Show me that Science proves there is no god [Archive]

A Christian Sceptic

13th December 2007, 11:53 AM

OK,

Since this came up unasked for in a different thread it's made me curious and I would like some answers.

The claim was made that science proves there is no god.

Please read the following closely:
Don't bother asking me to prove there is a God, because I can't. I have never claimed I could. In fact, I do not think science can prove that god exists or doesn't exist. All it can do is prove that it "appears" god exists or it "appears" god doesn't exist.

And by god it could be anything beyond the universe outside it or what have you. A First Cause or the God of the Christians. It doesn't matter.

Again I don't want to know why you think god isn't there. I want to know how and where science proves this.

And yes - I really want to know. I'm a sceptic and that means I'm willing to change my beliefs if needed.

*** But again - I'm not looking for things like "There's evil - so god doesn't exist" or anything like that but something like:

Scientist Bill did this experiment and it proved there was no god.

you know - using the scientific method.

NOTE: This obviously is only attended at someone who thinks science can do this one way or another. I DON'T!

ANOTHER NOTE: I do not want to debate this or fight. I will not respond - I will not counter-point - I will read any scientific literature that shows this.

Henners

13th December 2007, 11:56 AM

Science doesn't even prove Newton's Laws of Motion. It can't prove why aeroplanes don't fall out of the sky, or why boats float.

Why do you think it can prove imaginary stuff if it can't even prove real stuff?

Marquis de Carabas

13th December 2007, 11:58 AM

The claim was made that science proves there is no god.
Gotta love the passive voice. Who made the claim? Ask them to defend it.

JoeEllison

13th December 2007, 12:02 PM

If you want to have a fight with someone, take it outside!

Jimbo07

13th December 2007, 12:27 PM

Why do you think it can prove imaginary stuff if it can't even prove real stuff?

Gotta love the passive voice. Who made the claim? Ask them to defend it.

If you want to have a fight with someone, take it outside!

Sorry. I've heard the same refrain, "Science proves X..." before. Anyone who does say "Science proves God does not exist" is wrong. People have made that statement, even if I can't come up with an example from the last 5 minutes off the top of my head, MdC.

The appropriate response, of course is much like that made by Henners. The statement, and any religious counters, completely ignore the nature of: science, proof and logic.

ACS: SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. That's not what science does.

rocketdodger

13th December 2007, 12:27 PM

If by "proof" you mean "100% guarantee" then science cannot prove anything.

Its all a matter of probabilities.

Science can show that the probability of a God is so low that for all practical purposes one shouldn't care. Do you constantly worry about gravity reversing and being flung out into space? That's about how improbable God is.

Cainkane1

13th December 2007, 12:30 PM

Marquis de Carabas

13th December 2007, 12:37 PM

People have made that statement, even if I can't come up with an example from the last 5 minutes off the top of my head, MdC.
I did not claim it was not said. I asked that the question be addressed to the one who said it. Even if you don't have an example ready at hand, CS seems to, else whence this thread? I would just like a pair to be grown. I would just like him to grow a pair.

Foster Zygote

13th December 2007, 12:43 PM

The claim was made that science proves there is no god.

The claim was made by whom?

Jimbo07

13th December 2007, 12:46 PM

I did not claim it was not said. I asked that the question be addressed to the one who said it. Even if you don't have an example ready at hand, CS seems to, else whence this thread? I would just like a pair to be grown. I would just like him to grow a pair.

I wasn't saying it wasn't a strawman or something, in this case, I felt that it should be addressed that whomever said it was wrong, anyway.

Of course, there's nothing produced by science that could be used to prove God's existence... but that's not the issue...

danielk

13th December 2007, 12:50 PM

Whoever made that claim, if it was indeed made, is a moron. Science operates on the naturalist assumption that there is only the natural world out there. It would be a tad nonsensical to have it prove its own axioms.

Marquis de Carabas

13th December 2007, 12:53 PM

I wasn't saying it wasn't a strawman or something, in this case, I felt that it should be addressed that whomever said it was wrong, anyway.
Certainly wrong. I'm just curious as to the identity of that someone.

I'm also curious about the exact nature of the claim. A quote would be nice. I could see myself saying something that could be misconstrued as "science proves there is no god". Science has shown that god is unnecessary as an explanation for speciation, for example. While it is certainly possible someone made such a strong claim as CS presents, it is also possible he has misinterpreted.

FireGarden

13th December 2007, 12:55 PM

In order to answer your question properly, then I need to know the following: What is the difference between a universe with a god and a universe without a god?

That all becomes very difficult given the range of possible definitions of "god".

Have you heard of Sagan's Dragon?
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

The important question: "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?"

But again - I'm not looking for things like "There's evil - so god doesn't exist"....

I still want to quibble with that.
If the definition of god implied that there should be no evil in the world, then discovering evil in the world would be very important data. It would scientifically disprove the existence of a god according to that definition.

....or anything like that but something like:

Scientist Bill did this experiment and it proved there was no god.

I don't know a scientist named Bill. But I did hear of one named Abraham -- he went and smashed a few idols and suffered no harm as a result. Did that prove anything?

sol invictus

13th December 2007, 12:55 PM

While science can never prove anything, logic can. A statement or set of statements can be shown to be logically inconsistent. That's the closest you could ever come to a proof of the non-existence of god.

I think the best argument is due to Epicurus:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to.

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.

If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.

If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

So if god were omnipotent and good, there would no evil; ergo, god is either not omnipotent or not good. As those are defining characteristics of god, god does not exist.

Jimbo07

13th December 2007, 12:58 PM

Certainly wrong. I'm just curious as to the identity of that someone.

I'm also curious about the exact nature of the claim. A quote would be nice. I could see myself saying something that could be misconstrued as "science proves there is no god". Science has shown that god is unnecessary as an explanation for speciation, for example. While it is certainly possible someone made such a strong claim as CS presents, it is also possible he has misinterpreted.

Ooh! Fair play!

That's interesting. It may have been misinterpreted. However, I can give you one example of an atheist who has made the claim, "science proves God does not exist." Me!

That's right, I was a moron. Of course, now I'm still a moron, just not a teenager anymore. :D

Marquis de Carabas

13th December 2007, 12:58 PM

So if god were omnipotent and good, there would no evil; ergo, god is either not omnipotent or not good. As those are defining characteristics of god, god does not exist.
Those are only defining characteristics of some representations of god. Since CS did not limit the conception of god thus in the OP, you have proved nothing germane.

Furi

13th December 2007, 01:05 PM

As has been previously stated.

Trying to prove the non-existance of god scientifically is like trying to prove the existance of god scientifically, and as CS stated they cannot offer any evidence to gods existance, likewise I cannot offer any proof of his non-existance.

however the evidence that promotes either idea is so heavily weighted in favour of non existance that I believe in non-existance of a creator or other manifestations of divinity.

I can even entertain the idea of a highly evolved lifeform seeding this planet with genetic stock when they got out of their flying saucer to take a dump as a higher probability for the origins of life than the existance of a god.

A Christian Sceptic

13th December 2007, 01:06 PM

I did not claim it was not said. I asked that the question be addressed to the one who said it. Even if you don't have an example ready at hand, CS seems to, else whence this thread? I would just like a pair to be grown. I would just like him to grow a pair.

Let me assure you I did ask this to that person - no answer so far. But it got me thinking maybe someone else does have something to show me.

Since you brought up growing a bigger pair - any suggestions? I'm a bit sceptical on some of the male enhancement herbs and drugs that are out there. :D

Hokulele

13th December 2007, 01:09 PM

To the OP, just a few thoughts.

1) This sounds a bit like the fallacy of proving a negative. Without seeing the actual claim, I could be wrong.

2) Science can prove that certain aspects or definitions of a god are not true (for example, god is a green walnut living in my glove box). You did leave that a bit open with your comment "And by god it could be anything beyond the universe outside it or what have you. A First Cause or the God of the Christians. It doesn't matter."

3) Be a bit careful with assuming that something posted as hyperbole is exactly what the author intended. Happens a lot on this forum.

I agree with the comments posted so far about what the actual claim was, and who claimed it in the first place.

danielk

13th December 2007, 01:11 PM

If the definition of god implied that there should be no evil in the world, then discovering evil in the world would be very important data. It would scientifically disprove the existence of a god according to that definition.
First you would have to define "evil". Which is kind of a problem given that religions usually derive morality from god.

I think the argument from evil doesn't get you anywhere logically. However, it's still a fun argument insofar as it sends believers into hot water, since as far as I understand it boils down to the choice of either "god is evil or at least indifferent", or "what we commonly regard as evil is not evil in the eyes of god", or simply "there is no god".

Marquis de Carabas

13th December 2007, 01:15 PM

Since you brought up growing a bigger pair - any suggestions? I'm a bit sceptical on some of the male enhancement herbs and drugs that are out there. :D
I don't believe the male enhancement drugs are marketed as enlarging the testicles. Or are you saying you have a pair of... :eek:

ponderingturtle

13th December 2007, 01:17 PM

Hmm this thread does seem to go toward proving that ACS is a troll.

Why else start a new thread so full of based on an exaggeration or logical fallacy?

ACS the best way of putting it is that a belief in god is unscientific because there is no evidence for god and any suggested evidence for god has been shown to have non god explanations. As there is an infinite number of possible beliefs that have no supporting evidence, it is unscientific to believe in god.

danielk

13th December 2007, 01:23 PM

Hmm this thread does seem to go toward proving that ACS is a troll.
Why is this necessary? I find A Christian Sceptic's openness and willingness to engage in discussion admirable. I wish more religious people were like him.

Why else start a new thread so full of based on an exaggeration or logical fallacy?
One dumb thread doesn't make one a troll, unless perhaps if that's the only contribution.

FireGarden

13th December 2007, 01:25 PM

First you would have to define "evil".

In my experience, very few people will argue that there is no evil in the world.

But, as already pointed out, the OP leaves god pretty much undefined. Which is why my main answer is stolen from Sagan.

I just didn't want Epicurus' contribution to be rejected as unscientific. It is observation based. Natural science. It's only fault is that it doesn't refute the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- very pro-pirate, therefore very pro-evil.

ponderingturtle

13th December 2007, 01:28 PM

Why is this necessary? I find A Christian Sceptic's openness and willingness to engage in discussion admirable. I wish more religious people were like him.

It is starting this thread after abandoning his previous thread asking athiests to define the god that they want to believe in that is what I base that assertion on.

I might be wrong, but it does seem odd to create such thread, it does seem like trolling.

DoubtingStephen

13th December 2007, 01:28 PM

While science does not prove that there is no Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy, it is also true that there is no evidence whatsoever that any such imaginary super-pals exist.

In the total absence of evidence for the existence of an invisible self aware and bad tempered item with no mass or energy, a rational person might be expected to refrain from asserting that it exists.

yairhol

13th December 2007, 01:29 PM

Science does not deal with the disproving of a god. If anything, it would try to prove that there is a god because science deals with proving things theoretically & empirically. With the aid of science we may end up with a conclusion that there is no need for a god in order for nature to be as it is (as Richard Dawkins says).
In fact, as Hokulele has said, trying to prove there is no god is trying to prove a negative which is impossible as it is impossible to prove that lettuce has no feelings or that there is no flying spaghetti monster: http://www.venganza.org/

Regards,
Yair

A Christian Sceptic

13th December 2007, 01:29 PM

I don't believe the male enhancement drugs are marketed as enlarging the testicles. Or are you saying you have a pair of... :eek:

Wow - thank God I was sceptical and didn't buy them!;)

bokonon

13th December 2007, 01:32 PM

A First Cause or the God of the Christians. It doesn't matter.
Nothing to do with science, but I think logic shows the God of the Christians doesn't exist. Most Christians would define him as being (1) All good, (2) All powerful, and (3) All knowing.

I'm not looking for things like "There's evil - so god doesn't exist" or anything like that
Oops, never mind.

A Christian Sceptic

13th December 2007, 01:35 PM

It is starting this thread after abandoning his previous thread asking athiests to define the god that they want to believe in that is what I base that assertion on.

I might be wrong, but it does seem odd to create such thread, it does seem like trolling.

I wanted to know what people thought. People posted. People stopped posting. It died - why is that me abandoning it? But I understand.

I might add - I appreciated peoples responses - it was very interesting. I have many other ideas for posts, but now I'm thinking maybe theres no point if all people will post is questions of why I posted it, etc.

I did appreciate the Carl Sagan link although not directly related. I enjoy his writings and loved COSMOS.

ponderingturtle

13th December 2007, 01:40 PM

I wanted to know what people thought. People posted. People stopped posting. It died - why is that me abandoning it? But I understand.

Because it seemed like you where ignoring many of the points people tried to raise.

bignickel

13th December 2007, 01:44 PM

I'm in a pretty good mood right now, so I'll take the question as it is. I'm thinking that ACS is referencing Dawkins' latest book, where Dawkins says that Science can weigh in on the "god" question. ACS' statement seems to be a roundabout way of expressing Dawkins' point; at the same time, his statement is one that that gets put forth by theists as an 'atheist' belief (which always tends to rile a few feathers here).

It is possible to prove a negative, if you show that certain things that must accompany something else are not present; then it is shown: that particular something does not exist. As long as we're careful with our definitions, extremely careful that.

"There is no (normal) elephant in this room." Very easy. Normal (breathing) elephants, produced by currently understood biological means, leave obvious clues to their presence. We can see them. We can weigh the room I'm in on a scale, and then weight an completely identical room on a different scale, and compare weights. We can look for crushed furniture, smell the air, and check the bowl of peanuts to see if any are missing. All point to: no elephant in the room.,

The trouble for 'there is no god' is right off the bat, 'god' is an un-definable entity. All we can say is "if (un-definable entity) exist, with characteristic X, then Y should be present". All that leaves us with is an endless series of X's, with Y's to check for them. Since there are an infinite number of (un-definable entities), the whole exercise begins to get a little silly.

"How can you say that (un-definable entity) doesn't exist?" is thus a nonsensical question from the POV of inductive logic. Pragmatically speaking, it's not there until evidence begins to suggest it does. And the evidence would only speak towards the existence of definable entities, never undefined ones.

Langis

13th December 2007, 01:45 PM

Please read the following closely:
Don't bother asking me to prove there is a God, because I can't.

:p

bokonon

13th December 2007, 02:14 PM

I did appreciate the Carl Sagan link although not directly related. I enjoy his writings and loved COSMOS.
Cosmos is going to be re-broadcast in January.

"How can you say that (un-definable entity) doesn't exist?" is thus a nonsensical question from the POV of inductive logic. Pragmatically speaking, it's not there until evidence begins to suggest it does. And the evidence would only speak towards the existence of definable entities, never undefined ones.
"Definable" like "All-good, all-powerful, all-knowing"? Not on the table, apparently...

-Fran-

13th December 2007, 02:15 PM

He's probably referring to me?:confused: I said the following things in another thread (in a discussion with ACS, see quotes below). It might have been worded badly. I was trying to say that I am an atheist because what I know of the world comes from science and that I don't see a need for a god to explain things about the natural world with. I didn't actually mean that science has disproved god, only that what is claimed that a god can do with our world, science has natural explanations for. Such as evolution to explain the life that we can see around us, hence a creator is not needed and so on. All that scientific knowledge put together has removed a deity as a possible explanation for an impressive amount of things. Enough things for me to think that a god is not likely. For things that we don't know yet how they function, there is a gap in our knowledge, and I'd rather not fill it with god (or other supernatural explanations), but would rather wait for science to fill in the gaps. Experience tells me that science is far more likely to some day bring the answers to the remaining gaps. The more we know through scientific means, the less we need a deity as an explanation for anything. People then talk of a deity that pretty much does nothing, but then, to me, such a deity becomes quite hard to separate from something that don't exist.

I might be wrong about everything, but that was in all honesty how I meant to reason.

I don't think there is a god because all what science says contradicts supernatural beings such as a god. Science knows enough about, and have explained enough about how our world functions, and how our minds works for god to be highly unlikely and totally unnecessary.

