoples interpretation of the definition of reasonable doubt is subjective.

That is not what I meant. I meant that people have their own personal measures for what they consider evidence for placing reasonable doubt on a specific issue.


In a court of law it is predominantly based on physical evidence.
Regardless, I will go to this length with you here.

People have their own personal measures ...

Science has its own.

Physical evidence.

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

we're talking about the God associated with religious thoughts, where facts are impossible to come by, and objective evidence is nonexistent apart from faith ... which can, of course, not be verified as objective until the faith is concluded, thus rendering it, for all intensive purposes, useless and irrelevant.

Agreed, faith based evidence is useless and irrelevant.

At the least, to the wise and unwise alike, it serves as a crutch ...

Then again, most handicap people are equally useless and irrelevant.

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

For instance, hypothetically speaking of course, if it is a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity, wouldn't it cause one to hesitate before voting He does not exist.

Depends on who told me it was important to commune with God.


That will still require faith as the evidence is subjective, tho I digress ...

It would be better for the case if we knew it inherently as a physical truth.
If we could perhaps somehow learn it through physical properties.

We cannot even know if it is a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity until we find a law as conclusive to that end as ...

* "Theory of Don't Jump From Plane Without Parachute"
* "Theory of Don't Kill Your Neighbor"

If only we could establish something solid like those ...

Reasonably, we would have a clearer understanding of whether we wanted to acknowledge His existence or commune back occasionally.

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

Respectively, if it is not a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity it would be nice to evidence this as well before hearing the case.

Some matters do not need to have disprovable evidence.


See above.
lol - but keep in mind, these are truths we've learned through trial and error and they are variable.

Some things are just in the imagination and are just conjured up ideas. Like unicorns. Do we really have evidence that they don't exist? No, it is suffice that there is no evidence that they exist. As would be the same with God. We don't need evidence that he doesn't exist, it is suffice that there is no evidence that he exists, outside of religious faith based beliefs, and like we agreed, faith based beliefs are useless and irrelevant.

Science does not need to show evidence against anything, the onus is on the faithful to show existance for him.

The faithful in this instance has not posited God does exist.

Science has posited whether it is possible for them to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt.

The onus is on them.

I am a small voice in the community, but I say we do not have sufficient, if any, physical evidence to observe this conclusion.

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

This implies to me, that the Abrahamic God of Judeo-Christian scripture makes the most sense to you.

No, I am an atheist. None of the relgious or spiritual ideas of God have ever made sense to me. From mythology to Abrahamic, all nonsense.


I'm familiar with your position in that regard.
Only a few spiritual ideas of God continue to make sense to me.

I guess all it takes is one though - lol.

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

is this assertion certified and official?
What aspects of reality establish it as such?

Sure is, cite something I can read that talks about God that doesn't have a religous affiliation.


God concepts belonging to Einstein and other such prominent deists.
They often set forth an interesting perspective.
Their impersonal view causes them to swim in different streams than the damned & glorified.

Al writes:

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

exactly what religious texts and spiritual books qualify to infer descriptions of God?

Koran, the many Hindu texts, Buddist texts, Greek mythology, Taoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Neopaganism etc, etc, etc. Need more?


No - lol
Just wanted to make sure my collection was certified.

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

I do however feel, that if God Is, ultimately nature and the universe will be tied to his essence in some way.

If God is what?

You know ...
Really really real.

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

If it is a matter of importance, and God Is, then He will relay it unequivocally.

Being that it cannot be evidenced yet, I feel it is unimportant to be able to establish such a perspective.

Even tho He may, I do not require the God to supply His plans regarding nature and the universe at this time.

When will you require it? lol


When it becomes a matter of survival.

I don't understand what you mean.

You'll get it hang in there ...

The fact that no evidence exists for God IS the evidence that shows that his existance is unimportant ...

Mere lack of evidence of the God's importance and existence is not, instead, evidence of His unimportance and nonexistence.
Similarly, mere lack of evidence of the God's unimportance and nonexistence cannot be taken as evidence of His importance and existence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.
The exception being in one's own mind ...

