Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[BjornTheCyborg]

Yes. In fact, they probably calculated the exact certainty they had that it would work and designed to ensure that it was better than 99%.

How does one calculate the exact certainty of something?

Yes.

Linda

So when you drive across a bridge you're ok with being "relatively certain" that it won't collapse?

[paximperium]

Interesting.

So all those physics formulas we use when engineering things like bridges and buildings were all discovered by scientists who were "relatively certain" that they would work.
Yes. A "formula" for a bridge may not be perfect but it is good enough at that level.

An engineer does not need to know the curved-space equations of gravity or the reaction of gluons and bosons at the sub-atomic level of steel. His formulas for building a bridge are "good enough".

[paximperium]

How does one calculate the exact certainty of something?
There are multiple different semi-formal and formal systems to do so. Bayesian Statistics is one such way.



So when you drive across a bridge you're ok with being "relatively certain" that it won't collapse?
Yes.
So when you fly on a plane are you 100% certain it won't crash?
When you walk towards the bathroom are you 100% certain you won't slip and fall?

[Beth]

How does one calculate the exact certainty of something?
With those physics formulas you referenced earlier and test data on the materials that were used to build the bridge.


So when you drive across a bridge you're ok with being "relatively certain" that it won't collapse?
Do I have any choice? I suppose I could just never set foot on a bridge ever, but that isn't very realistic.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think it's a reasonable assumption that if a universe were created by an intelligent designer, then the probability that it contains life is considerably higher than the odds currently given by the physicists for ours. If you don't agree, that's fine. As I said earlier, this is just my take on it.This is fitting the evidence to the conclusion.

You can say that god makes sense to you. But you cannot say there is any evidence for that because you've merely hypothesized what a god would do. And there is nothing to base your hypothesis on.

Complexity, rarity, & elegance are all qualities that say nothing about gods and designers.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm proposing a testable God. It's just not testable with today's technology (see above).It isn't our science necessarily that differs. You don't seem to be separating the ideas of imagination, contemplation, & proof, from the concept of following the evidence to the conclusion it supports.

I do believe that imagining a positron, however, was not based on myths about matter. I'm assuming it was based on hypothesizing something to explain some data that had been observed.

Could gods exist? Yes. But what does the evidence support? It supports the conclusion god myths are very common throughout the history of human populations. Why is that evidence not good enough or sufficient enough to apply to current god beliefs? What is stopping you from drawing a conclusion here?

Is there really any evidence suggesting there are mythical gods and real gods? Evidence, not wishful thinking or hypotheses, is sorely lacking. In fact, it is lacking to such an extent that untestable gods had to be hypothesized to continue to avoid drawing a conclusion about all the existing evidence revealing the mythical nature of god beliefs.

[Beth]

This is fitting the evidence to the conclusion. An interesting claim since I've specified I haven't come to any conclusion - I'm quite comfortable saying I don't know - and of the available hypotheses, the god hypothesis is not my preferred one.

You can say that god makes sense to you. But you cannot say there is any evidence for that because you've merely hypothesized what a god would do. And there is nothing to base your hypothesis on. We'll simply have to agree to disagree here. I've given you my reasoning. You are free to reject it. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right; I'm just sharing my opinion.

Complexity, rarity, & elegance are all qualities that say nothing about gods and designers.
I think you've confused me with someone else. I'm never claimed anything about complexity or elegance and all I claimed for rarity was that it indicated that random chance was not a likely explanation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

How uncertain are you that the Earth is flat? Use the traditional epistemic scale of 0 being logically impossible, and 1 being logically necessary.The uncertainty principle in science applies to theories, not observable facts. So you can be certain the Earth is not flat, but you can never say with absolute certainty the theory of gravity completely explains the shape of the Earth.

[fls]

How uncertain are you that the Earth is flat? Use the traditional epistemic scale of 0 being logically impossible, and 1 being logically necessary.

I'm not uncertain about whether the Earth is flat. Did you mean to ask me how certain I was? And when you say "logically impossible", what do you mean considering that the shape of the earth is a posteriori, rather than a priori knowledge?