I have all of science pointing to the likelihood of a deity being virtually 0

For a sufficiently large amount of the claims that are made about what a god supposedly can do, and does, science can show that there is a natural explanation instead, and a god is therefore not necessary as an explanation for anything.

Herzblut

13th December 2007, 02:17 PM

The claim was made that science proves there is no god.

The claim is correct.

As a starting point I'd study the scientific paper cited below which gives a concise overview of current investigations in the area of Hermeneutics (=scientific disproval of God):

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
Alan D. Sokal, Department of Physics, New York University

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

Expecting an exciting discussion
Herzblut

Robin

13th December 2007, 02:32 PM

The claim is correct.

As a starting point I'd study the scientific paper cited below which gives a concise overview of current investigations in the area of Hermeneutics (=scientific disproval of God):

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
Alan D. Sokal, Department of Physics, New York University

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

Expecting an exciting discussion
Herzblut
Excuse me, what is the purpose of posting a cite to a well-known hoax paper?

Just what does it add to the discussion???

Henners

13th December 2007, 02:36 PM

I wanted to know what people thought. People posted. People stopped posting. It died - why is that me abandoning it? But I understand.

Science is limited to proposing hypotheses and attempting to disprove them.

So, for example, a feasible hypothesis might be: If God exists then prayer will be better than a placebo.

It's perfectly testable.

Is prayer better than a placebo?

I've never seen any evidence that it is.

Therefore there is no God.

QED.

Of course that always assumes that prayer works. It could easily be the case that God exists but does not give a twopenny damn whether you pray or not.

He just likes to see everyone wasting their time on Sunday mornings.

danielk

13th December 2007, 02:36 PM

Just what does it add to the discussion???
I think you've been had.

Robin

13th December 2007, 02:41 PM

Gotta love the passive voice. Who made the claim? Ask them to defend it.
I note that this has still not been answered.

Theists are, of course, always keen to draw attention away from the complete absence of evidence for their thesis by moving the discussion in this direction.

But if this claim has been made, let us see the claim in the poster's own words.

Otherwise there is a suspicion, CS, that you just made him up as pretext to start this thread.

Robin

13th December 2007, 02:42 PM

I think you've been had.
What do you mean I have been had? I already pointed out that it was a well known hoax paper.

fuelair

13th December 2007, 02:44 PM

Science is limited to proposing hypotheses and attempting to disprove them.

Of course that always assumes that prayer works. It could easily be the case that God exists but does not give a twopenny damn whether you pray or not.

He just likes to see everyone wasting their time on Sunday mornings.

"Oh ye brothers and sisters bend over that Jeebus may enter you freely - and pass me a load of that butter while you're at it!!!":D:rolleyes::jaw-dropp

latent aaaack

13th December 2007, 02:47 PM

I agree with fran, science providing natural explanations for everything that was attributed to God is indistinguishable from science proving God doesn't exist. It's the same way that the light being turned on disproves that those shapes in the dark are monsters.

You can say the monsters might be invisible instead but that's moving the goal posts and the entire basis for why you believed in the first place that monsters are there is disproven.

danielk

13th December 2007, 02:48 PM

What do you mean I have been had? I already pointed out that it was a well known hoax paper.
Come on. I'm pretty sure it was meant to be funny.

Hm. I hope I'm not the one who's been had now.

Robin

13th December 2007, 02:59 PM

Come on. I'm pretty sure it was meant to be funny.

Hm. I hope I'm not the one who's been had now.
No you are probably right, my humour detector is on the blink (hits side of head with palm).

A Christian Sceptic

13th December 2007, 03:03 PM

He's probably referring to me?:confused.

If I misunderstood anything it's my fault. But still - the question is the same - and I have heard such claims.

I have heard Richard Dawkins made this claim, but I haven't read his book yet so I'm assuming (and hoping) he meant The Scientific Method. I'm a bit sceptical on how the media portrays these type of books.

Hokulele

13th December 2007, 03:04 PM

Herzblut

13th December 2007, 03:11 PM

Come on. I'm pretty sure it was meant to be funny.

"Funny"? What you mean by "funny"?

Look - amongst all those flappdoodle posts in the thread I'm the only one providing serious hermeneutical (=scientifically disproving god) evidence.

And what's the result? Evidence is slandered and called "hoax", my whole post is considered "funny"...

I honestly doubt this board actually deserves me.

:confused:

In diesem oder jenen Sinne und mit vielen Grüssen von

Herzblut

-Fran-

13th December 2007, 03:13 PM

If I misunderstood anything it's my fault. But still - the question is the same - and I have heard such claims.

I have heard Richard Dawkins made this claim, but I haven't read his book yet so I'm assuming (and hoping) he meant The Scientific Method. I'm a bit sceptical on how the media portrays these type of books.

So it was me? Ah, OK.

Irony

13th December 2007, 03:24 PM

I have heard Richard Dawkins made this claim, but I haven't read his book yet so I'm assuming (and hoping) he meant The Scientific Method. I'm a bit sceptical on how the media portrays these type of books.

To say that the majority of the media discussing his book are blatant liars who pretend to speak with authority on a book they have never even read and are so dishonorable as to manage to do a disservice to the already honorless field of journalism would be a massive understatement.

bignickel

13th December 2007, 03:31 PM

"Definable" like "All-good, all-powerful, all-knowing"? Not on the table, apparently...
Nope, sorry, those are characteristics. Those are X's.

Define the being that has those characteristics, then we can talk.
(your main problem after that will be the traditional arguments of 'if "all-powerful, than..." Good luck with all that)

Michael C

13th December 2007, 03:32 PM

I have heard Richard Dawkins made this claim, but I haven't read his book yet so I'm assuming (and hoping) he meant The Scientific Method. I'm a bit sceptical on how the media portrays these type of books.

Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to prove scientifically that there is no god. What he does say is that scientific, rational examination of the evidence leads him to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that God exists. One of the chapters of The God Delusion is called "Why there is almost certainly no God".

Dawkins's book is an excellent place to start to get an idea of how the possibility of the existence of God (the "God Hypothesis") can be scientifically studied. You can read the beginning of the first chapter here (http://www.richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,1).

Oliver

13th December 2007, 03:43 PM

Show me that Science proves there is no god

Show me that Science proves there is "a God flying out some Angels
Ass singing that me, the holy Idiot wrote a cool book about me being
the frigging hole commanding you not to ignore me or you are doomed".

Rephrase your question - the way it is makes it sound stupid as hell.

Marquis de Carabas

13th December 2007, 03:46 PM

I honestly doubt this board actually deserves me.
Yes, it's hard to imagine which crime of ours you fit.

Silentknight

13th December 2007, 03:48 PM

I was going to say that science doesn't concern itself with proving or disproving the existence of any god or gods, but that goes without saying.

In any case, the claim that one cannot prove a negative is self-refuting. You can indeed prove a negative, by proving a contradictory positive. The disproofs of God's existence are contingent on there being existing definitions or claims of proof for God's existence. In other words, you need only concern yourself with disproving God if someone comes along and claims that they can prove he exists in the first place.

Therefore if someone were to ask me to prove that God doesn't exist, I would first ask that they provide either a working definition of God or a 'proof' for his existence, then I would be happy to demonstrate why those are logically inconsistent. This doesn't necessarily disprove God, but it's not up to me to disprove him.

DoubtingStephen

13th December 2007, 03:53 PM

This doesn't necessarily disprove God, but it's not up to me to disprove him.

Exactly, because you are not the one making the preposterous claim of having an imaginary super-pal.

Welcome to JREF, old friend.

becomingagodo

13th December 2007, 03:58 PM

If we had a theory of everything, would that disprove god. As we can describe everything without using god.

On a bigger note, isn't god a logical fallacy. You know the all powerful paradox. See, god is not scientific and is not logical(mathematical), what is god?

On a bigger bigger note, will having the theory of everything make you godlike. Cause you would have godlike knowledge.

I guess the biggest question is why is their something not nothing?
wouldn't the simplist thing be nothing.

triadboy

13th December 2007, 04:02 PM

I want to know how and where science proves this.

Here's my stab at Yahweh - God of the Jews and Christians (aka Allah - God of the Muslims.):

"Science" has revealed an immense universe at least 156 billion light-years wide.

(If I started counting every second until I reached ONE Million it would take 11.5 days. If I started counting every second until I reached ONE Billion it would take 31.7 years! My point is - there is an exponential jump - unrealized by the laymen - when we say, "Thousand, million, billion, trillion..." By using 'time' as a substitute, we can 'feel' the distance better. So you see "156 billion" is very large.)

So the universe is 156 billion light-years wide. But what is a light-year? A light year is the distance light travels in a year: almost 6 trillion miles! (Counting each second will get you to a trillion in 32,000 years)

The distance is staggering.

There are billions of galaxies - each containing billions of stars and planets.

Why do Christians/Muslims/Jews think this creation was made for them? An old book with - as we know now - laughable explanations of 'historical' events.

Science can't prove there isn't a God - but it can make you realize that you'd make a better God then the one we (supposedly) have! So what kind of God is that?!

articulett

13th December 2007, 04:05 PM

Science can say we have no more evidence for God existence than Xenu's existence... or Zeus's existence or Satan's existence or the existence of hobgoblins and sprites. ... We have no more evidence for a god than we do for psychic powers or levitation...

As skeptics, we weigh those things and conclude that they are imaginary things-- wrongful inferences that humans tend to make rather easily. Real things generate evidence-- stuff like DNA (which no god thought to tell his inspired friends about)-- When people have believed in stuff for a long time-- like souls or Loch Ness monsters.... and no evidence accumulates--odds are the thing is imaginary... an illusion... Real things are measurable... real claims can be tested. People who were never inculcated with a god belief... don't believe in gods. I don't see how someone can giggle at mythological gods and still conclude that their god is somehow more likely to be true.

There appear to be as many invisible entities as there are imaginations... but there is only one reality-- and the stuff in it all seems real and discoverable through objective means. Subjective truths tend to not hold up well under objective scrutiny. Faith and feelings are not an avenue to truths.

hodgy

13th December 2007, 04:27 PM

Show me that Science proves there is "a God flying out some Angels
Ass singing that me, the holy Idiot wrote a cool book about me being
the frigging hole commanding you not to ignore me or you are doomed".

Rephrase your question - the way it is makes it sound stupid as hell.

Quite right - best response so far on this thread. The OP does not deserve the responses it attracted.

danielk

13th December 2007, 04:34 PM

*groan*

I thought I had escaped Oliver. But no, someone had to quote one of his little rants.

Oliver

13th December 2007, 04:35 PM

*groan*

I thought I had escaped Oliver. But no, someone had to quote one of his little rants.

:D

Gravy

13th December 2007, 05:27 PM

Hi, ACS. What evidence would convince you that your god doesn't exist?

Herzblut

13th December 2007, 05:42 PM

"Science" has revealed an immense universe at least 156 billion light-years wide.

Wow! That's huge. But, well, I believe that with a proper vehical one might cross the whole universe within, say, one hour. What do you think?

There are billions of galaxies - each containing billions of stars and planets.

Says who? What I mean is the planets, have we not discovered just a few of them?

Why do Christians/Muslims/Jews think this creation was made for them?

Why do you think they think so?

Science can't prove there isn't a God - but it can make you realize that you'd make a better God then the one we (supposedly) have! So what kind of God is that?!

I'm sorry but, why should I realize that?

Herzblut

Hokulele

13th December 2007, 05:46 PM

Says who? What I mean is the planets, have we not discovered just a few of them?

At last count, 268 (a bit more than a few, a lot less than billions). However, we have only just begun to apply technologies capable of looking at nearby systems, and may soon be able to extrapolate further.

http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php

articulett

13th December 2007, 05:50 PM

There's all kinds of things that would convince a skeptic exists... And god would certainly know what those are-- but measurable specific and clear evidence would be nice-- something to distinguish god from delusions of gods we don't believe in.

But can anyone convince a believer there are no gods? Anything? Any amount of evidence? What if they've really been inculcated with the meme that faith is necessary for faith, morality, and salvation? I think there's a time when the brain just is "unable" to think certain thoughts-- and it causes you to feel defensive and hateful to anyone who says anything that threatens your pet delusion.

I try to ask believers the following questions, but even the questions piss them off.

1. If there was no god, would you want to know?
2. How do you suppose you'd find out if there was no god?

articulett

13th December 2007, 05:52 PM

At last count, 268 (a bit more than a few, a lot less than billions). However, we have only just begun to apply technologies capable of looking at nearby systems, and may soon be able to extrapolate further.

http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php

There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on the beach... and who knows how many of them are part of a solar system with multiple orbiting planets like our own star, the sun.

Skeptic Guy

13th December 2007, 06:14 PM

Come on. I'm pretty sure it was meant to be funny.

Hm. I hope I'm not the one who's been had now.

"Funny"? What you mean by "funny"?

Look - amongst all those flappdoodle posts in the thread I'm the only one providing serious hermeneutical (=scientifically disproving god) evidence.

And what's the result? Evidence is slandered and called "hoax", my whole post is considered "funny"...

I honestly doubt this board actually deserves me.

:confused:

In diesem oder jenen Sinne und mit vielen Grüssen von

Herzblut

My word, I think he thinks it's real! danielk, I think you have been had.

danielk

13th December 2007, 06:20 PM

My word, I think he thinks it's real! danielk, I think you have been had.
Could be, but I'm not sure. I know some people who profess humor of this kind.

Foster Zygote

13th December 2007, 06:36 PM

At last count, 268 (a bit more than a few, a lot less than billions). However, we have only just begun to apply technologies capable of looking at nearby systems, and may soon be able to extrapolate further.

http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php

And most significantly, just about everywhere we are capable of looking we've found planets.

-Fran-

13th December 2007, 07:52 PM

It seems that, if this is an indicator:

He's probably referring to me?:confused.

If I misunderstood anything it's my fault. But still - the question is the same - and I have heard such claims.

that this whole thread WAS started by ACS because of what was discussed on the thread linked here (starting from my involvement in ACS's arguments, on page 36 and the following pages.)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=99188&page=36

ACS actually does claim several times that he has evidence that god exists. I asked to be shown what they were. He didn't want to, saying I wouldn't accept them anyway. Finally he did explain what he meant by evidence and I argued that I didn't think they were evidence at all. Somewhere in that discussion he seems to say that I claim science has disproven god. Though I have explained earlier in this thread what I meant. I admit that in the earlier discussion we had in the other thread I may have said some things wrong, I'm not very good at debating such things :o. But, yeah, it definitely seems to me that he did claim evidence of god's existence, and I did think he wasn't able to back that claim up.

triadboy

13th December 2007, 08:06 PM

Wow! That's huge. But, well, I believe that with a proper vehical one might cross the whole universe within, say, one hour. What do you think?

...you mean like...a rocket car? I'm in!! OK, we're gonna need to get XM radio, because I'm not traveling across the universe with you griping about the sores on your feet. (You know how I hate that) We'll make sandwiches for the trip to save money. (Cause...you know...the gas is going to be out of this world.) Maybe we should get a gas card.

Says who? What I mean is the planets, have we not discovered just a few of them?

I think with a universe that big I'm allowed to extrapolate a little.

Why do you think they think so?

Their stupid ancient books tell them to.

(Am I doing alright?)

I'm sorry but, why should I realize that?

Would you eliminate pain and suffering if you were god?

Herzblut

13th December 2007, 08:28 PM

Somewhere in that discussion he seems to say that I claim science has disproven god. Though I have explained earlier in this thread what I meant. I admit that in the earlier discussion we had in the other thread I may have said some things wrong, I'm not very good at debating such things :o.

Of course not. :cool: But did you spot Belzies post

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3238017&postcount=1492

where he publicized the kind of nonsense we might be looking for:

In fact, the existence of a god would be contrary to the laws of physics we know, at least under several definitions of "god".

Herzblut

Ladewig

13th December 2007, 08:32 PM

"Science" has revealed an immense universe at least 156 billion light-years wide.

The estimates I have seen are all less than 100 billion LY. What is your source for that number?

sol invictus

13th December 2007, 08:48 PM

Those are only defining characteristics of some representations of god. Since CS did not limit the conception of god thus in the OP, you have proved nothing germane.