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

This is nothing more than the behavior you abhor.

Sorry, the ;) was meant to show that the statment was a joke. I agree that science is not the proper word for it, but then again I don't think we need a word, there is nothing to give the word too.


Now you’re making sense ...

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

Whether or not Christianity can truly offer an act, source, or state of protection is subjective on the basis that we can't evidence what we need protecting against unless we place faith in the concept of sin.

Sin? lol. I think you are proving my point.


No onifre, this is our point.
We share it ...

Do you disagree with the assertion that believing in sin requires faith?

Sin is a religious concept, why would anyone give it any validity if they weren't religious?

Again we agree - they wouldn't.

Yet sin came before religion ...

That is, the acts within the concept of sin took place well before it was actually defined as a word.
It’s basically a bunch of religious folk trying to describe human nature.

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

Whether or not evolution can truly offer a complete account of the gradual, progressive changes and developments our universe has undergone is subjective on the basis that we can't evidence the past unless we place faith in the concept of science.


Faith in the concept of science? I think what is needed is an education in science, there is no such thing as the concept of science.

Didn't mean to strike a nerve.
Poor choice of word.

You're not making sense either. First, evolution does not give an account of anything.

It gives an account of evolution - doesn't it?
Now I'm confused - lol

Not sure if you can be credited, as it doesn't take much.

I think what you meant to say was "whether or not the Theory of Evolution can offer a complete account...". Which is does, perfectly. However, an education in science, and specifically in the ToE, will be needed to understand. Also, the ToE includes the mechanism by which gradual changes take place, natural selection. Natural selection perfectly explains how gradual changes happen, perfectly. Again, an education in the subject is needed.

Whoa - i've got too many classes as it is.
lol - no more biology 'til spring tho ...

Though it not my passion, I have no disdain for the ToE.
This is not to say I find it a flawless model, but it serves it's purpose well.

It is a remarkable collection of observations ...

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

These truly are matters of interpretation and faith ...

Oh you were doing so well...and have exposed yourself.


lol
One needs faith to claim the God.
One must interpret argumentum ad ignoratiam to refute the "god hypothesis".

I thought for sure I gave it away when I said ...

Bailey writes:

Rest assured, He has not been discarded, lest He is The One ...

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

statements that we treat as axioms but which will be tossed as soon as we come up with new observations that contradict them

This is just your attempt to reduce the legitimacy of scientific theories. Theories are NOT axioms.


Yet I don't wish to reduce the legitimacy of science in any way.

This is just how reality works ...

* Things happen ...
* We observe ...
* We document ...
* We miss some things ...
* We find more things ...
* We put the observations where they go ...

It would save a lot of time if we could locate all evidences in succession.

Nevertheless, considering we interact with the universe via observation and observation can never be known to be perfect,
the best we can come up with are statements that we treat as axioms, even tho they are not as you point out.
If and when we can document new contradictory observations, we discard yesterday's news ...

You disagree ?

Theories are understood when one is educated in science, no faith required. Faith is applied when there is a lack of evidence. The legitimacy we give science is do to the results given by science.

I agree ...

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

By all rights, He knows what you look like, whether you recognize Him or not.
If He Is, He will recognize you.
No sign necessary...

How do you know this.


I don't ...

Who is "He"?

God ...

How do you know "He" is a male?

I can't even confirm if He has a penis actually ...

How did you come to this conclusion?

One word ... I'll give ya three guesses.

(left this one wide open - lol)

onifre writes:

Bailey writes:

I, personally, have yet to divulge any description of how I view nature, much less callously slapped a God label on it.

You divulged plenty, you just think you didn't. :cool:


It's only fair you begin to learn your opponent's position.

I divulged enough so you could deduce a truth.
Chances are you have deduced it ...
As well as a myriad of misconceptions and prejudices.

Sure thing...

I'm not being sarcastic here.
I appreciate debating with you.

Your down to Earth.