Linda

[Skeptic Ginger]

Interesting.

So all those physics formulas we use when engineering things like bridges and buildings were all discovered by scientists who were "relatively certain" that they would work.Yes. And as evidence, I give you, Galloping Gertie.
P0Fi1VcbpAI

That would be that pesky .0001% of uncertainty in bridge design.

[Skeptic Ginger]

An interesting claim since I've specified I haven't come to any conclusion - I'm quite comfortable saying I don't know - and of the available hypotheses, the god hypothesis is not my preferred one. The conclusion I am speaking of here that you have drawn is that rarity supports god design. And I say rarity does not. Your agnosticism is another matter. I'm only saying here that there is no case for rarity being evidence of design or no design.


We'll simply have to agree to disagree here. I've given you my reasoning. You are free to reject it. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right; I'm just sharing my opinion.Which is why I enjoyed your company when you visited. :D

I think you've confused me with someone else. I'm never claimed anything about complexity or elegance and all I claimed for rarity was that it indicated that random chance was not a likely explanation.No, I merely added those two qualities because all three have come up between this and the related thread as the same argument supposedly supporting evidence of design. I said complexity and you clarified you were talking about rarity. The exact same reasoning applies to all three qualities of an item.

[Beth]

The conclusion I am speaking of here that you have drawn is that rarity supports god design. And I say rarity does not. You have misunderstood me then. What I have said is that rarity supports a hypothesis other than random chance. I also said a designer is one such hypothesis, but I did not mean to imply that rarity supported it specifically and only it.

Which is why I enjoyed your company when you visited. :D I'm glad you did! :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hey, you can pass if you're sick of this, but...



I'm sorry there was an obvious and unintended error in my post but I'll have to backtrack to show why it should have been obvious, and then to ask a question.

We are asking the question: does science have anything to say about the existence of god?
First, science can obviously have something to say about the theist god because, by definition, he interacts with nature.
Second, science can obviously also have something to say about the natural god being described here - the cargo cult god, the whole earth god - for the same reason.
But it seems science is having some difficulty having something to say about the non-interventionist deist god. I was trying to develop a scenario where science can have something to say about the deist god. Unfortunately that something turns out to be that the deist god is non-natural/supernatural.

If at some time in the future, science has a theory of everything excluding how something came from nothing, and if that situation had obtained for 10,000 years, would you not accept that natural explanations had been exhausted for that final unsolved puzzle? You said you would prefer it to remain as an unsolved puzzle but, isn't it true that, although it is indeed an unsolved puzzle, it is a puzzle for which there can be no natural explanation, all natural explanations having been exhasuted?

BJOK, now I see where you tried to go with this one. That leaves, no answer or a supernatural answer.

The problem here is I don't believe there is any evidence the supernatural exists. When something exists, it is no longer supernatural even if it is stranger than we could have imagined, even if it turned out to be a god being. So I'm still left with no answer and see your version as just making an answer up. As such, that answer would be meaningless.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, you are. Here are all the unstated premises (assumptions) that need to ALL be true for your hypothesis to work:


Assumption #1: That this has any bearing on other gods that may or may not be supported by evidence as myth. This is a fallacy of hasty generalisation. There may be gods that are not myths. Indeed, we know that there are- the C-47. The mammoth. The Universe. One can get around this fallacy by making another assumption-An assumption would precede the evidence. I am saying all gods looked at carefully turn out to be myths. One can draw a conclusion about uninvestigated gods because the evidence supports a consistent pattern. Have we looked at every single organism before concluding they all evolved? When you see a new tree species you've never seen before, can you usually recognize it is a tree or do you need to investigate each one to draw any conclusion about their treeness?

Assumption #2: All gods are have the same properties and the same qualities. ("god = supernatural") If this were true then we can make the conclusion that what holds true for one god holds true for another. Since there are claims about gods that do not require them to be supernatural, this is a fallacy of accident, another generalisation error. Same answer as above.


Assumption #3: Gods (like the C-47) for which clear evidence they exist is available are not "real gods".
Another fallacy, this time, the Scotsman. See Assumption #2.Regardless of how the C-47 was perceived, it was a natural object.