Don't be silly. First of all, his name has christian in it, and goodness and omnipotence are certainly defining characteristics of the christian god. Second, if we're not allowed to assume even the most basic attributes, the question becomes even stupider than ever - it's like asking someone to disprove the existence of aslknaklfnaf, never mind what it is.

There is another way science and logic can weigh in on this question. Suppose we imagine a world in which there is no god, and life on earth has come into being through a process similar to the one our science believes really happened. Or if you can't conceive of that, imagine a world god set in motion and then left utterly untouched (which an omnipotent god could do if she wanted).

Now, in that world people have come into being. Question: would those people come to believe in god? If the answer is yes, it should make us very suspicious of that belief in our own world. If people will believe in something no matter what the truth is, then the fact of their belief provides no support whatsoever for the truth of that something. And if there's no support for the existence of god it is merely one of an infinite number of possible mutually exclusive beliefs. And since there are an infinite number, the probability that one particular one is correct is zero.

So the only question is whether people would come to believe in god in such a world. That's hard to answer definitively, but I think most people would agree it's highly likely. Ergo, god does not exist.

EDIT - oh, and by the way, the size of the universe is not a very well-defined concept because the spacetime is curved. However 156 billion lightyears is too large by any definition. The age is between 13 and 14 billion years, and the radius in lightyears (by the standard estimates) is about 3 times that.

Herzblut

13th December 2007, 08:49 PM

...you mean like...a rocket car? I'm in!!
I actually recommend to leave the technical details to next generations of engineers and scientists.

Their stupid ancient books tell them to.

Hold a minute, these books say that God created the world as an exclusive service to the respective group of adherents? Where did you find this detail if I may ask?

Would you eliminate pain and suffering if you were god?

Yes. I'd first focus my selfless efforts on resolving the most severe suffering: the sexual frustration of those millions of sharp, gorgeous chicas around the world, especially in Brazil. :D

Herzblut

A Christian Sceptic

13th December 2007, 08:58 PM

ACS actually does claim several times that he has evidence that god exists. I asked to be shown what they were. He didn't want to, saying I wouldn't accept them anyway. Finally he did explain what he meant by evidence and I argued that I didn't think they were evidence at all.

Not to be misunderstood - I have never claimed I have evidence anyone here would consider evidence. (Just like I probably won't consider your evidence against his existence as evidence - I have yet to read Richard Dawkin's book to see what evidence he considers) I specifically state that any Supernatural evidence I may have would only be accepted by me because it can not be tested by science (which is the standard people here and in that othe thread are using to measure evidence for God by) or experienced by you. I also stated that any natural evidence I accept would probably not be accepted by anyone else.

That being said Belz stated that a god would have to break all the rules of physics to exist (as if that would even apply to a god) to which I simply showed an extensive list of some of the crazy things scientists tell me to believe and to which I do believe.

I then said that if my god simply had as a minimum those same attributes he would not be breaking any laws of physics.

These were never used as a proof of anything except as proof that those crazy things are already predicted and proven by science.

You can read that post here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3239317#post3239317

Somewhere in that discussion he seems to say that I claim science has disproven god.

I already said if it was you - sorry for misunderstanding. But the question has been raised by other people I know and I want to make sure I'm not missing something.

-Fran-

13th December 2007, 09:09 PM

I already said if it was you - sorry for misunderstanding. But the question has been raised by other people I know and I want to make sure I'm not missing something.

That's OK. And I do understand that this is not only about me. Just wanted to show the thread that I thought you were referring to in this thread's OP. I do see though that other things also are behind your question here.

-Fran-

13th December 2007, 09:13 PM

Not to be misunderstood - I have never claimed I have evidence anyone here would consider evidence. (Just like I probably won't consider your evidence against his existence as evidence - I have yet to read Richard Dawkin's book to see what evidence he considers) I specifically state that any Supernatural evidence I may have would only be accepted by me because it can not be tested by science (which is the standard people here and in that othe thread are using to measure evidence for God by) or experienced by you. I also stated that any natural evidence I accept would probably not be accepted by anyone else.

That being said Belz stated that a god would have to break all the rules of physics to exist (as if that would even apply to a god) to which I simply showed an extensive list of some of the crazy things scientists tell me to believe and to which I do believe.

I then said that if my god simply had as a minimum those same attributes he would not be breaking any laws of physics.

These were never used as a proof of anything except as proof that those crazy things are already predicted and proven by science.

You can read that post here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3239317#post3239317

I know, I remember well your reasoning from the other thread, and I understand what you are saying. What I don't understand is why you would use the word "evidence" at all? :confused:

Damien Evans

13th December 2007, 10:42 PM

Mobyseven

13th December 2007, 10:43 PM

That being said Belz stated that a god would have to break all the rules of physics to exist (as if that would even apply to a god) to which I simply showed an extensive list of some of the crazy things scientists tell me to believe and to which I do believe.

I then said that if my god simply had as a minimum those same attributes he would not be breaking any laws of physics.

These were never used as a proof of anything except as proof that those crazy things are already predicted and proven by science.

Belz said that certain definitions of god would break laws of physics.

And once again, you can't just say, 'There are things in the universe that can do this, therefore if there's a god he's not breaking any laws of physics.' Just because a photon travels at the speed of light, it doesn't mean that I can travel at the speed of light. For me to do that would involve me 'breaking' one of the laws of physics. If you're going to say that your god doesn't break any laws of physics, you're going to need evidence of that, not wild inaccurate extrapolations.

Robin

13th December 2007, 11:19 PM

Henners

14th December 2007, 12:30 AM

UnrepentantSinner

14th December 2007, 01:23 AM

Science can say we have no more evidence for God existence than Xenu's existence... or Zeus's existence...

I think Zeus' is a poor addition to the list because the Olympians were given a precise location. Humans have scaled it to it's peak and not found any bearded deities in togas lounging around.

SomeGuy

14th December 2007, 01:37 AM

Michael C

14th December 2007, 01:53 AM

Dawkins definitely said that any statements made regarding the existence of God are statements made about our the reality that surrounds us. The reality that surrounds us is amenable to scientific investigation, therefore statements made concerning God are well within the bounds of scientific investigation. Read the book. He doesn't define a "God Hypothesis" because he thinks God ideas are OUTSIDE science.

Dawkins does indeed define a "God Hypothesis". In chapter 2 of The God Delusion he defines it thusly:

Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

Dawkins's book is devoted to demonstrating that it is highly improbable that this hypothesis is true.

SomeGuy

14th December 2007, 02:04 AM

Not to be misunderstood - I have never claimed I have evidence anyone here would consider evidence.

Not to be misunderstood - That's not evidence.

Evidence is not subject to interpretation and considerations. If I say elephants exists and here is the proof and proceed to show you a living elephant, you'd be a damn fool to not consider that evidence.

If you allready know other people will not consider it evidence, you should probably stop calling it evidence, in order to not create a false impression.

Evidence is evidence regardless at who looks at it, that's the beauty of it, that's also why we can even have judical system, science and even (applying reductio ad absurdum the correct way and not logically invalid) why we can make appointments with people at certain times etc etc etc..
(Just like I probably won't consider your evidence against his existence as evidence - I have yet to read Richard Dawkin's book to see what evidence he considers)

You'd be wise to withold your opinions on Dawkin's untill you at least have shown him the courtesy of reading his books.

Trust me, he's read your book(the bible) before offering his opinion.

I specifically state that any Supernatural evidence I may have would only be accepted by me because it can not be tested by science

It's actually the standard everyone uses for everything except for their religious views.

And being testable by science mean little more than "If someone else does the same things they will get the same results"

(which is the standard people here and in that othe thread are using to measure evidence for God by)

How would you have us measure the evidence?

Count the words and than go.. now that's really good evidence..

or experienced by you.

Why not?

I also stated that any natural evidence I accept would probably not be accepted by anyone else.

You deliberately don't give examples again to pretend you have something you do not have, actual natural evidence.

And again, don't call it evidence if you allready know it's not evidence.

That being said Belz stated that a god would have to break all the rules of physics to exist

He added "depending on the defenition for god", which you've chosen to ignore probably because it's inconvenient.

(as if that would even apply to a god)

Why would it not, how can an entity exist or influence a system where laws of physics exist without either sticking to those laws or annihilating the universe.

(this is a serious question with deep implications, please think about it deeply, don't just brush it aside. If you don't understand the problem, please be honest about that too).

to which I simply showed an extensive list of some of the crazy things scientists tell me to believe and to which I do believe.

I'm getting a bit confused, could we either merge the threads or stick to the points brought up in this one?

I then said that if my god simply had as a minimum those same attributes he would not be breaking any laws of physics.

I would say that this statement shows a lack of understanding of physics.

These were never used as a proof of anything except as proof that those crazy things are already predicted and proven by science.

You're not making sense, and I'm not sure you know enough about all of science to make the above statement with any degree of certainty.

You can read that post here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3239317#post3239317

Again, please either have the threads merged or keep the two discussions seperate.

I already said if it was you - sorry for misunderstanding. But the question has been raised by other people I know and I want to make sure I'm not missing something.

I have to echo the sentiment of some people here, you seem to have ulterior motives, and aren't really interested in the issue asa presented in the OP.

While I will not yell troll as soon as some others on this board, beware that there's very little tolerance for these kind of underhanded tactics on this board.

NeilC

14th December 2007, 02:10 AM

Herzblut

14th December 2007, 02:42 AM

Herzblut

14th December 2007, 02:58 AM

Dawkins does indeed define a "God Hypothesis". In chapter 2 of The God Delusion he defines it thusly:

Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

Dawkins's book is devoted to demonstrating that it is highly improbable that this hypothesis is true.
Just that this methodology has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Herzblut

MRC_Hans

14th December 2007, 03:12 AM

Science doesn't even prove Newton's Laws of Motion. It can't prove why aeroplanes don't fall out of the sky, or why boats float.
What DO you mean by that? Those things can be explained conclusively.

Hans

UnrepentantSinner

14th December 2007, 03:39 AM

What DO you mean by that? Those things can be explained conclusively.

Hans

I thought the same thing myself at first, but realized Henners was probably focusing on the word "prove", not suggesting a lack of scientific explanations of those things.

Smackety

14th December 2007, 04:30 AM

The claim is correct.

As a starting point I'd study the scientific paper cited below which gives a concise overview of current investigations in the area of Hermeneutics (=scientific disproval of God):

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
Alan D. Sokal, Department of Physics, New York University

<link removed>

Expecting an exciting discussion
Herzblut

I guess I am going to need your help understanding the paper.
I don't know anything about this paper being a hoax or not - but I read it, and all it seems to say is that for more subtle effects even the slight influence of the researcher needs to be addressed because it may actually be the causal variable - but the citation was pretty dense and hurt my brain.
What part addressed the question in the OP?

Henners

14th December 2007, 05:17 AM

What DO you mean by that? Those things can be explained conclusively.

Hans

Off you go, then. Take all the space you need, and use both sides of the paper if you need to.

"Proof" is not something that science can do. End of story.

It can disprove things till the cows come home. But it has proved nothing at all ever.

Demonstrating something is not the same as proving it.

Henners

14th December 2007, 05:20 AM

Then he's definetely wrong.

That settles it, then.

MC says the opposite. Would you clarify, please?

Herzblut

No. I'd suggest you use the same discussion technique that you used already to reach your own conclusion.

e-sabbath

14th December 2007, 05:21 AM

I just didn't want Epicurus' contribution to be rejected as unscientific. It is observation based. Natural science. It's only fault is that it doesn't refute the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- very pro-pirate, therefore very pro-evil.

It also fails to refute Athena's existence. Athena is a limited goddess: She has only a defined portfolio and an amount of personal power. Neither evil nor turtles are under her aspect.

Michael C

14th December 2007, 05:35 AM

Just that this methodology has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Herzblut

I disagree. So does Dawkins. The hypothesis that a God exists is a scientific hypothesis that can be examined and tested. As Dawkins says in Chapter 2 of The God Delusion:
Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meawhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability.

Later in this same chapter, Dawkins attacks Stephen Jay Gould for stating that scientists cannot comment on God's possible superintendence of nature:
Despite the confident, almost bullying, tone of Gould's assertion, what, actually, is the justification for it? Why shouldn't we comment on God, as scientists? And why isn't Russell's teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, equally immune from scientific scepticism? As I shall argue in a moment, a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without. Why is that not a scientific matter?

The scientific methodology that Dawkins applies to the "God Hypothesis" is in no way different from the scientific methodology he applies to the theory of evolution.

Furi

14th December 2007, 05:37 AM

I thought the same thing myself at first, but realized Henners was probably focusing on the word "prove", not suggesting a lack of scientific explanations of those things.

it seems you were correct in that realisation,

I have used science succesfully to prove my bread often, therefore science has proved something rendering the statement "it has proved nothing at all ever" as incorrect.

Henners

14th December 2007, 05:42 AM

Just that this methodology has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Herzblut

Methodology?

What Methodology?

Hypothesis testing?

Nothing to do with science?

Where did you go to school?

Did you go to school?

Henners

14th December 2007, 05:44 AM

I have used science succesfully to prove my bread often

How does that work then?

Most people use yeast, and cookery.

Is your real name Heston Blumenthal?

Furi

14th December 2007, 05:55 AM

Definition: Dough proofs when it is allowed to sit in a warm spot, usually for several hours. The dough expands and rises because of yeast fermentation and production of carbon dioxide. The gas is trapped within gluten strands which form out of protein in the flour as the bread is kneaded.

Straight forward Biotechnology, Zymurgy is wonderful, it helps me to make bread and beer

This is evidence that I can use science and scientific principals and method to prove something.

Roboramma

14th December 2007, 06:18 AM

I actually recommend to leave the technical details to next generations of engineers and scientists. From what I understand the expansion of the universe means that some parts of it are (and others will be) receding from us faster than the speed of light. So, at least those parts are impossible for us to ever reach.
Moreover, if you're talking about a vehicle that could take live humans, I think that's pretty likely impossible for a number of reasons. Not least of which is the acceleration forces that would be required to get it up to such a high percentage of the speed of light before your 1 hour was up.

Roboramma

14th December 2007, 06:23 AM

Says who? What I mean is the planets, have we not discovered just a few of them?

Good point! Speaking of which, people keep suggesting to me that I have kidneys, but I really don't feel like letting them cut me open to find out. I really don't understand what makes them think I have kidneys! It's ridiculous!

-Fran-

14th December 2007, 06:27 AM

Good point! Speaking of which, people keep suggesting to me that I have kidneys, but I really don't feel like letting them cut me open to find out. I really don't understand what makes them think I have kidneys! It's ridiculous!

:D

sol invictus

14th December 2007, 06:37 AM

It also fails to refute Athena's existence. Athena is a limited goddess: She has only a defined portfolio and an amount of personal power. Neither evil nor turtles are under her aspect.

Yes, but as I said before, there's absolutely no point in having this conversation if "god" isn't defined at least vaguely. (Well OK, maybe there's no point in having it even if it is...)

Since the OPs name has "Christian" in it, I think we should assume the god in question is the christian god. The christian god has several defining characteristics, among them perfect goodness and omnipotence. The simple observation of evil in the world then rules him out. Until that has been addressed, there is nothing more to say - and christian theologians have been trying and failing to address it for the last 2,000 years.

Beth

14th December 2007, 06:47 AM

Not to be misunderstood - That's not evidence. I have to disagree. The term evidence is not limited to objective repeatable observations.

Evidence is not subject to interpretation and considerations. Yes it is. Have you never watched courtTV? Have you never heard of scientists debating whose theory is the correct one?

Roboramma

14th December 2007, 06:50 AM

Not to be misunderstood - That's not evidence.

Evidence is not subject to interpretation and considerations. If I say elephants exists and here is the proof and proceed to show you a living elephant, you'd be a damn fool to not consider that evidence.
This is a good point, and CS should think carefully about it.