Now put on that Marley cd and smoke one for me ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by onifre, posted 10-29-2008 9:20 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Stile, posted 10-31-2008 1:45 PM Bailey has responded
 Message 250 by onifre, posted 10-31-2008 8:04 PM Bailey has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3503
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 248 of 310 (487438)
10-31-2008 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Bailey
10-30-2008 9:56 PM


Science is only limited to reality
Bailey writes:

People have their own personal measures ...

Science has its own.

Physical evidence.

No, "pysical evidence" is not science's own personal measure.

Science's own personal measure is reality. Things that actually exist. Things that do not only exist in our imaginations.

It's not science's fault that the "god hypothesis" cannot show it is a part of reality any more than anything else in our imaginations.

Science is not limited to the physical.
Science is not limited to the material.
Science is not limited to the natural.

Science is limited only to reality. If something cannot be shown to be part of reality... if it is limited to our imaginations, then yes, these things are not touchable by science.

Science is only limited to any and all parts of reality.

Science refutes the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt because there is nothing to differentiate the god hypothesis from anything else that only exists in our imaginations. There is nothing that shows the god hypothesis to be a part of reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Bailey, posted 10-30-2008 9:56 PM Bailey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Bailey, posted 10-31-2008 5:27 PM Stile has responded

    
Bailey
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 249 of 310 (487459)
10-31-2008 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Stile
10-31-2008 1:45 PM


Re: Science is only limited to reality - if only everybody else was too ...
Thank you for the reply Stile ...

Stile writes:

Bailey writes:

People have their own personal measures ...

Science has its own.

Physical evidence.

No, "pysical evidence" is not science's own personal measure.


I was under the impression science employs objective physical evidence to declare that which is reality within our natural material world.

I must be mistaken ...

As I cannot recall any, would you be as kind as to enlighten us as to what subjective facets of reality can be acceptable to reach scientific conclusions ...

As well, if not by physical evidence, by what other objective means may reality be otherwise declared?

Please be specific.

Science's own personal measure is reality.

Of course it is not a personal measure regardless, as science is based within a community, not one person.

Lil' "scientists" forget that sometimes ...

Things that actually exist.

You forgot "And can be evidenced as such" ...
Science observes and documents facts that actually exist and can be evidenced as such.

To His credit, the God does not fit such a mold ...

Things that do not only exist in our imaginations.

Science observes and documents facts that can be evidenced to exist apart from one's imagination.

To His credit, the God does not fit such a mold ...

It's not science's fault that the "god hypothesis" cannot show it is a part of reality any more than anything else in our imaginations.

Your correct here Stile ... kinda.
It's not a fault on anyone’s behalf ... it is simply reality.

You have suggested science operates within realities confines.
The God does not evidence whether He is a part of reality.

I agree with these statements, yet your logic seems flawed ...

If not by your assertions, what precise application of facts and principles would science refute an existence not evidenced in reality?

Please be specific.

Science is not limited to the physical.
Science is not limited to the material.
Science is not limited to the natural.

Dr. Bishop ... is that you?
lol - I like X Files and Fringe as much as the next guy, but ...

Reality itself is sustained by the options you propose.

What is able to be evidenced outside of the natural, material, physical realm that does not require faith?

Respectively, outside of the natural, material, physical realm, what realities have been evidenced by the scientific community?

Please be specific.

Science is limited only to reality.

I agree Stile ...
Yet, considering your above statement ...

Until the God can be evidenced within reality, science is, for all intensive purposes, off limits from such a defunct proclamation.

Even more so when the God is evidenced.

See the conundrum ...

Science refutes the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt because there is nothing to differentiate the god hypothesis from anything else that only exists in our imaginations.

Wannabe scientists with no integrity will work within the boundaries of argumentum ad ignoratiam to establish imaginary concepts as such.

Respectively, actual scientists with integrity will work within the boundaries of reality, and their professional scope, to establish evidential facts as such.

There is nothing that shows the god hypothesis to be a part of reality.

I agree ... let us go a step further.