The 'No True Scotsman' is not applicable to evolution theory is it? Does it apply to recognizing a tree?

Evidence > Theory formed > Hypothesis formed in order to test theory > Hypothesis confirmed > Theory supported

That's all I'm saying here. I'm pointing out this evidence and conclusion are ignored. I am not saying someone shouldn't look at the evidence. I invite people to argue the evidence. What I object to is developing definitions of untestable gods and proclaiming one cannot prove gods don't exist.

I say, what does the evidence say about god beliefs and why is that the theory which must not be mentioned? If you really think the thousands of mythical gods still leaves room for one of those to be a real god, I say you are ignoring reality.

But if you want to ignore reality, go for it. PRESENT THE EVIDENCE REAL GODS EXIST. But don't tell me it is science that because I cannot prove a specially defined god doesn't exist this is evidence against the conclusion all god beliefs are myths.

Thinking that your premise #1 demonstrates this assumption is true is another fallacy, petitio principii:
Gods are myths if they are supernatural.
Gods are supernatural.
Therefore, gods are myths.This misconstrues the theory I presented.

Evidence for the theory > there is an observable pattern > there is no evidence supporting the conclusion there are two patterns here, real gods and imaginary gods

Assumption #4: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is the Negative Proof fallacy, a form of argument from ignorance.No no, now you are way off base. Can you prove you will never come across a plant that looks like a tree but turns out to be a fungus? Does that stop you from recognizing a tree when you see one?

THEORY!, Pisci, THEORY!!! Myths explain the evidence behind god beliefs.

Not, disprove gods exist.


So, the fact that there are mythic beliefs about something is not a valid test of that thing's existence, and has nothing to do with some other thing's existence. All the evidence debunking Bigfoot as a fairy tale has no bearing whatsoever on the Loch Ness monster.More far fetched stretching here. This makes you look desperate.


That's not why it is an invalid hypothesis. The hypothesis is invalid because it is logically flawed. It just. Does. Not. Work.

That's why the scientific community won't accept it, not because of politics, not because of some imaginary "double standard". It's not logical, SG.Lots of foot stamping here, not a lot of evidence supporting the conclusion god beliefs are not myths.


Look what I've done! It just dawned on me. This makes the person making the claims responsible for the evidence. PROVE GODS EXIST. I no longer have to prove they do not exist.

I'm happy to argue the theory based on the evidence. Prove gods exist. I have lots of evidence god myths exist.

Why does a god need to be a "magical being"?Because that is supposedly what makes it untestable in science which is what this is all about.

Do so, but don't do it riddled with fallacy and error. I haven't.

Whatever it has to say about Thor, Pele, Mars, Zeus, Venus, Aphrodite applies only to Thor, Pele, Mars, Zeus, Venus, Aphrodite. And you can't come to any conclusions about Pele because science says Thor doesn't cause lightning.See first answer above.


God myths are not gods.Of course they are not. That's the point. No evidence of gods, only evidence of god myths.


Yes. We know that people make up things about real entities, so having a myth made up about sonthing is no test of its existence. New York Does not cease to be real because of "When Harry Met Sally". Socrates and Lincoln are not myths because of "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure".See first answer above.


Um, I'm the one saying all gods are different, you know. Do pay attention.See first answer regarding patterns. Anthropology has a lot to say about the human trait of developing god myths.


But that says nothing about the existence of gods.If all god beliefs are imaginary and there is no evidence real gods interacted with people resulting in god beliefs, ..... you take it from there.


And if one defines a god, we can use the scientific process to investigate that god. But the definitions of "beauty" and "god" may be- and very likely are- different for someone else.

All the rest is false dichotomy- the only oprions are not "your hypothesis" or "magic".


Irrelevant. I do not have to prove the converse of your hypothesis to be true in order for your hypothesis to be logically invalid. That's the Negative Proof Fallacy again.


Becuase you are using a faulty argument to come to a conclusion that is unwarranted. That I happen to agree with the conclusion is irrelevant. A bad argument is a bad argument, and it's not science, it's not skepticism, and it's dangerous and misleading.This just all runs on in the same theme. See the first answer above.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have misunderstood me then. What I have said is that rarity supports a hypothesis other than random chance. No, it does not. P values only apply when you compare frequency of a baseline to frequency after applying the change.