There is a way in which you go a little too far though. The idea that the evidence of "personal experience" is stronger for the person experiencing it than for those hearing about it is of course true. For example:

Say that Mike watches Jim murder Kim. Mike is afraid and runs off. A week later, he gets up the nerve to tell you about it. But by this point Jim has had a chance to clean up, and neither you or Mike can find any other evidence of the murder than his testimony.
Now, from Mike's perspective he had good evidence that Jim killed Kim - he saw him do it. But there are other hypothesis that explain this evidence as well:
- Mike misremembers the events and didn't actually see the kiling, he just saw things that he interpreted that way, and his memory has filled in the details.
- Mike had a halucination.
- Mike dreamed this, but remembers it as if it happened.
You, on the other hand, have one more possible hypothesis that explains the evidence just as well, but which isn't available to Mike - Mike is lying.
Of course there are many reasons why he might lie, but this is the extra hypothesis that is available to you. In that sense, because it eliminates this hypothesis for Mike, but not for you, Mike's evidence is stronger for him than you.

Now, CS, here's the thing, if your evidence is something of this sort, I will admit that it is stronger for you. But it's also true that many of the possible explanations that I have, which don't include god, are also available to you.

And being testable by science mean little more than "If someone else does the same things they will get the same results" I don't really see how that's true. Being testable means that there is some test we can run, or thing we can look at, wherein if the claim is true we expect result X whereas if the claim is false we expect result Y.

Why would it not, how can an entity exist or influence a system where laws of physics exist without either sticking to those laws or annihilating the universe.

(this is a serious question with deep implications, please think about it deeply, don't just brush it aside. If you don't understand the problem, please be honest about that too). I don't understand the problem. Could you explain it?

Henners

14th December 2007, 06:53 AM

This is evidence that I can use science and scientific principals and method to prove something.

...and this is why they have unleavened bread in the bible. They had to wait for the scientific revolution and the enlightenment before they could get a rise out of their dough.

Point taken.

Roboramma

14th December 2007, 06:55 AM

I think Zeus' is a poor addition to the list because the Olympians were given a precise location. Humans have scaled it to it's peak and not found any bearded deities in togas lounging around.
You have a far too literal interpretation of Zeus! Just as the garden of eden isn't a real place, neither is the home of the gods really mount Olympus. That's just a metaphor! :P

Also... I seem to remember from the Odyssey that the Greek gods could turn invisible when they felt like it - Athena walking around watching Odysseus, for example. It's been a while since I read it though.

If they can do so at will, what makes you think they can't? Do you think you know the minds of the gods?

etc. etc. rant rant...

:boxedin:

Henners

14th December 2007, 06:56 AM

The christian god has several defining characteristics, among them perfect goodness and omnipotence.

...but, above all, shyness.

A Christian Sceptic

14th December 2007, 06:58 AM

Not to be misunderstood - That's not evidence.

Wrong: You probably mean that's not scientific evidence. But by these definitions this and more are evidence:

EVIDENCE:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

I hope you understand there is an awful lot in the natural world I believe in that scientific evidence can not apply to. I'm sure you do. It has it's limits.

Evidence is not subject to interpretation and considerations. If I say elephants exists and here is the proof and proceed to show you a living elephant, you'd be a damn fool to not consider that evidence.

Yes it is - especially when it comes to belief in God. Maybe I'll start a seperate thread where you can all share with me what you consider evidence against the existence of God. I bet I'll interpret or consider it differently.

You'd be wise to withold your opinions on Dawkin's untill you at least have shown him the courtesy of reading his books.

I think I already stated I was. I'm excited to read his book, although after reading his first chapter I don't think it's going to be as provoking as I was hoping.

Trust me, he's read your book(the bible) before offering his opinion.

I have no doubt about this. I also have no doubt he's come to alot different conclusion than I have. He also doesn't believe the same things I do. Does he use his interpretation of the bible to argue against God? I sure hope he doesn't.

He added "depending on the defenition for god", which you've chosen to ignore probably because it's inconvenient.

Then why even make such a statement - Something breaks the law of physics unless it doesn't? I know what Bels was attempting to get at even though his statement made no sense.

Why would it not, how can an entity exist or influence a system where laws of physics exist without either sticking to those laws or annihilating the universe. (this is a serious question with deep implications, please think about it deeply, don't just brush it aside. If you don't understand the problem, please be honest about that too).

I don't see any deep implications. I would be interested in what you think though.
I personally don't expect anything in the universe (or outside for that matter) to behave in ways I expect.

I'm getting a bit confused, could we either merge the threads or stick to the points brought up in this one?

I can stop responding if you want - but I thought it prudent to correct my viewpoint so as not to be misunderstood.

You're not making sense, and I'm not sure you know enough about all of science to make the above statement with any degree of certainty.

You think it's wrong for me to think that if one thing in the universe has a property something else can't?

I have to echo the sentiment of some people here, you seem to have ulterior motives, and aren't really interested in the issue asa presented in the OP.

While I will not yell troll as soon as some others on this board, beware that there's very little tolerance for these kind of underhanded tactics on this board.

I don't know what to say except if you think I'm a troll ignore me or stop responding. Does it make any sense to post to someone you think is a troll and tell them they are a troll?

fagin

14th December 2007, 07:09 AM

fagin

14th December 2007, 07:12 AM

I don't know what to say except if you think I'm a troll ignore me or stop responding. Does it make any sense to post to someone you think is a troll and tell them they are a troll?

ps when people stopped posting on your last thread, you started a new one, again with pre-prepared arguments. This doesn't sound like someone with an open mind. Suggest you remove sceptic from your name for accuracy?

Roboramma

14th December 2007, 07:16 AM

I hope you understand there is an awful lot in the natural world I believe in that scientific evidence can not apply to. I'm sure you do. It has it's limits. Can you give an example? I'm not suggesting that such things can't or don't exist, but at the moment I'm coming up short in thinking of any.

Yes it is - especially when it comes to belief in God. Maybe I'll start a seperate thread where you can all share with me what you consider evidence against the existence of God. I bet I'll interpret or consider it differently. The fact that you would interpret it differently doesn't suggest, however, that your interpretation is valid. For instance, if you showed me a red sweater, I could say it was blue all I wanted, I might even beleive it to be blue (maybe I had some weird sort of brain damage, or colour-blindness, etc) but that wouldn't change the fact that it was red, and my conclusion was simply wrong.
Similarly, I agree that there can be valid disagreements about what is implied by a particular peice of evidence, but the fact that there is a disagreement doesn't suggest that that particular one is valid. We have to actually look at it and see.

I think I already stated I was. I'm excited to read his book, although after reading his first chapter I don't think it's going to be as provoking as I was hoping. Yeah, I thought it was an okay book, but not that amazing. In my opinion it was his worst book. He makes some valid points, and I still haven't seen a decent criticism of his arguments, but it's not the best book out there to challenge your viewpoint.

I have no doubt about this. I also have no doubt he's come to alot different conclusion than I have. He also doesn't believe the same things I do. Does he use his interpretation of the bible to argue against God? I sure hope he doesn't. I wouldn't use my interpretation of the bible to argue against the existance of some sort of god at all. But of course it can be used to argue against the idea that the bible itself was divinely inspired.

billydkid

14th December 2007, 07:17 AM

This is lame in too many ways to address, not the least of which is that the word "God" means nothing in particular.

Henners

14th December 2007, 07:18 AM

Wrong: You probably mean that's not scientific evidence. But by these definitions this and more are evidence:

EVIDENCE:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

I hope you understand there is an awful lot in the natural world I believe in that scientific evidence can not apply to. I'm sure you do. It has it's limits.

This is nonsense.

If a reality that has a God in it is identical to that same reality without a God in it, it doesn't really matter whether there is a God or not.

If a reality that has a biddable God in it is identical to that same reality with an indifferent God in it, it doesn't really matter whether there is religion or not.

If a reality that has religions in it is not any better than a reality without religions in it, we have all been taken for a ride.

Note: Teddy is short for Theodore. Theodore means "Gift from God". If something is chemically indistinguishable from nonsense, it probably is nonsense. They should have called the bear "Gift from Allah" - it being the same thing. I didn't see God doing anything about his cock-up in the Sudan.

Furi

14th December 2007, 07:19 AM

...and this is why they have unleavened bread in the bible. They had to wait for the scientific revolution and the enlightenment before they could get a rise out of their dough.

Point taken.

Or it could just be that they deny proof even when offered :p :scarper:

Henners

14th December 2007, 07:21 AM

Or it could just be that they deny proof even when offered :p :scarper:

Personally, I never turn down cask-strength malt.

Marquis de Carabas

14th December 2007, 07:34 AM

Don't be silly.
Why not?

First of all, his name has christian in it, and goodness and omnipotence are certainly defining characteristics of the christian god. Second, if we're not allowed to assume even the most basic attributes, the question becomes even stupider than ever - it's like asking someone to disprove the existence of aslknaklfnaf, never mind what it is.

This is not a question of his username. Yes, he is a Christian, but he did not ask for scientific proof that his god did not exist. He asked for scientific proof that no god existed. Further, omni- anything hardly qualifies as a "most basic" attribute. Thousands of gods have happily not existed without them. If there is a "most basic" aspect of a god, it would probably be creation, but even that is not ubiquitous to god myths.

You are right, of course, that it is a silly question if no further definition of god is given or allowed. But it is the question that was asked, and you did not answer it.

sol invictus

14th December 2007, 07:55 AM

You are right, of course, that it is a silly question if no further definition of god is given or allowed. But it is the question that was asked, and you did not answer it.

But I did answer the question in the case of a christian god?

If I have disproven the existence the the christian god (and I think I took two decent shots at it here) I'll happily rest on my laurels. :)

Come to think of it my second argument didn't depend on either omnipotence or goodness... only on the agreement that a universe without an interfering god is conceivable. The existence of an omnipotent god is sufficient for that, but not necessary.

Marquis de Carabas

14th December 2007, 08:01 AM

But I did answer the question in the case of a christian god?

If I have disproven the existence the the christian god (and I think I took two decent shots at it here) I'll happily rest on my laurels. :)
Well, you've restated an argument that I, at least, have always accepted as proof. Rest away.

Come to think of it my second argument didn't depend on either omnipotence or goodness... only on the agreement that a universe without an interfering god is conceivable. The existence of an omnipotent god is sufficient for that, but not necessary.
Correct, yet it is still not proof. That god is unnecessary does not mean it is not there. It does, I think, strike a heavy blow, just not a fatal one.

A Christian Sceptic

14th December 2007, 08:55 AM

ps when people stopped posting on your last thread, you started a new one, again with pre-prepared arguments. This doesn't sound like someone with an open mind. Suggest you remove sceptic from your name for accuracy?

If people stop posting a thread you start you can't start a new thread? I really don't understand what having an open mind and being a sceptic have anything to do with starting a new thread. I'm sorry - you lost me on what the issue is here.

Jimbo07

14th December 2007, 08:56 AM

I guess I am going to need your help understanding the paper.
I don't know anything about this paper being a hoax or not -

Read about The Sokal Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair).

Consider this quote:

In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a paper of nonsense camouflaged in jargon for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."[1]

danielk

14th December 2007, 09:01 AM

That paper was a big honking nuclear bomb, dropped off right into the heart of postmodernist philosophy.

A Christian Sceptic

14th December 2007, 09:13 AM

Can you give an example? I'm not suggesting that such things can't or don't exist, but at the moment I'm coming up short in thinking of any.

I've never once said all I have is scientific evidence only. But what would be the point of posting anything else if scientific evidence is all people will consider? Especially since my only purpose here is to learn - not prove or convert or anything. Like I posted somewhere else since I've posting here I've had more people tell me that what I believe is wrong. I've never once posted that anyone here or elsewhere has to believe anything. I have simply been responding to peoples questions and requests of me.

But one example just off the top of my head (so for all I know it might not be a great example): Beauty of a flower. Science can never prove to me the beauty of a flower. But I have plenty of evidence in my life that there are beautiful flowers. Science has limitations. I've accepted that. And really - what would someone whose only measurement on things was science really be like? I can't really imagine since I don't know anyone like that.

The fact that you would interpret it differently doesn't suggest, however, that your interpretation is valid. For instance, if you showed me a red sweater, I could say it was blue all I wanted, I might even beleive it to be blue (maybe I had some weird sort of brain damage, or colour-blindness, etc) but that wouldn't change the fact that it was red, and my conclusion was simply wrong.

I agree. I've never said anything against that. I understand that.

drkitten

14th December 2007, 09:21 AM

But one example just off the top of my head (so for all I know it might not be a great example): Beauty of a flower. Science can never prove to me the beauty of a flower.

Can't it? There's actually a lot of research going on about the psychology of human aesthetics. I think that science has come a lot closer to understanding the physical basis of "beauty", the social basis, and the psychological basis than you give it credit for.

The simple fact that you talk about scientific measurements of "the beauty of the flower" suggests an unawareness of the relevant research; one of the things that these psychologists have found is that much of "beauty" is indeed in the eyes (and in the cultural background) of the beholder.

How would you react to an explanation that "well, you find this flower beautiful because it looks like these other things with which you have positive associations?"

A Christian Sceptic

14th December 2007, 09:26 AM

Jekyll

14th December 2007, 09:31 AM

But one example just off the top of my head (so for all I know it might not be a great example): Beauty of a flower. Science can never prove to me the beauty of a flower.

To start with, as people have been telling you through out this thread, science doesn't prove anything.

So we'll ditch the word `prove' for something that has less baggage associated with it. Let's use `demonstrate' instead.

Now science, as you so rightly said, can not demonstrate the beauty of a flower. However, nothing can demonstrate the beauty of a flower, and people have argued for centuries about what the "the beauty of __" actually means without getting anywhere.

What science can be used to demonstrate, however, is that:
(1) a flower exists
and
(2) X% of people from the population of Y say they find it beautiful.

We can apply science to the god question in a similar way to say:

(A) X% of people from the population of Y say they think he exists.

and that's it.

Now the existence of something isn't like its beauty, we don't agree that something exists if enough people think it exists,but that it only exists if it is really there.

-Fran-

14th December 2007, 09:48 AM

Can't it? There's actually a lot of research going on about the psychology of human aesthetics. I think that science has come a lot closer to understanding the physical basis of "beauty", the social basis, and the psychological basis than you give it credit for.

The simple fact that you talk about scientific measurements of "the beauty of the flower" suggests an unawareness of the relevant research; one of the things that these psychologists have found is that much of "beauty" is indeed in the eyes (and in the cultural background) of the beholder.

How would you react to an explanation that "well, you find this flower beautiful because it looks like these other things with which you have positive associations?"

Yes, for example, it seems as if one thing that most people find beautiful is symmetry (such as people's faces). It's a complex thing with many individual variations, but it is not a subject that is entirely impossible to study scientifcally.

The flower example reminds me of a pen friend I had as a kid who was a pentecostal. She wrote me once saying that flowers had been put on earth by god, so that humans would have something of beauty to appreciate. I remember thinking that was the most stupid thing I have ever heard. I wrote back telling her flowers evolved to beckon insects to aid them in their reproduction not to amuse humans (or something like that, I was like 12 :)). I know this wasn't what you said ACS, it just reminded me of it.

drkitten

14th December 2007, 09:49 AM

I'm aware of alot of this type of research. But isn't all this is showing is why I think it's beautiful or that I think it's beauriful.? How can it prove it's beautiful.

That's kind of my point.

I can't prove that it's beautiful, because it isn't beautiful.

You find it beautiful, but that's altogether different. Someone else finds it hideous, and there is no way to resolve the fundamental difference. Science cannot prove something to be a property of the flower that is not, in fact, a property of the flower.

Jimbo07

14th December 2007, 09:51 AM

To start with, as people have been telling you through out this thread, science doesn't prove anything.

So we'll ditch the word `prove' for something that has less baggage associated with it. Let's use `demonstrate' instead.

We did this in a physics laboratory (for freshman survey students). We mandated that they could not use the word 'prove' in their conclusions. There were a couple of reasons. The first being that they were unlikely to discover any new principles in freshman labs, but also because of the larger philosophical principles.

However, that was from the senior instructor. Unfortunately, I've seen the word 'prove' in various articles, and have heard it said by more than one practicing scientist. I think it boils down to different contexts and the fuzziness of the English language (can't speak for the others, but will assume it's a similar sit.), more than the philosophy that science can or cannot prove something.