If something cannot be shown to be part of reality ...
If it is limited to our imaginations, then yes, these things are not touchable by science.

Your words verbatim.

In conclusion, science is not in the business of refuting imagination.
Unless, that is, science has forthright objective evidence that refutes a specific imagination.

Any "scientist" operating outside of this reality is a charlatan, and a disgrace to his peers. No better than a pharisee ...

Mere lack of evidence of the God's importance and existence is not, instead, evidence of His unimportance and nonexistence.
Similarly, mere lack of evidence of the God's unimportance and nonexistence cannot be taken as evidence of His importance and existence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence.

The exception being in one's own mind ...

Thank you for participating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Stile, posted 10-31-2008 1:45 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Stile, posted 11-03-2008 11:13 AM Bailey has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 250 of 310 (487471)
10-31-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Bailey
10-30-2008 9:56 PM


Hello Bailey,

Their pursuit of systematic knowledge regarding our natural physical world.
Science is driven by observation and experimentation in a material world onifre.
By what precise application of facts and principles will they refute the existence of God?

I don't think there is a they refuting God. The evidence points to natural causes, thats good enough for me by my measure of reasonable doubt to the existance of God, perhaps you have a different measure for determining reasonable doubt.

People have their own personal measures ...

Science has its own.

Physical evidence.

If by physical evidence you mean what is found in reality then sure. If you are trying to imply that there is more than the evidence found in reality, I would say no.

Then again, most handicap people are equally useless and irrelevant.

Like Beethoven or Hawking? Or was that your attempt at sarcasm? lol

I don't agree. I think no matter what a persons handicap may be their relevance and importance is determined by their actions.

That will still require faith as the evidence is subjective, tho I digress ...
It would be better for the case if we knew it inherently as a physical truth.
If we could perhaps somehow learn it through physical properties.

We cannot even know if it is a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity until we find a law as conclusive to that end as ...

* "Theory of Don't Jump From Plane Without Parachute"
* "Theory of Don't Kill Your Neighbor"

If only we could establish something solid like those ...

Reasonably, we would have a clearer understanding of whether we wanted to acknowledge His existence or commune back occasionally.

Or we can reject the whole idea of gods till we find proof within nature and reality of his existance. As I've chosen to do.

I am a small voice in the community, but I say we do not have sufficient, if any, physical evidence to observe this conclusion.

Like I said we each a our own measure of what can qualify as reasonable doubt for the existance of God. By my measure the lack of evidence is suffice, by yours it is not suffice because it would then challenge your faith in Gods existance. Like I wrote in the other post,

onifre writes:

Personal faith may make people blind to certains evidence.

Thats just my opinion though.

God concepts belonging to Einstein and other such prominent deists.
They often set forth an interesting perspective.
Their impersonal view causes them to swim in different streams than the damned & glorified.

I personally think Einstein and those with common philosophies about God just used the word God for lack of a better word, but I did ask for an example and you gave me one so I'll concede on that point.

Just wanted to make sure my collection was certified.

Buddist?

When it becomes a matter of survival.

Then I think we're safe for now, lol.

Mere lack of evidence of the God's importance and existence is not, instead, evidence of His unimportance and nonexistence.
Similarly, mere lack of evidence of the God's unimportance and nonexistence cannot be taken as evidence of His importance and existence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence.
The exception being in one's own mind ...

This has been my point. By my measure the lack of evidence is suffice, by yours it is not.

No onifre, this is our point.
We share it ...
Do you disagree with the assertion that believing in sin requires faith?

My bad, I do agree that it requires faith.

Yet sin came before religion ...

Human actions have been deemed sinful, yet there would need to be someone judging. If that someone is God, then your statement requires faith to be accepted. If the judging is being done by humans, then you don't have to call it sin, since it has a religious affiliation, you can just say people have done wrong to other people. Or caused harm to other people. Or commited crimes towards others. But if you like the word sin, which im pretty sure has it's origin in religion, thats cool.

That is, the acts within the concept of sin took place well before it was actually defined as a word.
It’s basically a bunch of religious folk trying to describe human nature.