I'm telling you that you've misinterpreted what is meant by probability in the research example you are thinking of.

There is absolute rarity here and relative rarity. The research you noted only looks at relative rarity and you are trying to apply absolute rarity.

You're an engineer and I'm pretty sure you understand the math. Take a look at the formula to get the probability you are referring to. You will see it compares baseline to the study condition. How rare something is means nothing. The comparison with and without is the only way those P values are calculated.

Look at a Bell curve. It has tails. The tails represent rarity. But unless you compare something, to the distribution curve which occurs without the thing, by looking at where the something falls on the curve, the tails don't imply anything other than how something's values are distributed.

Hologram universe conditions are supposedly just right and scientists are amazed the Universe looks this way.

Our universe hypothetically falls in the tail of a distribution curve of universe compositions.

First, we have no way of really knowing how rare this is because we don't have a distribution curve of universes.

But say we did. Now you need to know how often a god creates a hologram universe vs how often a hologram universe is created without a god.

That is also completely unknown. You simply can't get a p value from this data.



I'm glad you did! :D:D Summer's coming and they've put new trails in the park.

[Malerin]

I'm not uncertain about whether the Earth is flat. Did you mean to ask me how certain I was?

How certain are you that the Earth is not flat? Give me a value between 0 and 1.

And when you say "logically impossible", what do you mean considering that the shape of the earth is a posteriori, rather than a priori knowledge?

Linda

I mean logically impossible. It is possible the Eath is flat, round, donut-shaped, etc.

[Malerin]

The uncertainty principle in science applies to theories, not observable facts. So you can be certain the Earth is not flat, but you can never say with absolute certainty the theory of gravity completely explains the shape of the Earth.

Uncertainty (or certainty) applies to everything that is a proposition that attempts to describe reality. "The Earth is flat" is such a proposition. We can assign an espisetmic value to it between 0 and 1.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Uncertainty (or certainty) applies to everything that is a proposition that attempts to describe reality. "The Earth is flat" is such a proposition. We can assign an espisetmic value to it between 0 and 1.Here, I've found a good discussion of the issue of certainty in science.

Facts Are Well-Confirmed Observations (http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Fact.html)This point troubles people - sometimes a lot. Aren't facts things that we know to be absolutely true? Isn't that the meaning of "fact"? Well, it is the common conception of the word, but let's think about this...

Can a Fact Be Wrong?

YES!! Can "many competent observers" be wrong? Of course! For instance, according to the definition of "fact":

* At about the same time, it was a fact that the sun orbited the earth. Ask any 15th century astronomer!
[more examples are listed]

How can we know that something is absolutely true? Nature has no answer book (as far as I know) that we can look in to "check our answers" - like we commonly check our assignments in school.

About all we can do, as rational beings, is make the best observations that we can, and try to ensure that competent observers confirm the observations. A fact is a well-confirmed observation(emphasis mine)

[ThatSoundAgain]

No, you don't have to make that particular assumption. I've seen one physicist say that what our universe appears to be fine-tuned to create is black holes. It seems that for the majority of possible values of the various constants that physicists feel are possible end up with uninteresting universes composed of nothing but clouds of dust. So we need only assume that an intelligent creator prefers universes full of clumps of matter that give rise to interesting phenomena like like planets, stars, galaxies, black holes, etc. I don't find that to be an unreasonable assumption. At least, I don't find it any more unreasonable than the assumption that there exist trillions of other universes and by chance alone at least one has the values that ours does so that life can emerge.

Again, I disagree with this. You're still imposing a value judgement, namely calling it "interesting". While your phrasing may sound less self-centered than saying that the universe is very special because of humanity, there's no reason to think that the human concept of "interesting" has any meaning in this context.

That the universe seems immensely interesting and marvelous to its inhabitants is great. It is also not surprising. I'm sure you're familiar with the puddle analogy.