I accept that 'proof' is a mathematical or philosophical (symbolic logic) term, and that anything else is not. However, that leaves me with a problem, because I consider what science shows to be real (due solely to practical application, what else?)... hence my idea that reality repeatedly trumps proof! Probably not a popular position, but then, I'm only one person...

:o

triadboy

14th December 2007, 09:56 AM

The estimates I have seen are all less than 100 billion LY. What is your source for that number?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

triadboy

14th December 2007, 10:03 AM

Hold a minute, these books say that God created the world as an exclusive service to the respective group of adherents? Where did you find this detail if I may ask?

It's always fun to re-read Genesis.

Belz...

14th December 2007, 10:27 AM

Don't bother asking me to prove there is a God, because I can't. I have never claimed I could. In fact, I do not think science can prove that god exists or doesn't exist. All it can do is prove that it "appears" god exists or it "appears" god doesn't exist.

Good, good. Because science also can only show that it "appears" that gravity exists.

Jekyll

14th December 2007, 10:30 AM

I accept that 'proof' is a mathematical or philosophical (symbolic logic) term, and that anything else is not. However, that leaves me with a problem, because I consider what science shows to be real (due solely to practical application, what else?)... hence my idea that reality repeatedly trumps proof! Probably not a popular position, but then, I'm only one person...

:o

Well that's as it should be, things you can prove true should be a subset of things which are true.

There are a couple of ways round this.

You can accept things as being provisionally true; there's a fair bit of this in both maths and computer based research where interesting papers are written which rely on the Riemann hypothesis or P!=NP for their conclusions.

Another alternative, is to view everything through Bayesian framework, and assign values between 0 and 1 rather than just true and false to express how valid you think statements are.

Belz...

14th December 2007, 10:35 AM

That being said Belz stated that a god would have to break all the rules of physics to exist

Did I, now ?

There is no evidence whatsoever that a god exists. In fact, the existence of a god would be contrary to the laws of physics we know, at least under several definitions of "god". It's quite reasonable to assume, therefore, that no god exists until evidence to the contrary is shown.

My opinion ? There are no gods. There is no God. There are no spirits, souls, fairies or anything supernatural.

Gee, I really wish people stopped making up what other people say. It's such a common trait.

Belz...

14th December 2007, 10:37 AM

Jimbo07

14th December 2007, 10:42 AM

There are a couple of ways round this.

You can accept things as being provisionally true; there's a fair bit of this in both maths and computer based research where interesting papers are written which rely on the Riemann hypothesis or P!=NP for their conclusions.

Another alternative, is to view everything through Bayesian framework, and assign values between 0 and 1 rather than just true and false to express how valid you think statements are.

For the minor tasks in life, the first approach has practical value. It is (provisionally) true that if I put gasoline in my gas tank, my vehicle will run. However, rigorous work usually requires something closer to the second approach. Written documents are much more amenable to this than walking around saying something is 0.987 true! :D

A Christian Sceptic

14th December 2007, 10:43 AM

Did I, now ?

Gee, I really wish people stopped making up what other people say. It's such a common trait.

someone else pointed this out and I responded here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3243748#post3243748

In this very thread.

And if you don't want me to misunderstand then make a statement that makes sense. Otherwise, my assumption that the first part of your statement meant my idea of god (since that's what we were talking about) and that the last part is irrelevant was correct.

A Christian Sceptic

14th December 2007, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic
If people stop posting a thread you start you can't start a new thread? I really don't understand what having an open mind and being a sceptic have anything to do with starting a new thread. I'm sorry - you lost me on what the issue is here.

Yes, obviously.

Then tell me what he meant. If you can't or won't than these type of posts are not helpful and are going to dilute this thread and kill it.

-Fran-

14th December 2007, 10:59 AM

Then tell me what he meant. If you can't or won't than these type of posts are not helpful and are going to dilute this thread and kill it.

I'm not sure, but what I think people mean is that it is usually expected that people start a thread because they want to discuss something, and that it is therefore expected that they also participate in their own threads.

Also, people generally think that there are no things that are supposed to be exempt from discussing, so if the original poster states that "I am not going to discuss this, this and this, only this" then people will want to know why.

Also, I think that many don't like when people start a thread that is basically giving a topic and asking people to discuss the topic among themselves, to then lean back to see what happens. I suspect this is not liked for the following reasons (could be more or other resons as well): 1) If the topic is not fully clear, people find it annoying that the OP has stated that he won't be there to answer questions about the topic or clarify things. 2) It reminds of a school teacher handing out assignments :). 3) And last, it is common troll beahviour to throw topics out and wait to see who bites, never intending to participate. Thus it's a sure way to arouse suspicion.

But now you are participating, so all is OK, I guess.

ETA:
So, if a thread dies out because the OP is not participating and he/she starts a new thread instead of "not taking responsibility" for the last one, so to speak, it arouses suspicion of intent and trolling even more.

ETA again:
I'm talking about "unwritten laws" here, you can do it in any way that you want to, of course. Just an attempt to explain a few reason to why it can be that some question your intentions.

A Christian Sceptic

14th December 2007, 11:12 AM

Thanks Fran - makes perfect sense. These threads were meant to get your opinions and not debate and even in this thread the first response was "don't start fights" etc. I of course broke my own rules by responding - but that's nothing new to me. :) and neither of these posts were in reference to any specific god - just what you wanted to post about.

FireGarden

14th December 2007, 12:27 PM

I did appreciate the Carl Sagan link although not directly related. I enjoy his writings and loved COSMOS.

You're welcome.
But I thought it was very related. Sagan's Dragon is not merely a good anecdote. It also illustrates what others were saying regarding what science can test.

ponderingturtle

14th December 2007, 12:47 PM

If people stop posting a thread you start you can't start a new thread? I really don't understand what having an open mind and being a sceptic have anything to do with starting a new thread. I'm sorry - you lost me on what the issue is here.

I feel like noteing that your last post in that thread was #55, while there where 106 total posts. This seems to me like running away.

FireGarden

14th December 2007, 12:50 PM

A Christian Sceptic

14th December 2007, 01:15 PM

I feel like noteing that your last post in that thread was #55, while there where 106 total posts. This seems to me like running away.

OK - looking back I see that I stopped posting once I started debating about Sanata Claus with someone. :) I then moved to the Should Sceptics only be Athiests thread because I felt that was better than to go in tangents off what the original threads purpose was. But i've gone back to the original if anyone is interested.

Here's the thread for anyone interested:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3233434#post3233434

Foster Zygote

14th December 2007, 02:38 PM

I'm aware of alot of this type of research. But isn't all this is showing is why I think it's beautiful or that I think it's beauriful.? How can it prove it's beautiful.

"The flower is beautiful" is a statement of subjective opinion, not objective fact.

kilgore_trout

14th December 2007, 03:12 PM

I'm not sure where you found the claims that some scientist disproved God, and I didn't read most of the responses after the OP, but I'm going to say science will (most likely) never be able to disprove the existence of God.

Assuming, unfortunately, that we're talking about the Christian God, it's easy to see how science cannot prove God doesn't exist (double negative?). Science and the Christian religion operate on separate methodical levels to come to conclusions. As where science is based on observations and testable hypothesis, which is constantly revamping theories, religion's conclusions are not based on the same methods as science. The Christian religion uses it's biggest weakness, the absence of evidence, as it greatest strength, faith.

Science cannot disprove God because science cannot disprove faith since religious faith is defined as believing in something without evidence.

On a personal note, I think it would be interesting if science were to prove that God did exist. Then, that which most defines and individual as a strong religious person, faith, would be destroyed, destroying the most important aspect of religion. I don't think what I just wrote come across clearly, but I think its a paradox or something.

Bluefire

14th December 2007, 04:57 PM

On a personal note, I think it would be interesting if science were to prove that God did exist. Then, that which most defines and individual as a strong religious person, faith, would be destroyed, destroying the most important aspect of religion. I don't think what I just wrote come across clearly, but I think its a paradox or something.

Actally this is a point other known Atheists make as well. If god was "found" scientifically, he could be just another part of nature, open to scientific inquiry. This would destroy the faith, and most importantly "mystery", that many religions live by.

Silly Green Monkey

14th December 2007, 05:00 PM

Why would confirming faith destroy it?

Bluefire

14th December 2007, 05:13 PM

Why would confirming faith destroy it?

When it is proven, it is not taken on faith anymore.

How many proponents of "natural",herbal and homeopathic medicine do you see proclaiming the healing powers of certain products of fungus (penicillin/antibiotics)? All the ones I hear about see that as the big "enemy". They need the big mystery and "unknown" ways of working for the belief to comfort them. I think for a large part of the godly religious, it is the same.

Mobyseven

14th December 2007, 08:55 PM

FAIL

LOL! Wish we were still allowed to kitten threads...

Herzblut

15th December 2007, 04:08 AM

I guess I am going to need your help understanding the paper.

I'm certain you don't, Smackety. Anyways, a look into Wikipedia is quite interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

Herzblut

PS: Sorry Jimbo, I hadn't seen your response.

Herzblut

15th December 2007, 04:22 AM

I disagree. So does Dawkins. The hypothesis that a God exists is a scientific hypothesis that can be examined and tested.

Point me to those scientific investigations. Peer reviewed science publications, if you don't mind.

You know, my joke about Sokal's hoax paper wasn't just a joke. It should raise the point that there is no scientific paper about "hermeneutics":D.

Let me know if you find one. Good luck.

The scientific methodology that Dawkins applies to the "God Hypothesis" is in no way different from the scientific methodology he applies to the theory of evolution.

The God "hypothesis" is no hypothesis from a scientific pov. It's creationism.

Herzblut

Herzblut

15th December 2007, 04:55 AM

From what I understand the expansion of the universe means that some parts of it are (and others will be) receding from us faster than the speed of light. So, at least those parts are impossible for us to ever reach.

Interesting point! My General Relativity savviness is too bad to even present justified guesses here, just gut feelings.

Moreover, if you're talking about a vehicle that could take live humans, I think that's pretty likely impossible for a number of reasons. Not least of which is the acceleration forces that would be required to get it up to such a high percentage of the speed of light before your 1 hour was up.

Yep. Nevertheless, robo, please read between the lines to get to the point I am making. Which is "there is no absolute space and time". Physically, given all engineering problems are resolved, a vehicle sufficiently close to speed of light could cross, say, our Milky Way in almost no time. Light crosses any distance in no time at all. Proper time, of course.

Herzblut

Herzblut

15th December 2007, 05:07 AM

The fact that you would interpret it differently doesn't suggest, however, that your interpretation is valid. For instance, if you showed me a red sweater, I could say it was blue all I wanted, I might even beleive it to be blue (maybe I had some weird sort of brain damage, or colour-blindness, etc) but that wouldn't change the fact that it was red, and my conclusion was simply wrong.

That's interesting again. I'd say that an object "as is" has got no colour attribute. The object is emitting light of a certain frequency range. It's just our perception that makes up a colour like "blue". Without the vast majority of men having the same kind of perception, we wouldn't call it blue at all, e.g. if men had some kind of blue colour blindness.

An object "is" blue, simply because we make it so. BTW, an object having one colour in the morning would probably have another one in the evening. It's our "colour correction" which makes it constantly "blue" (or whatever) all the time, although it isn't so.

Herzblut

ponderingturtle

15th December 2007, 07:43 AM

OK - looking back I see that I stopped posting once I started debating about Sanata Claus with someone. :) I then moved to the Should Sceptics only be Athiests thread because I felt that was better than to go in tangents off what the original threads purpose was. But i've gone back to the original if anyone is interested.

Here's the thread for anyone interested:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3233434#post3233434

Exactly you ran away and ignored many people who made legitimate points after that.

ponderingturtle

15th December 2007, 07:48 AM

Assuming, unfortunately, that we're talking about the Christian God, it's easy to see how science cannot prove God doesn't exist (double negative?). Science and the Christian religion operate on separate methodical levels to come to conclusions. As where science is based on observations and testable hypothesis, which is constantly revamping theories, religion's conclusions are not based on the same methods as science. The Christian religion uses it's biggest weakness, the absence of evidence, as it greatest strength, faith.

That depends, the standard christian god has strong evidence against its existance because he is supposted to answer prayers and heal people. This lack of a strongly defined traits evidence can be viewed as evidence of non existance.

Michael C

15th December 2007, 07:48 AM

Point me to those scientific investigations. Peer reviewed science publications, if you don't mind.

"Science" is not limited to peer reviewed publications. It was The God Delusion that opened my mind to the possibility of studying the existence of God scientifically. I admit that I don't find all of Dawkins's arguments totally convincing, but I am certainly convinced of his central idea, that hypotheses about the possible existence of any sort of God are ideas that can be analysed and tested using scientific means, just as are hypotheses about what a particular dinosaur may have looked like or how the human mind functions. So, as a start on the scientific investigation of God, I recommend reading The God Delusion.

The God "hypothesis" is no hypothesis from a scientific pov. It's creationism.

Creationism is a belief, not a hypothesis. It is perfectly possible, however, to re-state the creationist idea as a hypothesis and to put it scientifically to the test against the available evidence.

Achán hiNidráne

15th December 2007, 08:03 AM

Why would confirming faith destroy it?

Read the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy regarding the Babel fish:

"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? it could not have evolved by chance. it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh that was easy" says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Herzblut

15th December 2007, 08:12 AM

"Science" is not limited to peer reviewed publications. It was The God Delusion that opened my mind to the possibility of studying the existence of God scientifically. I admit that I don't find all of Dawkins's arguments totally convincing, but I am certainly convinced of his central idea, that hypotheses about the possible existence of any sort of God are ideas that can be analysed and tested using scientific means, just as are hypotheses about what a particular dinosaur may have looked like or how the human mind functions.

So you say, you belief the "God Hypothesis" about God's existence is subject to serious scientific investigation, although you're not aware of any corresponding literature, correct?

Let me tell you, I know for a fact that your are wrong. You shouldn't accept anything just because somebody has written it in his pamphlet and you happen to like it.

You should at least try to verify if it's reasonable at all. Where are all those scientific investigations? Name some! You cannot? Well, you should start accepting the fact, there aren't any. Why not? Maybe the pamphlet is wrong? Or what? Explain to me, I am curious.

So, as a start on the scientific investigation of God, I recommend reading The God Delusion.

Why? That's not scientific literature.

Creationism is a belief, not a hypothesis.

Right. The statement "God created all" is a belief, not a scientific hypothesis. That's what I said.

It is perfectly possible, however, to re-state the creationist idea as a hypothesis and to put it scientifically to the test against the available evidence.

Why don't you just do it? Did somebody else do it so far? Who?

Herzblut

Roboramma

15th December 2007, 08:30 AM

I've never once said all I have is scientific evidence only. But what would be the point of posting anything else if scientific evidence is all people will consider? Who said that's the only thing we'll consider? I'd consider any sort of evidence. If it turns out to be valid, I would value having been shown it.

Especially since my only purpose here is to learn - not prove or convert or anything. Sure, but if your evidence isn't valid, exposing it to criticism is a good way to find that out. If you're interested in learning whether or not your viewpoint is correct you should be excited about telling us what leads you to it.

Mind you, that doesn't mean you have to accept whatever criticism is presented - there are plenty of bad arguments posted on these forums, and it might turn out that while many posters here disagree with you, you're still right. But at least having the opportunity to see their arguments should be worthwhile. I don't know...

Like I posted somewhere else since I've posting here I've had more people tell me that what I believe is wrong. I've never once posted that anyone here or elsewhere has to believe anything. I have simply been responding to peoples questions and requests of me. This is a little defensive - I can understand that. A few people have called you a "troll" and I don't really know why - the fact that you disagree with many people here and want to have a discussion about that doesn't make you a troll. In my opinion it makes you valuable to these forums.
But some of us really are interested in a genuine discussion.