Now we agree...

It gives an account of evolution - doesn't it?
Now I'm confused - lol

I just took issue with the way you framed the question, sorry to be a stickler, im always on the alert for creation scientist who try to slip in their twist of words.

It is a remarkable collection of observations ...

You're making it sound like a museum exibit, lol.

Nevertheless, considering we interact with the universe via observation and observation can never be known to be perfect,
the best we can come up with are statements that we treat as axioms, even tho they are not as you point out.
If and when we can document new contradictory observations, we discard yesterday's news ...

You disagree ?

I agree...but im suspicious of your meaning behind discard. Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics, but it was not discarded. F=ma is still reality.

I don't ...

I like your honesty...

One word ... I'll give ya three guesses.
(left this one wide open - lol)

And I'll take it!...FAITH, lol. I understand your point.

It's only fair you begin to learn your opponent's position.
I divulged enough so you could deduce a truth.
Chances are you have deduced it ...
As well as a myriad of misconceptions and prejudices.

The misconceptions is what im trying to fix, the prejudices I appologies for...but in my defense, im riddled with a myriad of misconceptions.:laugh:

I'm not being sarcastic here.
I appreciate debating with you.

Neither was I, your a cool dude/dudet. Your posts are long so it may take me a day or two to reply but don't think im not enjoying this.

Your down to Earth.

Now put on that Marley cd and smoke one for me ...

Done and done.:cool:


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Bailey, posted 10-30-2008 9:56 PM Bailey has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3503
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 251 of 310 (487689)
11-03-2008 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Bailey
10-31-2008 5:27 PM


Refuted Beyond all Reasonable Doubt
Bailey writes:

I was under the impression science employs objective physical evidence to declare that which is reality within our natural material world.
I must be mistaken ...

As I cannot recall any, would you be as kind as to enlighten us as to what subjective facets of reality can be acceptable to reach scientific conclusions ...

As well, if not by physical evidence, by what other objective means may reality be otherwise declared?

Please be specific.

Yes, you are mistaken. Science is not dependent on objective physical evidence.

Science is merely dependent on any objective evidence. Anything that can possibly be objective in any way.

Physical evidence lends itself to being objective very easily, and is used in some way pretty much across the board.

But Science is not limited to the physical, only the objective. Do not confuse the two or you end up creating a straw-man of the scientific community. Which is, basically, what you've been doing in all your posts in this thread.

You forgot "And can be evidenced as such" ...
Science observes and documents facts that actually exist and can be evidenced as such.
To His credit, the God does not fit such a mold ...

You are correct. God does not fit in this mold. There is no objective information that suggests God exists in any way. The "god hypothesis" is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt simply because God does not fit such a mold.

You have suggested science operates within realities confines.
The God does not evidence whether He is a part of reality.

Correct. In exactly the same way that all other aspects of our imagination do not evidence whether they are a part of reality or not.

If not by your assertions, what precise application of facts and principles would science refute an existence not evidenced in reality?

Please be specific.

I do not assert definitively and officially that God does not exist.
I do not assert definitively and officially that a yellow dragon with greasy hair who plays poker does not exist.

However, with nothing but imagination to support it's existence, the yellow, greasy haired, poker playing dragon hypothesis is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.

However, with nothing but imagination to support it's existence, the 'god hypothesis' is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.

Bailey writes:

Stile writes:

Science is not limited to the physical.
Science is not limited to the material.
Science is not limited to the natural.

Dr. Bishop ... is that you?
lol - I like X Files and Fringe as much as the next guy, but ...
Reality itself is sustained by the options you propose.

Are you sure? Science is not. Science would never say that there is absolutely nothing more than the physical, material or natural. How could we ever know?

Science is not limited by any of these factors. They are just a currently known and easy way for science to work objectively.

What is able to be evidenced outside of the natural, material, physical realm that does not require faith?

I don't know. Science may not know either. That doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist. Yet, it would be immature to assume something specific exists before we have any evidence whatsoever.