Oh, and there are other options than parallel or designed - one universe serially crunching / inflating, for instance. There's also the possibility that the physical forces are interdependent and balance out.

The point is, we have this one data point. Applying the very human tendency to see intent is a logical short-circuit. You're thinking of intelligence based on the kind we know and creating further problems without really explaining anything. Like, what sort of universe does the designer inhabit, and where did that come from?

[BillyJoe]

I think I misunderstood your intent. I think that we are actually working to the same goal (based on your other posts as well). I agree that it is possible to discover barriers to knowledge - the Uncertainty Principle as an example. And that it would be reasonable to attempt to use that information to say something about just what it is that is beyond the reach of Naturalism.I realize that you weren't necessarily saying only 10,000 years. The spirit of the idea is that the time that passes is excessive compared to the length of time in which we expect to make discoveries. And that maybe conclusions could be drawn from that. I agree.Okay. And that is my intent as well. We agree. :)

No. That is the point of Bell's Theorem. It indicates that there is nothing that can be used to figure out what will exist next. Nothing underlies the choice of which value the particle takes....oops! :(

But I said the probability of what will exist next. I agree that what exists next cannot be determined, but the probability wave of what will exist next is determined by what comes before (I'm pretty sure that is correct).

That's the beauty of my idea. :) It's a property that must be present (any asymmetry would make it not Nothing), so it's a way to say something about Nothing. I guess you are telling me what phyicists have to say about Nothing?
But, then, is Nothing black or white?
Surely Nothing means the absence of any properties?

scientific inquiry and tentative conclusions proceed even in the absence of exhaustive searches. The extent to which our knowledge is complete is built into our assumptions. Incompleteness does not serve as a barrier that prevents us from attempting to form [tentative] conclusions.Yes (we agree again :) ), which puts the question of gods within the scope of science. In other words, science certainly has something to say about the existence of gods. And those disclaimers must be an exercise in political correctness or cognitive dissonance.

BJ

[BillyJoe]

OK, now I see where you tried to go with this one.
Well, I am still trying :(

That leaves, no answer or a supernatural answer.Well, I am trying for an answer or explanation that is not natural (all natural explanations having being exhausted)

The problem here is I don't believe there is any evidence the supernatural exists. Same.

When something exists, it is no longer supernatural even if it is stranger than we could have imagined, even if it turned out to be a god being. And, if all natural explanations have been exhausted and still we have no answer to the final question: how something came from nothing?

So I'm still left with no answer and see your version as just making an answer up. As such, that answer would be meaningless.But that's not the question I asked...

"If at some time in the future, science has a theory of everything excluding how something came from nothing, and if that situation had obtained for 10,000 years, would you not accept that natural explanations had been exhausted for that final unsolved puzzle? You said you would prefer it to remain as an unsolved puzzle but, isn't it true that, although it is indeed an unsolved puzzle, it is a puzzle for which there can be no natural explanation, all natural explanations having been exhasuted?"

Sure we have no answer (or explanation), because we can only have natural explanations and all natural explanations have been exhausted. So, yes, we have "no answer' but we can say that, whatever the answer or explanation is, it cannot be a natural explanation.

BJ

[Skeptic Ginger]

BJ, here are the choices:

Natural
Unnatural
No answer

You keep wanting there to be only two choices, but I see three. It's a different perspective on the world. You cannot convince me because I don't have the same perspective you are trying to pigeon hole me into.

I see a supernatural explanation in your scenario as a nonsensical answer, not as a logical, that's all that is left answer.

In your scenario, you have no more natural explanations left.

In my scenario, if there is evidence it is natural, if there is no evidence then you might as well say the dust bunnies created the universe out of Jack in the Bean Stock's golden eggs. God did it is the equivalent. It's not an answer, it is a made up explanation.

[BillyJoe]

BjornTheCyborg,

If science were uncertain about all it's conclusions then we would be unable to apply any of what we learn in a practical manner.

Newtons mathematics has been shown to be uncertain, yet you couldn't say that science has been unable to apply Newtonian mathematics in a practical manner.

[BillyJoe]

Beth,

What I have said is that rarity supports a hypothesis other than random chance.