But one example just off the top of my head (so for all I know it might not be a great example): Beauty of a flower. Science can never prove to me the beauty of a flower. But I have plenty of evidence in my life that there are beautiful flowers. I think Dr Kitten answered this very well, so I'll leave it with her response. :)

Science has limitations. I've accepted that. And really - what would someone whose only measurement on things was science really be like? I can't really imagine since I don't know anyone like that. It's true that science has limitations. I just don't know if there is anything that uses a method other than that of science to find truth that doesn't have the same limitations.

I agree. I've never said anything against that. I understand that.[/quote]

A Christian Sceptic

15th December 2007, 09:23 AM

Exactly you ran away and ignored many people who made legitimate points after that.

And now I ran back. Sorry for hurting anyone's feelings for ignoring them.

A Christian Sceptic

15th December 2007, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic
I've never once said all I have is scientific evidence only. But what would be the point of posting anything else if scientific evidence is all people will consider?
Who said that's the only thing we'll consider? I'd consider any sort of evidence. If it turns out to be valid, I would value having been shown it.

That statement was made in reference to the circumstances I posted stuff I take as evidence and was a reply to someone's request for elaboration. At which point I pointed out that any evidence I show isn't going to be considered evidence for God's existence anymore than any evidence anyone shows against will be accepted as being against.

And I've stated in many posts that I think God's existence can't be proven to others one way or another. But that said, many people used the reason of not believing as "lack of evidence" so I'm curious on what that specifically it is. In this thread I limited it to scientific evidence and the posts confirmed what I already know - science can't prove or disprove his existence. From some people's response it seems Richard Dawkins is claiming this, which I hope is not the case. I hope what he means is "Science might be used to investigate whether he left any traces of him existing." Him existing and him leaving traces would be two seperate things.

So far my conclusion in this aspect of believing or not believing: "God may or may not exist, it can't be proven one way or another, and people come to a conclusion on his existence based on the evidence (however they want to define it) that they receive throughout their life."

I know this next part wasn't asked for (I've been trying to limit what I state to responses to people posting to me). But I think every person's belief in God is like a pendulum. It swings back and forth between belief and non-belief based on circumstances and personal experience, previous beliefs, new knowledge gained, and basically whatever they consider evidence, etc. To me an Athiest who says they will never believe in God is the exact same as a religious person saying they will never not believe in God. Neither of these cases is obviously true since it happens both ways.

Michael C

15th December 2007, 11:15 AM

So you say, you belief the "God Hypothesis" about God's existence is subject to serious scientific investigation, although you're not aware of any corresponding literature, correct?

Let me tell you, I know for a fact that your are wrong. You shouldn't accept anything just because somebody has written it in his pamphlet and you happen to like it.
Why don't you just do it? Did somebody else do it so far? Who?

The God Delusion is not a pamphlet, it's a book full of serious reasoning backed up by solid evidence. Have you read it?

Herzblut

15th December 2007, 11:27 AM

The God Delusion is not a pamphlet, it's a book full of serious reasoning backed up by solid evidence. Have you read it?
I couldn't find it in the "Science" section of my local bookstore.

Seriously, it doesn't matter what I've read.

You are saying there's an exciting scientific hypothesis out there, but no scientific research about it. How can you seriously think so?

Herzblut

drkitten

15th December 2007, 11:37 AM

I couldn't find it in the "Science" section of my local bookstore.

Come, now. We're hardly responsible for the incompetence of your local bookshop owner.

You are saying there's an exciting scientific hypothesis out there, but no scientific research about it. How can you seriously think so?

In my experience, anyone begins a statement with "you are saying,.... but," then they're not only misrepresenting what someone else is saying, but they are generally even aware of their dishonesty. I find it's one of the markers that distinguishes the liar from the honestly ignorant.

But on the off-chance that you are honestly ignorant, I recommend you check out The God Delusion. It has a references section in the back that will point you to quite a bit of scientific research.

blobru

15th December 2007, 11:54 AM

I don't think science "disproves" God. It just makes it harder to believe what people say about Him/Her/Them/It/That/What?/Me/You/Us/Not/More/All/Some/None.

FireGarden

15th December 2007, 12:26 PM

Tricky found some scientific evidence to disprove God -- the concept of God that Tricky believed in, anyway:

I was fortunate enough that my experience with religion was not as horrible as Slingblades, but I too was a former believer. I gradually stopped believing in God because not one thing that God was supposed to do ever happened. In fact, the world behaved exactly as you would expect it to behave if there weren't any sort of loving Father.

That was possible because, according to Tricky's former belief, the world would be different depending on whether God existed.

And, yes, the evidence offered is scientific.
The belief depended on observation, not whim.

Herzblut

15th December 2007, 08:59 PM

In my experience, anyone begins a statement with "you are saying,.... but," then they're not only misrepresenting what someone else is saying, but they are generally even aware of their dishonesty. I find it's one of the markers that distinguishes the liar from the honestly ignorant.

What a cozy anecdote. You tell us more about your life?

But on the off-chance that you are honestly ignorant, I recommend you check out The God Delusion. It has a references section in the back that will point you to quite a bit of scientific research.
Just name the most convincing scientific results about whether god exists or not.

Skeptic Ginger

15th December 2007, 10:58 PM

Depends on how you define "god". If you define god as the one in each individual religion, you can debunk most of them with science. Though there is no reason to prove the negative in these cases. Instead, you need to look at what the evidence supports and how overwhelmingly it supports the no god conclusion.

You can address religions such as the Biblical religion and present some pretty powerful logic arguments against the existence of that particular god. Many contradictions in particular are simply incompatible. Or you can show the lack of logical possibility of an omnipotent god since he couldn't make a rock which was too big to be moved. Those are not the most useful ways of addressing the evidence against god beliefs but they have been proposed.

But when you change the definition of god to one which science cannot test for, a god defined in that unnatural** way is then outside of the boundary of scientific inquiry.

**Unnatural in the sense this definition is not used by any traditional religion and only came about as the evidence for gods became less and less likely to be found. Things gods supposedly did such as answering prayers were not supported by evidence, so change your god belief to one who doesn't answer prayers, and so on.

Michael C

16th December 2007, 09:58 AM

I couldn't find it in the "Science" section of my local bookstore.

Seriously, it doesn't matter what I've read.

You are saying there's an exciting scientific hypothesis out there, but no scientific research about it. How can you seriously think so?

OK, here's just one publication on one of the aspects of the God hypothesis: Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16569567). If you're really interested in more information on the scientific investigation of the existence of God, just pick up a copy of The God Delusion.

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 10:21 AM

Or you can show the lack of logical possibility of an omnipotent god since he couldn't make a rock which was too big to be moved.

I've been around Christians who have had discussions about this subject - could God make a rock he couldn't move? None of their answered worked for me. But since then I've thought of many ways he could do this but I'd have to first think he had certain attributes such as he's honest, can't lie, in essence won't disobey himself, etc. But, that's neither here nor there. :)

Henners

16th December 2007, 10:24 AM

The God "hypothesis" is no hypothesis from a scientific pov. It's creationism.

Herzblut

One day, I am sure, you will voice an evidenced opinion and stun us all.

volatile

16th December 2007, 11:05 AM

I've been around Christians who have had discussions about this subject - could God make a rock he couldn't move? None of their answered worked for me. But since then I've thought of many ways he could do this but I'd have to first think he had certain attributes such as he's honest, can't lie, in essence won't disobey himself, etc. But, that's neither here nor there. :)

Look, here you're doing exactly what Sagan does in regards to his dragon (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3249837). Of course it's "here or there", because it's at the very core of your belief system, and why it is untenable and ultimately wrong.

As Firegarden points out in that thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3249659&postcount=31),

I think Sagan has been clever in illustrating the chain of thoughts you'd have to go through. So it's invisible, "Does it leave footprints?" So it floats, "what about the draft from its wings beating?" It doesn't fly, it just floats. And so on.

All methods of finding evidence for the dragon are attempts to answer: "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?"

You're moving the goalposts, making excuses, ad infinitum. Your God is the dragon in the garage.

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 03:31 PM

You're moving the goalposts, making excuses, ad infinitum. Your God is the dragon in the garage.

I don't know what goalposts you're talking about. If you're telling me that the dragon in the garage is the god of all, then I wouldn't let science alone stop me from trying to find out if that's true. I may never come to a conclusion, or may not even be able to, but I wouldn't simply stop until I was satisfied. But that's just me, I understand that other people would not even bother. I'm fine with that.

volatile

16th December 2007, 03:44 PM

I don't know what goalposts you're talking about. If you're telling me that the dragon in the garage is the god of all, then I wouldn't let science alone stop me from trying to find out if that's true. I may never come to a conclusion, or may not even be able to, but I wouldn't simply stop until I was satisfied. But that's just me, I understand that other people would not even bother. I'm fine with that.

You - "God is omnipotent"

Sceptic - "What about the immovable rock?"

You - "Oh, but God's, ummm, honest"

Compare:

Sagan - "I have a dragon in my garage"

Sceptic - "Why can't I see it?"

Sagan - "It's, ummm, invisible".

You see, it's moving the goalposts.

Of course God is honest; he has to be to iron out that particular illogical crease. But how about God tricking Abraham into nearly killing his Isaac?

No need to answer. That's just an illustration that you'll need to move the goalposts again in order for this whole fantasy to continue making sense.

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 04:06 PM

You - "God is omnipotent"

Sceptic - "What about the immovable rock?"

You - "Oh, but God's, ummm, honest"

Compare:

Sagan - "I have a dragon in my garage"

Sceptic - "Why can't I see it?"

Sagan - "It's, ummm, invisible".

You see, it's moving the goalposts.

Of course God is honest; he has to be to iron out that particular illogical crease. But how about God tricking Abraham into nearly killing his Isaac?

No need to answer. That's just an illustration that you'll need to move the goalposts again in order for this whole fantasy to continue making sense.

I think your misunderstanding growth in your beliefs with trying to prove something to someone. If I am trying to prove to you something it would be accurate to say I'm moving the goalpasts. But I'm perfectly willing to alter my belief in God if I find out I misunderstood something about him. I guess if that means he's bigger than I thought - well I guess you're right - the goalposts were moved.

Skeptic Ginger

16th December 2007, 04:33 PM

Mobyseven

16th December 2007, 04:37 PM

I don't know what goalposts you're talking about. If you're telling me that the dragon in the garage is the god of all, then I wouldn't let science alone stop me from trying to find out if that's true.

Really?

In that case, there really is a dragon in my garage and he really is the god of all.

Now, you wouldn't want to miss out on this opportunity to worship the one true god, would you? Are you going to start praying to the dragon god in my garage?

volatile

16th December 2007, 04:41 PM

I think your misunderstanding growth in your beliefs with trying to prove something to someone. If I am trying to prove to you something it would be accurate to say I'm moving the goalpasts. But I'm perfectly willing to alter my belief in God if I find out I misunderstood something about him. I guess if that means he's bigger than I thought - well I guess you're right - the goalposts were moved.

So all Sagan is doing is learning more about the dragon? And what then? We point out the God, evidently, is not honest, and you redefine God once more.

You say you want to learn; you say you are a sceptic and open to ideas. But your God is utterly beyond refute, because every refutation necessitates a further shifting of His traits. Essentially, there is not one single thing that would change your mind.

You, Sir, are no sceptic.

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 04:44 PM

Are you really not clear what this dilemma is about? If he succeeds he fails. Either way he fails. If he can do anything then he can make big rocks. If he can lift anything then he can lift big rocks. You CANNOT have it both ways. C A N N O T

How can a person who doesn't believe in a god tell someone who does what their god's traits are supposed to be? I'm sure plenty of Christians would argue with me on this too, by the way.

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 04:45 PM

Really?

In that case, there really is a dragon in my garage and he really is the god of all.

Now, you wouldn't want to miss out on this opportunity to worship the one true god, would you? Are you going to start praying to the dragon god in my garage?

It sounds like I already believe in him then.

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 04:49 PM

So all Sagan is doing is learning more about the dragon? And what then? We point out the God, evidently, is not honest, and you redefine God once more.

What?

You say you want to learn; you say you are a sceptic and open to ideas. But your God is utterly beyond refute, because every refutation necessitates a further shifting of His traits. Essentially, there is not one single thing that would change your mind.

You, Sir, are no sceptic.

No - his traits never shift - my understanding of them do. I don't really no what your saying. I'm sure the misunderstanding is my fault.

Mobyseven

16th December 2007, 05:01 PM

It sounds like I already believe in him then.

Then surely you're aware that pilgramige and tithing are a necessary part of keeping the one true god happy? If I send you my PayPal account details, you can make regular tributes of 5% of your total earnings - I am the proxy of the one true god for financial matters, something that will be beyond question when you complete your pilgramige.

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 05:07 PM

Then surely you're aware that pilgramige and tithing are a necessary part of keeping the one true god happy? If I send you my PayPal account details, you can make regular tributes of 5% of your total earnings - I am the proxy of the one true god for financial matters, something that will be beyond question when you complete your pilgramige.

And now after weighing what I believe about my god with what your telling me about your dragon I decide they aren't the same god. My god is bigger and better so I no longer need to worry about that dragon. And yes - the point you're trying to make applies to Christian doctrines too.

GeeMack

16th December 2007, 05:52 PM

I think your misunderstanding growth in your beliefs with trying to prove something to someone. If I am trying to prove to you something it would be accurate to say I'm moving the goalpasts.

If you were being honest in saying you want to learn more about gods and science, you might actually be wanting to prove something to yourself. But you haven't shown that you're willing to be all that honest, especially with yourself.

But I'm perfectly willing to alter my belief in God if I find out I misunderstood something about him.

It's interesting that you've set up a situation where you can't possibly alter your belief in any meaningful way, simply because you won't even define your invisible pal. You can't offer a definition, even to yourself, that isn't subject to change at your whim as necessary to maintain your belief in magic.

I guess if that means he's bigger than I thought - well I guess you're right - the goalposts were moved.

You don't seem to understand, but you are actually making your supernatural pal bigger by the very act of moving the goalposts and for the very purpose of defending its existence. You're caught in a trap, like quicksand, and you can't get out. The more you examine your delusion, the deeper you must sink into it. And exactly because you aren't strong enough (or brave enough or intelligent enough or sane enough or... for whatever other reason) to legitimately, honestly, and critically examine your belief. You, all by yourself, insist on sticking to a set of rules, rules of your very own creation, that won't let you get away from it.

Roboramma

16th December 2007, 06:12 PM

That statement was made in reference to the circumstances I posted stuff I take as evidence and was a reply to someone's request for elaboration. At which point I pointed out that any evidence I show isn't going to be considered evidence for God's existence anymore than any evidence anyone shows against will be accepted as being against. Why not?

And I've stated in many posts that I think God's existence can't be proven to others one way or another. And everyone here agrees with you. But just because something isn't proven one way or another doesn't mean that both possiblities are equally likely.

But that said, many people used the reason of not believing as "lack of evidence" so I'm curious on what that specifically it is. Lack of evidence means not having any reason to believe.
Why don't you believe that there is a tea pot orbiting somewhere between mars and jupiter? How about one somewhere out near Pluto? Because you don't have any reason to believe that.
God is the same. The teapot could exist. But, as others pointed out, so could an infinite number of unfalsifiable things. How do we choose between them?

Now, you have said that you do have a reason to believe in god. On the other hand you won't tell us what it is.

In this thread I limited it to scientific evidence and the posts confirmed what I already know - science can't prove or disprove his existence. From some people's response it seems Richard Dawkins is claiming this, which I hope is not the case. Richard Dawkins goes out of his way to say the opposite. There is no proof.

I hope what he means is "Science might be used to investigate whether he left any traces of him existing." Him existing and him leaving traces would be two seperate things. Before you judge his opinions, read them for yourself. Or don't concern yourself with him - that's fine too. Anyway, what he says is that God is as likely to exist as any of the other things for which we have no evidence. That is - so close to zero as to make little difference.

So far my conclusion in this aspect of believing or not believing: "God may or may not exist, it can't be proven one way or another, and people come to a conclusion on his existence based on the evidence (however they want to define it) that they receive throughout their life."
Fair enough, except, again, just because something can't be proven one way or the other doesn't mean both options are equally likely. Also, I don't understand where you get "evidence (however they define it)". Just because someone says or thinks they have evidence of something doesn't mean they actually do.
I've been wrong about evidence before. We all are, from time to time.