It is one thing to acknowlege the unknown. It's another thing to claim knowledge of the unknown without any support. Claiming God exists, without any support is why the god hypothesis is refuted beyond all reasonable doutbt. There's no support for it.

Respectively, outside of the natural, material, physical realm, what realities have been evidenced by the scientific community?

Please be specific.

I don't know. I don't know if science knows. What does it matter? These may be all there is (in which case the god hypothesis is refuted adamantly). This may not be all there is (in which case we need supporting evidence in order to not refute the god hypothesis beyond all reasonable doubt).

Without any objective support, the god hypothesis is rejected beyond all reasonable doubt.

Until the God can be evidenced within reality, science is, for all intensive purposes, off limits from such a defunct proclamation.

Even more so when the God is evidenced.

See the conundrum ...

No, there is no conundrum.

As long as there is no objective evidence for the god hypothesis, it is rejected beyond all reasonable doubt. Just as any imagined hypothesis is. Just as anything that only exists within our imaginations is.

Once (if ever...) there is objective evidence for God, then we can start thinking about what sort of God it is, or what that God has to do with us, or if any religion has ever had any aspect of God correct.

Without objective evidence, the god hypothesis remains nothing more than imagination. Therefore, the god hypothesis is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt as any imaginary concept is.

In conclusion, science is not in the business of refuting imagination.
Unless, that is, science has forthright objective evidence that refutes a specific imagination.

Um.. wait.

I thought the 'god hypothesis' was that God actually existed in reality.

For such a god hypothesis certainly is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.

However, if you actually mean the 'god hypothesis' to be that God exists only in our imaginations.. then I'm sorry, I didn't mean to contend such a statement.

I agree, the 'god hypothesis' that God only exists within our imaginations is not refuted at all.

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Where did you get this from? Absence of evidence most certainly is evidence when one has gone looking for that evidence.

If I sit on my sofa (and can't see my kitchen), the absence of evidence is not evidence that a cup of water does not exist on my kitchen table. You are correct in this scenario.

If I walk into my kitchen, and I see that there is no cup of water on my table. Then the absence of evidence of that cup of water most certainly is evidence that a cup of water does not exist on my kitchen table. You are sorely incorrect in this scenario.

When one goes looking for evidence, an absence of evidence most certainly is evidence for absence. Man has been looking for evidence of God for longer than he's been looking for anything else. That evidence does not seem to exist. Such a huge absence of evidence most certainly is evidence of God's non-existance.

It is for this very reason that the 'god hypothesis' is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Bailey, posted 10-31-2008 5:27 PM Bailey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Bailey, posted 11-03-2008 3:43 PM Stile has responded

    
Bailey
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 252 of 310 (487700)
11-03-2008 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Stile
11-03-2008 11:13 AM


science is not in the business of refuting imagination
Stile writes:

Bailey writes:

I was under the impression science employs objective physical evidence to declare that which is reality within our natural material world.
I must be mistaken ...

As I cannot recall any, would you be as kind as to enlighten us as to what subjective facets of reality can be acceptable to reach scientific conclusions ...

As well, if not by physical evidence, by what other objective means may reality be otherwise declared?

Please be specific.

Yes, you are mistaken. Science is not dependent on objective physical evidence.

Science is merely dependent on any objective evidence. Anything that can possibly be objective in any way.

Thank you for supplying specifics - lol
Fail

Stile writes:

Bailey writes:

You forgot "And can be evidenced as such" ...
Science observes and documents facts that actually exist and can be evidenced as such.
To His credit, the God does not fit such a mold ...

You are correct. God does not fit in this mold. There is no objective information that suggests God exists in any way.


Thank you for conceding to this end Stile.

The "god hypothesis" is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt simply because God does not fit such a mold.

According to scripture no evidence, objective or otherwise, will be available, apart from faith.
The God is subjectively evidenced by the fact that you, nor anyone, cannot provide any.
Fail.

Stile writes:

Bailey writes:

You have suggested science operates within realities confines.
The God does not evidence whether He is a part of reality.

