|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 01/14/2006 : 23:56:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Observable god or gods do not exist.
To which, I'm pretty sure we can all agree. As always, that statement of non-existence is tentative.
I have to disagree with the idea of allowing the word "tentative" to creep into this conversation.
There is nothing tentative about the dismissal of unevidenced claims.
I'm, 1000 years old! I don't offer any evidence. Does that mean that there is some wiggle room in your mind that I might actually BE 1000 years old?
There is a IPU standing behind me as I type this! I don't offer any evidence. Does that mean that there is some possibility in your mind that there really IS an IPU here in my den?
I also object to the statement "observable god or gods do not exist".
This represents a failure to understand some basics of logic.
More appropriate would be "The evidence presented, to date, does not support the conclusion that a god or gods exist. In the abscence of supporting evidence the claim "a god (or gods) exist" is dismissed."
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 01:59:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
... the believers will say something like, "well, since proof denies faith, God obviously erased His tracks so that you couldn't prove He exists." Of course, that's not a scientific response, but why should we expect a god to behave in a strictly scientific manner? Obviously, if a god is defined in this way - a way which simply defies scientific analysis - then it's not at all arbitrary to say that science can't tell us anything about that particular god.
That is the sticking point we got caught on before, beskeptigal. ...
Oh ya, that. It's interesting how stepping back and then looking again makes things more clear.
If that were the god in question then OK, that wouldn't be science either,   but I don't recall anyone claiming their god erased its tracks. Anyway, back to the point, this thread isn't about disproving god despite the title. Though I'm glad we agree about, there would be evidence if god(s) did interact with the Universe.
The reason I started this thread was after a long discussion on the BAUT forum about morals being outside of the realm of science. The more I thought about that, and about god being out of science and a few comments in the other thread about the supernatural being outside of science, it just didn't make sense.
If there was no evidence, it didn't matter, but it also didn't exist. Because if it exists and we have any reason to be aware of it, there is evidence. So how could god and morals and the supernatural be outside of the realm of science? They aren't and it's an arbitrary statement to say they are.
The supernatural is easy. No evidence, no event took place. Evidence an event took place, then science can look for legitimate causes. If you want to prove predictions of the future or the dead are still communicating, science can define the evidence it needs to test such things and test away. None of this out of the realm of science stuff.
God, same thing. Either there's evidence or there isn't. My last thread was really about the fact there was overwhelming evidence god(s) were a human invention and nothing more and we shouldn't be afraid to say so by this round about claim that science cannot test for evidence of god(s). It wasn't so much that there was an absence of evidence as it was that the evidence that was there pointed in another direction and why not point that out.
So that leaves the morals thing. There is nothing in science that can assign value of good or bad to something. Id killing good or bad? Science cannot tell you. BUT...it made no sense that there was some inner conscience telling you right from wrong either. We don't have souls we have brains. And brains gather input, mix it with genetics, and come up with moral decisions. I can analyze that decision. So where is it in my mind that I can make that decision while science cannot?
Then it dawned on me. We don't make the decision about any absolute good or bad, we make a decision based on certain criteria. Is it good for me, is it what I was taught, does it release endorphins or stress hormones? Whatever one's brain was using to determine the 'moral' choice meant that if you give science the criteria, it most certainly could make a moral choice.
Which is better? Based on what criteria? Once you add the based on what criteria, science can now address the question. And we have those criteria embedded so to speak, but they are there.
I don't mean to say lets all start using science to determine right and wrong. We would be better off but it's not likely to happen in my lifetime. But what I am saying is all these things are not outside of the realm of science once you look more closely. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 02:06:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
More appropriate would be "The evidence presented, to date, does not support the conclusion that a god or gods exist. In the abscence of supporting evidence the claim "a god (or gods) exist" is dismissed."