Roboramma

16th December 2007, 06:14 PM

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 06:18 PM

You don't seem to understand, but you are actually making your supernatural pal bigger by the very act of moving the goalposts and for the very purpose of defending its existence. You're caught in a trap, like quicksand, and you can't get out. The more you examine your delusion, the deeper you must sink into it. And exactly because you aren't strong enough (or brave enough or intelligent enough or sane enough or... for whatever other reason) to legitimately, honestly, and critically examine your belief. You, all by yourself, insist on sticking to a set of rules, rules of your very own creation, that won't let you get away from it.

Are you saying if I have a small notion of god I should either keep it or not believe anything instead of realizing I was wrong about him being so small?

GeeMack

16th December 2007, 06:44 PM

Are you saying if I have a small notion of god I should either keep it or not believe anything instead of realizing I was wrong about him being so small?

No. What I said makes sense. What you just said doesn't make any sense at all.

Egg

16th December 2007, 06:51 PM

Are you really not clear what this dilemma is about? If he succeeds he fails. Either way he fails. If he can do anything then he can make big rocks. If he can lift anything then he can lift big rocks. You CANNOT have it both ways. C A N N O T

Two possible answers to the rock question:

If God is bound in some way by logic, then you may as well be asking "can God do something he can't do?". The question is illogical. To quote C.S.Lewis "Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable."

If God is not bound by logic, then yes, an omnipotent God could make a stone which he couldn't lift, but we wouldn't understand such things because to us it would appear illogical.

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 07:00 PM

Except that the dragon exists, but your god doesn't.

You can't prove that one way or the other. ;)

Then you'll be content having that dragon all to yourself as I go back to mine which you don't believe exists. If you find a dragon bigger than my non-existent god or the dragon you currently have then I'll be the first to try to learn more. :)

volatile

16th December 2007, 07:18 PM

articulett

16th December 2007, 07:19 PM

Two possible answers to the rock question:

If God is bound in some way by logic, then you may as well be asking "can God do something he can't do?". The question is illogical. To quote C.S.Lewis "Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable."

If God is not bound by logic, then yes, an omnipotent God could make a stone which he couldn't lift, but we wouldn't understand such things because to us it would appear illogical.

As does god... all gods. As does C.S. Lewis who declared that "pride is the worse sin of all"-- not torture, not genocide, not pedophilia, not rape, no scamming people-- but PRIDE. Was he speaking for god or pulling info. out of his ass? What sort of God thinks "pride" is the worst sin of all?

Theists can make anything make sense to themselves if it's attached to their god concept. Atheists can't make sense of any of it. The god concept fails from the get go. It never gets beyond the myth stage. And all the platitudes that you find deep and inspirational just sound vapid and childish and geared towards people who already believe.

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 07:22 PM

*sigh*

Is that what theology is for you? A pissing contest?

I actually can't think of a response to this so I'll just leave it at ... :jaw-dropp

articulett

16th December 2007, 07:23 PM

*sigh*

Is that what theology is for you? A pissing contest?

My god is better than your god because I can define it more nebulously than yours and more powerfully... he's a super duper god and he likes me better because he made me find out about the really true god because there is something good and earnest about me-- I win. You, however, have not opened your mind enough to get the great godliness that has been infused into me. Prove me wrong. Or better yet-- wait till the afterlife when you'll be hearing me telling you, "I told you so..."

:p

articulett

16th December 2007, 07:26 PM

I actually can't think of a response to this so I'll just leave it at ... :jaw-dropp

Do you agree that all gods are based on stories told and passed on by humans... that is, you got to know about your god through such a story?

Tricky

16th December 2007, 07:38 PM

Then you'll be content having that dragon all to yourself as I go back to mine which you don't believe exists. If you find a dragon bigger than my non-existent god or the dragon you currently have then I'll be the first to try to learn more. :)
The Pagans have a response to this. They say, "My Goddess gave birth to your God".

Obviously every relilgion believes their version of God (or gods) is correct, or else they wouldn't believe it. So when you get down to it, how do you decide which version of God is better? For the vast majority of people, they decide because that is the way they were raised. They have a preferred mythology. But if you were going to pit the beliefs against one another in a fair way, how would you do it?

Herzblut

16th December 2007, 07:41 PM

OK, here's just one publication on one of the aspects of the God hypothesis: Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16569567). If you're really interested in more information on the scientific investigation of the existence of God, just pick up a copy of The God Delusion.
Pardon? The God assertion says "God created the Universe, Life and all the rest. Oh - and prayers have a therapeutical effect on cardiac bypass patients"? I must have missed that last portion, I'm afraid.

Herzblut

volatile

16th December 2007, 07:41 PM

I actually can't think of a response to this so I'll just leave it at ... :jaw-dropp

It was a serious question. Yes, it was presented somewhat flippantly, but asked in all seriousness. Take your time.

You believe in your God because he is powerful. He is powerful because those are the attributes you have assigned to him. You are, Sir, engaging in some rather classic circular reasoning.

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 07:46 PM

It was a serious question. Yes, it was presented somewhat flippantly, but asked in all seriousness. Take your time.

After some thought: "No"

You believe in your God because he is powerful. He is powerful because those are the attributes you have assigned to him. You are, Sir, engaging in some rather classic circular reasoning.

I don't think a god that is anything less is worth bothering about.

volatile

16th December 2007, 07:49 PM

After some thought: "No"

I don't think a god that is anything less is worth bothering about.

Why did you say "No" and then expand with an answer that boils down to "Yes"?

Also: why are you not a Moslem? Allah is conceived as being much greater than the Christian God - he didn't do all that meek and mild stuff, for a start. He didn't take on human form. He isn't divisible into three.

Allah is theologically greater than your God. Why not convert?

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 07:50 PM

The Pagans have a response to this. They say, "My Goddess gave birth to your God".

Then I'd think their Goddess is the same as my God. No problem there.

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 07:52 PM

Why did you say "No" and then expand with an answer that boils down to "Yes"?

No - theology is not a pissing contest.

Also: why are you not a Moslem? Allah is conceived as being much greater than the Christian God - he didn't do all that meek and mild stuff, for a start. He didn't take on human form. He isn't divisible into three.

Allah is theologically greater than your God. Why not convert?

It is? I'll look into it.

volatile

16th December 2007, 07:52 PM

Then I'd think their Goddess is the same as my God. No problem there.

They wouldn't, in which case you have another theological problem requiring some hefty goalpost-shifting.

Why can't I see that dragon? It's invisible!

volatile

16th December 2007, 07:54 PM

No - theology is not a pissing contest.

It is? I'll look into it.

You did it again.

Two different opinions in the same post!

A Christian Sceptic

16th December 2007, 07:58 PM

You did it again.

Two different opinions in the same post!

Here are three more opinions:

I think Mt. Dew is better then Pepsi.

I think Dogs are better than many cats.

I think sunsets are beautiful.

Your posts are not making sense to me.

Herzblut

16th December 2007, 07:59 PM

No - theology is not a pissing contest.
CS, I like your threads but it seems the discussions quickly become shallow, only focussing on "evidence" and why nobody should believe in anything without evidence although everybody does.

May I recommend some philosophical articles with alot more depth, and length :D. You may find some interesting aspects there:

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Faith and Reason
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/faith-re.htm

SEP, Religion and Science
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

SEP, The Epistemology of Religion
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/

Herzblut

volatile

16th December 2007, 08:02 PM

Here are three more opinions:

I think Mt. Dew is better then Pepsi.

I think Dogs are better than many cats.

I think sunsets are beautiful.

Your posts are not making sense to me.

Different meaning contrasting or contradictory, not different meaning various! You said "No" when I asked you whether you thought theology was a pissing contest.

You then implied in your first post that only the most powerful God was "worth bothering about", and in your second that you're tempted by another God because He is posited as being more powerful than the one you currently subscribe to (aka the one who would win in a pissing contest).

Do I have to spell out to you why that's contradictory?

Tricky

16th December 2007, 08:38 PM

Then I'd think their Goddess is the same as my God. No problem there.
And you'd be wrong. They behave in vastly different ways (according to those who believe in them.) Most pagans, for example, don't believe in the divinity of Christ. There are some similarities of course. Christians pray. Pagans cast spells. They are virtually the same thing.

Roboramma

16th December 2007, 09:28 PM

Pardon? The God assertion says "God created the Universe, Life and all the rest. Oh - and prayers have a therapeutical effect on cardiac bypass patients"? I must have missed that last portion, I'm afraid.

Herzblut
If by God you mean "a being who answers prayers" then, yeah, it does include the last portion. If by god you don't mean that, then what exactly do you mean by "god"?

Mobyseven

16th December 2007, 10:31 PM

And now after weighing what I believe about my god with what your telling me about your dragon I decide they aren't the same god. My god is bigger and better so I no longer need to worry about that dragon. And yes - the point you're trying to make applies to Christian doctrines too.

Not true. Your god is no more than a figment of your imagination, whereas the dragon in my shed is very, very real, and the only god in existence. There are no gods that are 'bigger and better'.

This is the exact scenario you said you would take time to investigate, regardless of what science said. So why are you unwilling to make the pilgrimage to see the one true god for yourself and gaze upon his dragonian majesty?

I'll even let you off the hook for tithing until you have seen the dragon - only once you have investigated and found the truth out for yourself (that my dragon is the one true god), will I start demanding tithes for you to worship him.

-Fran-

16th December 2007, 11:08 PM

I'll even let you off the hook for tithing until you have seen the dragon - only once you have investigated and found the truth out for yourself (that my dragon is the one true god), will I start demanding tithes for you to worship him.

I would have demanded the tithing a bit earlier... but I'm in need of money ;)

Michael C

17th December 2007, 01:27 AM

Pardon? The God assertion says "God created the Universe, Life and all the rest. Oh - and prayers have a therapeutical effect on cardiac bypass patients"? I must have missed that last portion, I'm afraid.

The belief that God responds to prayers is an important part of most theist beliefs: examining this belief is thus part of the scientific examination of God's possible existence.

Maybe you'd like to explain why you consider that the question of God's existence is not examinable scientifically?

Henners

17th December 2007, 02:29 AM

...theology is not a pissing contest.

It's way more useless than that.

FireGarden

17th December 2007, 04:00 AM

FireGarden

17th December 2007, 04:06 AM

This is the exact scenario you said you would take time to investigate, regardless of what science said. So why are you unwilling to make the pilgrimage to see the one true god for yourself and gaze upon his dragonian majesty?

Because, while he is unwilling to listen to what science says, he is willing to listen to what theology says. And you, as Dragon theologist of the first order, have proved to him how small Sagan's Dragon is.

Did you mention the free piggy-back rides if you're a diligent worshipper?

Jekyll

17th December 2007, 05:16 AM

I don't think a god that is anything less is worth bothering about.

Wouldn't it make more sense to try to believe in the god that is most likely to be there, rather than using `bigness' as your criteria?

Dancing David

17th December 2007, 05:41 AM

Then I'd think their Goddess is the same as my God. No problem there.

For some pagans, yes. They just take thier normative values and translate them into a wierd sort of neopaganism.

here is what makes some modern paganism different. The dual tricycles and the mythological idea that gods age, die and are reborn. Now Christ is a variation of the Dying Gods.

But it is imporatnt to remember that Innanna dies, that the daughter becomes the mother, the mother the crone and the crone dies. Some pagans like to make some sort of happy disneyland out of the mythological landscape. They ignore the dark side of reality.

The brutatlity, the indifference, the pain and hatred. Strangely they should all be part of the pagan godhead as well. Kali-Durga is kirtled with human skulls and her ear rings are unborn dead babies.

Dancing David

17th December 2007, 05:44 AM

And you'd be wrong. They behave in vastly different ways (according to those who believe in them.) Most pagans, for example, don't believe in the divinity of Christ. There are some similarities of course. Christians pray. Pagans cast spells. They are virtually the same thing.

My religion, your cult.

Egg

17th December 2007, 06:47 AM

As does god... all gods. As does C.S. Lewis who declared that "pride is the worse sin of all"-- not torture, not genocide, not pedophilia, not rape, no scamming people-- but PRIDE. Was he speaking for god or pulling info. out of his ass? What sort of God thinks "pride" is the worst sin of all?

Theists can make anything make sense to themselves if it's attached to their god concept. Atheists can't make sense of any of it. The god concept fails from the get go. It never gets beyond the myth stage. And all the platitudes that you find deep and inspirational just sound vapid and childish and geared towards people who already believe.

So, because Lewis said something on an unrelated subject, which you disagree with, any argument he makes or any argument that borrows a quote from him must be illogical or false in some way? If you were consistent with that thinking, then wouldn't that also mean that you should dismiss Occam's razor, since I can't imagine you would agree with Occam's religious views?

Also why do you refer to yourself as "atheists"? If you don't understand something, then speak in the first person, unless you can demonstrate that your view is held by all atheists.

Are you suggesting my argument is merely platitudes or are you talking about something else entirely there? Maybe you're suggesting that because of what you assume I believe that any argument I might make should be dismissed as childish and vapid?

May I suggest that if you wish to reply to my posts that you address the arguments at hand and (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html) drop (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) the (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html) fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) lest (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html) by your own definition (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3248566&postcount=1615) you define yourself out of skepticism?

Were my answers to the rock question illogical or mistaken in some way?

ponderingturtle

17th December 2007, 08:13 AM

This is a little defensive - I can understand that. A few people have called you a "troll" and I don't really know why - the fact that you disagree with many people here and want to have a discussion about that doesn't make you a troll. In my opinion it makes you valuable to these forums.
But some of us really are interested in a genuine discussion.

I called him a troll because he seemed to be starting a bunch of broad threads and then ignoreing them. He seems to be somewhat reducing that, but he still is most interested in asking others about their beliefs but not presenting his.

ponderingturtle

17th December 2007, 08:18 AM

Tricky found some scientific evidence to disprove God -- the concept of God that Tricky believed in, anyway:

That was possible because, according to Tricky's former belief, the world would be different depending on whether God existed.

And, yes, the evidence offered is scientific.
The belief depended on observation, not whim.

Ah but Tricky's problem was defining god so that god does something.

Mobyseven

17th December 2007, 08:32 AM

So, because Lewis said something on an unrelated subject, which you disagree with, any argument he makes or any argument that borrows a quote from him must be illogical or false in some way?

To be fair though, Lewis was a fair douche. I don't think it would be too great a leap to say that if you rely on his arguments (which were, on the whole, just restatements of other peoples' worn ideas) you're likely to get your butt kicked in an argument.

If you were consistent with that thinking, then wouldn't that also mean that you should dismiss Occam's razor, since I can't imagine you would agree with Occam's religious views?

Occams' Razor was not created by Occam, it was simply named after him many years down the track. Of course, many (most) of Lewis' arguments were not original either, but if you reference him and not another person then you've still referenced Lewis. Using Occams' Razor doesn't force you to recognise Occams' viewpoint, it simply requires you to employ a heuristic philosophical tool.

Were my answers to the rock question illogical or mistaken in some way?

The idea that god is for some reason 'not constrained by logic' is profoundly unsatisfying, and fails to really address the question. The original question ("Could god create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it?") is not itself a nonsense question - humans create objects so heavy that they cannot be lifted by a human all the time. This is a serious issue if one is going to claim that their god is omnipotent - can an omnipotent being, theoretically at least, limit their own powers? If the answer is 'yes', then having created a limit to their powers, they are not omnipotent. If the answer is 'no', then the inability to limit one's power is in itself a limit to the power, and the god is once again not omnipotent.

An answer that amounts to, "God laughs at your petty logic," is not a particularly good answer, in other words.

I think there was more to your original answer than that, but I'm a bit tired right now. I just thought I'd address that bit (which I think you wrote) - if you didn't write it but were planning to, consider it preemptive criticism.