Correct.


Again, I thank you for conceding to this end ...

Stile writes:

Bailey writes:

If not by your assertions, what precise application of facts and principles would science refute an existence not evidenced in reality?
Please be specific.

I do not assert definitively and officially that God does not exist.
I do not assert definitively and officially that a yellow dragon with greasy hair who plays poker does not exist.


lol - Thank you for your complete absence of precise, specific applications of facts and principles.

I do not assert their nonexistence either.
Thank you for conceding to this end.

Fail

Stile writes:

Bailey writes:

Stile writes:


Science is not limited to the physical.
Science is not limited to the material.
Science is not limited to the natural.

Dr. Bishop ... is that you?
lol - I like X Files and Fringe as much as the next guy, but ...
Reality itself is sustained by the options you propose.

Are you sure? Science is not.


I digress ... and rather concede.
It seems wise to say nobody can be certain.

Science would never say that there is absolutely nothing more than the physical, material or natural.

Why not?
Anything more would currently be in our imaginations with the God.

How could we ever know?

Good question Stile ...

Apparently by looking in the kitchen and not seeing the God.

Science is not limited by any of these factors. They are just a currently known and easy way for science to work objectively.

Reality suggested our sphere as a disc and reality supports the disc is a sphere.
The perception of reality itself is limited by these factors Stile.
Perception is not invariable and reality can be sneaky ....

Stile writes:

Bailey writes:

What is able to be evidenced outside of the natural, material, physical realm that does not require faith?

I don't know. Science may not know either. That doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist.

Thank you for conceding to this end.
I agree that doesn't mean "such a thing" doesn't exist.

Yet, it would be immature to assume something specific exists before we have any evidence whatsoever.

Thank you for conceding to this end.

If it would be immature to assume something specific exists before we have any evidence ...
Surely, it would be immature to assume something specific does not exist before we have any evidence.

Stile writes:

Bailey writes:

Respectively, outside of the natural, material, physical realm, what realities have been evidenced by the scientific community?
Please be specific.

I don't know. I don't know if science knows.


Thank you for conceding to this end.

What does it matter?

Revelations can be enlightening.
Ask the flat earth people.

This may not be all there is

Thank you for conceding to this end.

As long as there is no objective evidence for the god hypothesis, it is rejected beyond all reasonable doubt.

Again ...

Wannabe scientists with no integrity will work within the boundaries of argumentum ad ignoratiam to establish imaginary concepts as such.

Respectively, actual scientists with integrity will work within the boundaries of reality, and their professional scope, to establish evidential facts as such.

Stile writes:

Bailey writes:

In conclusion, science is not in the business of refuting imagination.
Unless, that is, science has forthright objective evidence that refutes a specific imagination.

Um.. wait.

I thought the 'god hypothesis' was that God actually existed in reality.

Is this to imply that reality cannot exist within the imagination?

That is a stretch by even my generous standards ...

I agree, the 'god hypothesis' that God only exists within our imaginations is not refuted at all.

Thank you for conceding to this end.

Stile writes:

Bailey writes:

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Where did you get this from? Absence of evidence most certainly is evidence when one has gone looking for that evidence.

Nope ... even then it's not.
Even if you looked in the kitchen ...
Ask the big scientist if you don't believe the lil' one.

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.

Nevertheless, wannabe "scientists" with no integrity will work within the boundaries of argumentum ad ignoratiam to establish imaginary concepts as such.
Respectively, actual scientists with integrity will work within the boundaries of reality, and their professional scope, to establish evidential facts as such.
Do not be deceived, any "scientist" operating outside of this reality is a charlatan, and a disgrace to his peers. No better than a pharisee ...

Mere lack of evidence of the God's importance and existence is not, instead, somehow evidence of His unimportance and nonexistence.
Similarly, mere lack of evidence of the God's unimportance and nonexistence cannot be taken as evidence of His importance and existence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence.