Actually what I was saying in the first thread was there was overwhelming evidence the gods humans generally talk about are of human origin. In other words, I wasn't looking at evidence for gods and hadn't found any, I was looking at evidence of how, where, and why religion developed and saw no evidence for anything that was beyond what humans at the time would have devised or written. Add to that the fact one cannot find evidence of god(s) intervening like for example, prayer studies have failed to find any effect. I think it's time to look at the best explanation for the evidence rather than ignoring it. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 09:44:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
beskeptigal:
I think it's time to look at the best explanation for the evidence rather than ignoring it.
Isn't that exactly why most people on this site, as skeptics, are either atheist or agnostic? Here is something we may want to consider. Is it possible that we reasoned our way out of a god belief in spite of a natural proclivity to believe? One we are born with? And while it can easily be argued that many who are born into a particular culture are indoctrinated with the religious belief of that culture, just about all cultures have some sort of supernatural belief that are easily accepted and are a part of the cultures makeup. Why should this particular kind of irrational belief be so persistent and widespread? Could it be that the best explanation for the evidence is that we are hardwired to believe? There does seem to be some evidence for that. And if that turns out to be the case, asking people to look at the standard lack of evidence supporting a religious belief will not necessarily get us very far if our goal is to get those people to not believe.
Here are two very interesting essays on the subject from the Guardian: Are we hardwired for religion, or is it just a psychological and social need?
Religion may be a survival mechanism. So are we born to believe?
From the latter:
quote:
Faith has long been a puzzle for science, and it's no surprise why. By definition, faith demands belief without a need for supporting evidence, a concept that could not be more opposed to the principles of scientific inquiry. In the eyes of the scientist, an absence of evidence reduces belief to a hunch. It places the assumptions at the heart of many religions on the rockiest of ground.
So why do so many people believe? And why has belief proved so resilient as scientific progress unravels the mysteries of plagues, floods, earthquakes and our understanding of the universe? By injecting nuns with radioactive chemicals, by scanning the brains of people with epilepsy and studying naughty children, scientists are now working out why. When the evidence is pieced together, it seems that evolution prepared what society later moulded: a brain to believe.
Another question we might want to ask is if it is indeed part of our nature to believe, how were some of us able to escape that?
(I would avoid patting ourselves on the back because of our apparently superior reasoning skills. There may be a lot more going on than that. My guess is that there is no simple answer to the question.)
Edited to add the second link and the quote and some changes...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 09:50:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Such as?
Such as the very basic concept of framing your claims in a positive tense.
quote:
Is that not the tentative verson of my statement, without the observable part?
There is nothing tentative about dismissal of unevidenced claims. Nothing.
Just because it leaves open the chance for people to present new evidence does not qualify it as "tentative".
If you think there is a tentative nature to the dismissal of unevidenced claims, then you are stating that there is indeed some chance that the IPU in my den is real. Or that I really am 1000 years old. And any number of equally ridiculous claims.
Conclusions (on the other hand) are tentative to one degree or another, based on the evidence at hand to support them.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 15:07:32 [Permalink]
|
I agree with those who say the existence of a God cannot be disproved, at least in general. You just can't prove or disprove a negative.
God can't be pinned down for scientific inspection unless He comes to rest in some very material way at a known point in space-time, a time and place accessable to scientists and their gear. Even if He chose to be so cooperative, we could at best only prove or disprove that God was present at point A on date B. (I'm not sure what actual tests and/or experiments that the scientists might perform to establish Divinity, but I imagine the scientists would include many respected, academics and lab-coated researchers. Their equipment would at minumum include an impressive collection of spectrographic analysis equipment, microscopes, DNA sequencers, duct tape, and petrie dishes.)
The main problem is that God would have to cooperate with any scientists attempting to verify His existence, at least by showing up at an accessable location, reasonably on time. Even then, He could only be proved to exist, not to not-exist. Without at least His passive help, no scientific proof is possible. And if God really doesn't exist, He certainly can't be expected to show up to be prodded by scientists.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 17:48:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You just can't prove or disprove a negative.