*Yawn* Bed time, methinks.

chippy

17th December 2007, 08:45 AM

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but science cannot prove OR disprove the existence of God. It cannot prove His existence because as others have mentioned, science can't even prove Newton's laws of motion or other laws of nature. It can certainly provide strong evidence, but it cannot PROVE his existence. And in the context of the Christian bible, there is a passage saying that you should not put God to the test. But if biblical passages make you uneasy, then just rely on the fact that if not even Newton's laws of motion can be proved, then we sure as hell can't prove God's existence.

And on the other hand, science cannot DISPROVE God's existence. You can prove that he didn't intervene in certain situations, but that doesn't prove that He didn't exist. If you didn't intervene when a parent yelled at her child over something really stupid and lame, does that mean that YOU don't exist? Maybe you didn't intervene because you wanted the child to learn to fend for himself rather than counting on the help of strangers! You can show that scientific phenomena such as evolution seem to contradict what is written in the bible, but that just shows that the bible shouldn't be interpreted literally. You could still say that the Old Testament is merely a book of parables that suggest how you should live your life in an acceptable way to God. If you conducted an experiment that provided strong evidence that a certain law of nature is most likely true, then the Christian would argue that this is just another facet of God's grand design.

These discussions are nothing but a giant waste of time. All they do is get people pissed off. I still haven't figured out why people devote themselves daily to forums where they just get pissed off. May I quote the film American History X: "life is too short to be pissed off all the time."

pgwenthold

17th December 2007, 08:53 AM

How would you react to an explanation that "well, you find this flower beautiful because it looks like these other things with which you have positive associations?"

Did anyone else immediately think of a Georgia OKeefe painting?

Henners

17th December 2007, 08:56 AM

These discussions are nothing but a giant waste of time.

No!

How can it possibly be a waste of time to disprove the existence of an imaginary being?

chippy

17th December 2007, 09:22 AM

No!

How can it possibly be a waste of time to disprove the existence of an imaginary being?
Because as I made it very clear in my post, you CANNOT disprove the existence of an imaginary being. There are always explanations for the facts you present. Evolution occurred rather than intelligent design? Then evolution is just another one of God's laws of nature in this intricate universe. Evolution contradicts the bible? Then the bible isn't literal; it's full of parables. God allowed the holocaust to happen? Then God simply doesn't have as much of an active role in our lives as we'd like to think. It's the price of free will which we can all exercise. You prayed for something and didn't get it? Because either free will is what made this happen, or God wanted to test you.

It doesn't matter what evidence you present. There is always an argument around it. ALWAYS.

Besides, how are you supposed to disprove God's existence to the entire world from the safe confines of a skeptics forum?

Henners

17th December 2007, 09:33 AM

It doesn't matter what evidence you present. There is always an argument around it. ALWAYS.

If a politician kept coming up with more and more extravagant excuses like that, though, you would know not to vote for them.

What makes religion different?

chippy

17th December 2007, 09:47 AM

If a politician kept coming up with more and more extravagant excuses like that, though, you would know not to vote for them.

What makes religion different?
Because it's not a person; it's an entire belief system followed by hundreds of millions of people. Between this ginormous population of Christians, at least one of them can come up with a reasonable explanation.

Dancing David

17th December 2007, 09:50 AM

Because as I made it very clear in my post, you CANNOT disprove the existence of an imaginary being. There are always explanations for the facts you present. Evolution occurred rather than intelligent design? Then evolution is just another one of God's laws of nature in this intricate universe. Evolution contradicts the bible? Then the bible isn't literal; it's full of parables. God allowed the holocaust to happen? Then God simply doesn't have as much of an active role in our lives as we'd like to think. It's the price of free will which we can all exercise. You prayed for something and didn't get it? Because either free will is what made this happen, or God wanted to test you.

It doesn't matter what evidence you present. There is always an argument around it. ALWAYS.

Besides, how are you supposed to disprove God's existence to the entire world from the safe confines of a skeptics forum?

The burden is on those who belive god exists. If they can control the confounding factors and demonstrate and effect, then they win.

Henners

17th December 2007, 09:51 AM

Because it's not a person; it's an entire belief system followed by hundreds of millions of people. Between this ginormous population of Christians, at least one of them can come up with a reasonable explanation.

Unless you are claiming that all those people can wish God into existence, I don't see what bearing that has on the matter.

ponderingturtle

17th December 2007, 09:51 AM

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but science cannot prove OR disprove the existence of God. It cannot prove His existence because as others have mentioned, science can't even prove Newton's laws of motion or other laws of nature.

It can not prove newtons laws, but it can prove that stuff falls down. And that when stuff falls down it always seems to follow rules similar to newtons.

Or are you really claiming that as an example Science can not prove that Iron exists?

ponderingturtle

17th December 2007, 09:52 AM

Because as I made it very clear in my post, you CANNOT disprove the existence of an imaginary being.

You went farther than that, you implied that you can not prove the existance of a real being either.

Henners

17th December 2007, 09:56 AM

Or are you really claiming that as an example Science can not prove that Iron exists?

Proving that real stuff exists is fairly easy.

Even if God exists, would God count as real?

If God is not real, does that make God imaginary?

Egg

17th December 2007, 09:59 AM

To be fair though, Lewis was a fair douche. I don't think it would be too great a leap to say that if you rely on his arguments (which were, on the whole, just restatements of other peoples' worn ideas) you're likely to get your butt kicked in an argument.
Your opinion of the man (which you are of course entitled to) has no bearing on whether a particular point he might have made is right or wrong. I'm not sure there could be a much better example of an ad hom. If I use a quote from someone as part of an argument, I would still expect to be judged on the merit of the argument, no matter who I quoted.

Occams' Razor was not created by Occam, it was simply named after him many years down the track. Of course, many (most) of Lewis' arguments were not original either, but if you reference him and not another person then you've still referenced Lewis. Using Occams' Razor doesn't force you to recognise Occams' viewpoint, it simply requires you to employ a heuristic philosophical tool.
How is accepting the use of Occam's razor, not recognising Occam's particular viewpoint on using that tool, (ie referencing him) unless you want to call it "Aristotle's rule of thumb" or something?

The idea that god is for some reason 'not constrained by logic' is profoundly unsatisfying, and fails to really address the question. The original question ("Could god create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it?") is not itself a nonsense question - humans create objects so heavy that they cannot be lifted by a human all the time. This is a serious issue if one is going to claim that their god is omnipotent - can an omnipotent being, theoretically at least, limit their own powers? If the answer is 'yes', then having created a limit to their powers, they are not omnipotent. If the answer is 'no', then the inability to limit one's power is in itself a limit to the power, and the god is once again not omnipotent.

The question is really one about the definition of "omnipotent" in regards to logic. I disagree about the question not being nonsense. Yes, humans create objects which they can't lift, but there is a limit to what they can lift. Something too heavy for a human can exist. Omnipotence assumes there is no such limit. Something too heavy for an omnipotent being cannot exist, therefore the question is really no different from asking "can an omnipotent being create A which is not A?" or "can an omnipotent being do something that logically can't be done?"

So, either omnipotence, by definition, does not include stepping outside the boundaries of logic, in which case we shouldn't expect it to with our propositions, or it can step outside of logic, in which case we can't then complain that it has become illogical and can't do that because it's logically impossible.

An answer that amounts to, "God laughs at your petty logic," is not a particularly good answer, in other words.

I think there was more to your original answer than that, but I'm a bit tired right now. I just thought I'd address that bit (which I think you wrote) - if you didn't write it but were planning to, consider it preemptive criticism.

*Yawn* Bed time, methinks.
Nope, that wasn't my argument.

Goodnight, Moby. Sleep well! :)

A Christian Sceptic

17th December 2007, 10:00 AM

The burden is on those who belive god exists. If they can control the confounding factors and demonstrate and effect, then they win.

I know many people are not going to like this statement but:

I think the burden on proof is on God, not his followers. Unless, and this is an important detail,unless those followers demand you believe. I might add this goes for people who also demand someone doesn't believe. Once you demand some belief from someone the burden of proof now shifts onto you.

I'm content letting God handle the proof. ;)

volatile

17th December 2007, 10:05 AM

I'm content letting God handle the proof. ;)

So why did you ask us why we don't believe in God? He's really not doing too well on his own...

Henners

17th December 2007, 10:13 AM

I'm content letting God handle the proof. ;)

He's been retreating into the wings these past 500 years.

I'm content to let him get on with it, too. And I'm not going to hold my breath.

Belz...

17th December 2007, 10:53 AM

And if you don't want me to misunderstand then make a statement that makes sense. Otherwise, my assumption that the first part of your statement meant my idea of god (since that's what we were talking about) and that the last part is irrelevant was correct.

Well, I'm sorry if you think that "In fact, the existence of a god would be contrary to the laws of physics we know, at least under several definitions of "god"." doesn't make sense.

GeeMack

17th December 2007, 11:08 AM

Because it's not a person; it's an entire belief system followed by hundreds of millions of people. Between this ginormous population of Christians, at least one of them can come up with a reasonable explanation.

Don't you find it interesting that nobody, out of all those hundreds of millions, has yet come up with a reasonable explanation? Don't you find it a little unsettling that nobody has ever been able to define the characteristics of a god in a way that can't easily be demonstrated contradictory or unlikely? Don't you think it's a sad commentary on the possibility of a real god that it must always be propped up by desperate ad hoc explanations and silly apologetics like those A Christian Sceptic must manufacture to make his imaginary pal bigger?

A Christian Sceptic

17th December 2007, 11:21 AM

Don't you find it interesting that nobody, out of all those hundreds of millions, has yet come up with a reasonable explanation? Don't you find it a little unsettling that nobody has ever been able to define the characteristics of a god in a way that can't easily be demonstrated contradictory or unlikely? Don't you think it's a sad commentary on the possibility of a real god that it must always be propped up by desperate ad hoc explanations and silly apologetics like those A Christian Sceptic must manufacture to make his imaginary pal bigger?

Apologetics? Is that what I'm doing? I've never tried to prove anything - that form of apologetics isn't anything I'm interested in. But if simply answering questions asked of me is taken as a defense of Christianity then I'm honored ... I guess.

Belz...

17th December 2007, 01:05 PM

No - his traits never shift - my understanding of them do.

I think what you meant is that "his traits never shift - I just make up stuff as I go."

Belz...

17th December 2007, 01:08 PM

Because as I made it very clear in my post, you CANNOT disprove the existence of an imaginary being.

Of course you can, provided your standard of evidence is "for all intends and purposes, and as far as we know" and not "100% absolutely".

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 01:36 AM

Apologetics? Is that what I'm doing? I've never tried to prove anything - that form of apologetics isn't anything I'm interested in. But if simply answering questions asked of me is taken as a defense of Christianity then I'm honored ... I guess.I can't speak to the apologetics issue but I can speak to the very closely related issue which is inherent in the "You can't DISprove God" position as a rationalization for believing in God. And yes, I am repeating myself, but so be it. In order to make the claim science cannot disprove God, you have to ignore real god beliefs and instead use science's built in loop holes.

Science (meaning people using the scientific process) does not seek to prove the negative. It assumes one would need an infinite number of tests to do so.

And science does not seek to test the untestable, that is things which are defined as being outside of the natural Universe. The usual things referred to as outside the natural Universe are things which existed before the Big Bang and things literally outside of the Universe. It's not hard to define gods and invisible pink unicorns as possibly existing outside of the natural Universe and therefore define them as untestable.

Science, however, doesn't go about solving problems in that way. Rather, one uses the scientific process to collect evidence and draw logical conclusions from that evidence. If I collect evidence about religious beliefs such as Christianity beliefs, I can come to a reasonable conclusion those beliefs are based on ancient myths concocted by a particular group of humans. And I can come to a reasonable conclusion that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion no real gods were involved in the establishment of the Christian religion or any other Biblical religions. There's even some pretty good evidence Jesus didn't exist any more than Hercules did. (See "The God Who Wasn't There" (http://www.thegodmovie.com/).)

That is how science addresses the god question. Not by defining a god which is not testable and proclaiming one cannot disprove the existence of gods. But rather, by following the evidence to a reasonable conclusion.

FireGarden

18th December 2007, 04:39 AM

Of course you can, provided your standard of evidence is "for all intends and purposes, and as far as we know" and not "100% absolutely".

Yes.
In law, they have the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt."

Belz...

18th December 2007, 05:29 AM

Well, I've never liked absolute burdens of proof. Solipsists have shown that the stupid can always ignore the most solid of evidence.

Mobyseven

18th December 2007, 06:36 AM

Your opinion of the man (which you are of course entitled to) has no bearing on whether a particular point he might have made is right or wrong. I'm not sure there could be a much better example of an ad hom. If I use a quote from someone as part of an argument, I would still expect to be judged on the merit of the argument, no matter who I quoted.

I agree that saying, "C.S. Lewis used that argument, therefore that argument is false," would be an ad hominem argument with a hidden premise (it is an implied premise that anything C.S. Lewis says is false).

What I was saying however was not that anything C.S. Lewis said was false, but instead that C.S. Lewis is known to have used a great number of faulty or fallacious arguments. This thread isn't really the place to get into a discussion on the details of that particular premise, but it does importantly change it from being an ad hominem argument to a valid inductive argument: Most of the arguments used by C.S. Lewis were incorrect; That argument [that you have used] was an argument used by C.S. Lewis; Therefore it is highly likely that that argument is incorrect.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

How is accepting the use of Occam's razor, not recognising Occam's particular viewpoint on using that tool, (ie referencing him) unless you want to call it "Aristotle's rule of thumb" or something?

Firstly, because it was not a heuristic device invented by Occam. Secondly, because the device is reasonably well defined in and of itself - it doesn't matter what we call it, we just happen to call it "Occam's Razor". Thirdly, there is nothing wrong in pointing out inconsistencies in a philosophical system - in order to justify his belief in the Christian god, Occam added a section to the device stating that anything proclaimed by a valid authority (i.e. The Church, the Bible, the Pope, etc.) was to be believed. We now recognise this as a fallacious argument from authority - but that doesn't mean the entire eponymous device needs to be thrown out with the isolated fallacy.

The question is really one about the definition of "omnipotent" in regards to logic. I disagree about the question not being nonsense. Yes, humans create objects which they can't lift, but there is a limit to what they can lift. Something too heavy for a human can exist. Omnipotence assumes there is no such limit. Something too heavy for an omnipotent being cannot exist, therefore the question is really no different from asking "can an omnipotent being create A which is not A?" or "can an omnipotent being do something that logically can't be done?"

So, either omnipotence, by definition, does not include stepping outside the boundaries of logic, in which case we shouldn't expect it to with our propositions, or it can step outside of logic, in which case we can't then complain that it has become illogical and can't do that because it's logically impossible.

Ah, I see where the disagreement is here. You view the omnipotence paradox as asking, "Can god create x, where x = ~x?" (Correct me if I'm incorrect in that interpretation, but it seems to be what you have written.)

I don't think that is the question at all. The question to me starts out with the general case: "Can an entity create an object that limits the entity's power?" I would argue that the answer to this is yes - humans can create objects too heavy for them to lift, or anchor themselves in place with handcuffs or some rope, thus demonstrating that this is a possibility in the general case.

The case then becomes specific: "Can an omnipotent entity create an object that limits that entity's power?" We have already established that this is possible in the general case - as such, this should be well within the power of an omnipotent entity. However, if it is within the power of that entity then it means there is a theoretical limit to the power of the entity, and the entity is therefore not omnipotent.

Because of this contradiction, the concept of an omnipotent entity is self-defeating: If you posit an omnipotent entity you must also logically be positing a limit to the power of that entity (as per above), and therefore the entity is not omnipotent. Douglas Adams would probably say that such an entity would, upon hearing of this paradox, disappear in a puff of logic, and I am more than happy to steal that Babelfish inspired line from him. :)

Nope, that wasn't my argument.

I see the misunderstanding now, yes. I have seen people argue the, "God laughs at your petty logic," line of non-reasoning before and I thought that was where you were headed. Of course, they tend to phrase things a bit differently. :p

Goodnight, Moby. Sleep well! :)

I will, hopefully. It's far too late again...it's always night when I get round to writing responses on the forums. Curse my different timezone!