The exception being in one's own mind ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Stile, posted 11-03-2008 11:13 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2008 3:52 PM Bailey has responded
 Message 255 by Stile, posted 11-04-2008 9:49 AM Bailey has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
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 responded

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

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 254 of 310 (487709)
11-03-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Straggler
11-03-2008 3:52 PM


Re: science is not in the business of refuting imagination
Thank you for the reply Straggler.

Straggler writes:

Bailey writes:

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?


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 ...

Edited by Bailey, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2008 3:52 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2008 8:43 AM Bailey has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3503
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 255 of 310 (487740)
11-04-2008 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Bailey
11-03-2008 3:43 PM


No support. No work. No God.
Bailey writes:

Stile writes:

Science would never say that there is absolutely nothing more than the physical, material or natural.

Why not?

Because they would simply say that it is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt. Not that there is "absolutely nothing" else.

It is ridiculous to definitively and officially state something does not exist when our knowledge of the universe isn't perfect.

It is, however, fully justifiable to state that anything without supporting evidence is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.

Bailey writes:

If it would be immature to assume something specific exists before we have any evidence ...
Surely, it would be immature to assume something specific does not exist before we have any evidence.

But we do have evidence. We have a mellenia of people looking everywhere they think God would exist... and all of them are left with God only in their imaginations.

It is shown that God only exists in our imaginations.

There is more evidenciary support that the god hypothesis is refuted beyond any reasonable doubt then there is evidenciary support that centaurs don't exist.

Bailey writes:

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Stile writes:

Where did you get this from? Absence of evidence most certainly is evidence when one has gone looking for that evidence.

Nope ... even then it's not.
Even if you looked in the kitchen ...
Ask the big scientist if you don't believe the lil' one.

Your defense is "nuh-uh"?? :)

I hope you'll excuse me if I'm not swayed by your powers of persuasion.

If you hypothesize that something is an actual part of reality and you go looking for that real thing in all the places it should be and you don't find anything that indicates the something is real at all. Then your hypothesis is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.

People have been looking, craving for an observation of God, for over 5000 years. Nothing.

Mere lack of evidence of the God's importance and existence is not, instead, somehow evidence of His unimportance and nonexistence.
Similarly, mere lack of evidence of the God's unimportance and nonexistence cannot be taken as evidence of His importance and existence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence.

Your playing with words doesn't change the facts. If you think your keys are in your pocket, and you check your pocket and there are no keys there. This absence of evidence for the existance of keys in your pocket most certainly is evidence for the absence of keys in your pocket.

If you think God is a potent part of our reality, and you check reality for signs of God and you never find any... for over 5000 years with the majority of the planet searching... Then this absence of evidence for the existance of God as a potent part of this reality most certainaly is evidence for the absence of God actually being a potent part of this reality.

Of course, if you'd like to alter the 'god hypothesis' to mean:
-God only exists in our imaginations
-God does not influence our reality in any way that cannot be easily duplicated by mundane methods anyway
-God never leaves any objectively detectable trace of Himself for anyone to find, ever

Then this God is as impotent as the yellow, greasy, poker playing dragon I created in my imagination and I would always agree that such a silly god hypothesis is not refuted in any way.

Nevertheless, wannabe "scientists" with no integrity will work within the boundaries of argumentum ad ignoratiam to establish imaginary concepts as such.

Respectively, actual scientists with integrity will work within the boundaries of reality, and their professional scope, to establish evidential facts as such.

Do not be deceived, any "scientist" operating outside of this reality is a charlatan, and a disgrace to his peers. No better than a pharisee ...

I don't think you understand. No scientist is doing any "work" on this at all. There's no evidence. When there is absolutely no evidence, the work is already done. There's nothing to do. There's nothing to study. There's nothing to ponder or consider or give a second thought about. Scientists do not "work" to refute the god hypothesis beyond any reasonable doubt. The hypothesis is refuted as soon as it is expressed because there is no objective support for it. The "work" is instantaneous and isn't done by anyone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Bailey, posted 11-03-2008 3:43 PM Bailey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 10:02 AM Stile has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019