That is a common misunderstanding. You can indeed prove a negative.
The way in which you do so it to demonstrate proof of a positive claim that is mutually exclusive of the positive tense of your negative claim.
If that makes any sense to you.... it can be a confusing concept.
quote:
We've been through this in the past, you and I disagree. No need to throw off a topic here. If you really wish to, make a topic and I'll respond.
It is, I think, directly relevent to this conversation.
quote:
Huh? It is not a closed matter, it has to be left open for further investigation in the future if the evidence presents itself. Is that not the very definition of tentative?
The evidence, and interpretation of it, IS the claim. If you have new evidence, then you actually have a new claim. The evidence defines your claim.
Claims with NO evidence are meaningless.
There is nothing tentative about that.
In the case of the "god claim" there isn't actually any evidence to support it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 20:23:49 [Permalink]
|
I think it's very fair and practical to dismiss a claim on its face for lack of evidence, and for practical purposes, this is the way I operate. This provides more than enough reason for me to think of myself as an agnostic, but not the kind of scientific certainty of God's absence that would allow me to call myself an atheist.
But even total absence of evidence isn't exactly the same thing as evidence of absence. Since this topic is about the scientific provability of God's non-existence, I have to say that I think the proofs presented here, and any imaginable future proofs, fail that more stringent test. Science could, however, make a strong argument that lack of evidence of God should put the probability of God's existence on a par with, if not less likely than, the existence of the Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster, and the honest used car salesman. But even taking such a position as this, I think, is wrong for science. Theology is simply not a field within science's scope. I'm pretty sure there isn't even a single scientific test for Divinity.
I'll be happy enough if only religion would finally give science was wide a berth as science gives religion. Call it a mutual non-aggression pact. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 20:47:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
This provides more than enough reason for me to think of myself as an agnostic, but not the kind of scientific certainty of God's absence that would allow me to call myself an atheist.
Just to be clear, absolute or "scientific" or any other kind of certainty of god's non-existence is by no means a requirement of atheism. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it. It implies nothing about knowledge or certainty.
Technically, agnostics are atheists in this sense. The term "agnostic" has been more recently bastardized to mean "undecided" about the existence of god, but that really isn't what the word was originally coined to describe, which was a philosophical position that any knowledge of supernatural beings or phenomena are a priori beyond human understanding and unknowable.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/15/2006 20:48:29 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 21:06:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Claim: evolution
New evidence: DNA
So evolution was a new claim in the 1950's? You lost me there.
Strictly speaking, yes.
DNA changes the definition of evolution, it sheds enourmous light on the mechanisms, enhances the explanatory power of the ToE by a hundredfold.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 21:15:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Just to be clear, absolute or "scientific" or any other kind of certainty of god's non-existence is by no means a requirement of atheism. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it. It implies nothing about knowledge or certainty.
Right. Sagan ("Demon Haunted World") noted (paraphrase) "Claims that aren't testable aren't very useful, since they contain little information." That's why the "God" questions aren't of scientific interest, or subject to scientific consideration (although some "True Believers" with scientific backgrounds insist on endlessly [and futily] whipping that dead horse, which isn't very surprising... human emotions, in some scientists just as in other people, drive many illogical, irrational, and otherwise pointless pursuits.)
I've always felt the "Agnostic" vs. "Atheist" thing was a silly i-dotting and t-crossing exercise that theists like to harp on, only because in a strict sense, its one of the few logically defensible allegations of their position... the problem with that is, atheists and scientists (at least scientists when they're being scientific) neither absolutely affirm nor deny anything. They leave wrestling with such practically meaningless esoterica to the theists (ad nauseum) and philosophers.
"The Sun might explode tomorrow"... I don't deny that's possible. But since there's no evidence suggesting it will happen, and much evidence suggesting the contrary, I see no reason to even bother considering it. In my opinion, the "God" questions fall in the same category. |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 01/15/2006 21:18:40 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