If you keep tossing a coin for long enough, you will end up with that rare run of a hundred heads in a row and it will have appeared by random chance.

BJ

[Beth]

No, it does not. P values only apply when you compare frequency of a baseline to frequency after applying the change.

We've already been over this. I responded to this objection back in post 226.

:D Summer's coming and they've put new trails in the park.

I'm sure they are absolute beautiful, but I don't think I'll make it up to the northwest this year. Maybe in 2010?

[Beth]

Beth,



If you keep tossing a coin for long enough, you will end up with that rare run of a hundred heads in a row and it will have appeared by random chance.

BJ

I'm aware of that. In our discussion, this requires a vast multitude of universes. This is what is referred to as the 'multiverse' theory. Or, as Thatsoundagain points out, an infinite cycle of universe. I agree that those are also reasonable hypotheses.

[Beth]

Again, I disagree with this. You're still imposing a value judgement, namely calling it "interesting". While your phrasing may sound less self-centered than saying that the universe is very special because of humanity, there's no reason to think that the human concept of "interesting" has any meaning in this context.

That the universe seems immensely interesting and marvelous to its inhabitants is great. It is also not surprising. I'm sure you're familiar with the puddle analogy.

Oh, and there are other options than parallel or designed - one universe serially crunching / inflating, for instance. There's also the possibility that the physical forces are interdependent and balance out.

The point is, we have this one data point. Applying the very human tendency to see intent is a logical short-circuit. You're thinking of intelligence based on the kind we know and creating further problems without really explaining anything. Like, what sort of universe does the designer inhabit, and where did that come from?


I don't disagree with most of what you've said, but I'm quite comfortable with the assumption that a designed universe is more likely to produce life than the probabilities the physicists currently give for such universes appearing by random chance alone.

If you're not comfortable with that assumption, that's okay. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. I'm just sharing my viewpoint on the matter.

[fls]

How certain are you that the Earth is not flat? Give me a value between 0 and 1.

0.0236

I mean logically impossible. It is possible the Eath is flat, round, donut-shaped, etc.

Okay, but your question seems to have nothing to do with what I have been talking about.

Linda

[Ryan O'Dine]

It isn't our science necessarily that differs. You don't seem to be separating the ideas of imagination, contemplation, & proof, from the concept of following the evidence to the conclusion it supports.

Why separate out the messy parts of science – the imagination, the contemplation, the wild-ass speculation? It's all integral.

I do believe that imagining a positron, however, was not based on myths about matter. I'm assuming it was based on hypothesizing something to explain some data that had been observed.
Positrons were not proposed to explain anything, least of all an actual observation. The Schroedinger wave equation gave a square root in the result – meaning a “plus or minus” was involved. Every other physicist said, “the minus can't relate to anything physical, therefore it doesn't mean anything.” Dirac, for no good reason, said, “what if...”

de Broglie's matter waves weren't even based on an equation. He said, “if energy can be particles, what if...”

When Kip Thorne proposed wormholes, do you know what sparked the physics? His buddy, Carl Sagan, was writing a sci-fi novel and needed a plot device for transporting his character over vast distances in a short time. Since then, wormhole theories have been published in peer reviewed journals.

God is a wormhole in the novel of religion. Because it's based on fiction, and there's no observation requiring it, does not mean science should stop considering the possibilities. And considering possibilities, however far out, does not a double standard make.

Could gods exist? Yes. But what does the evidence support? It supports the conclusion god myths are very common throughout the history of human populations. Why is that evidence not good enough or sufficient enough to apply to current god beliefs? What is stopping you from drawing a conclusion here?
The conclusion I draw is that God is not required to explain anything, and all gods defined by religion are fictional. The conclusion I do NOT draw is that science has a double standard because in spite of everything, it's willing to entertain notions of God.

Have I not, in this thread, given an example of a god that falls outside the only two god categories you seem to be considering? My God of the Self-Aware Universe is:

a) Not mythological; and,
b) Not untestable

Ultimately, I don't think you and I have different ideas about God. I think we have different ideas about science, and what makes for a double standard.

Is there really any [B]evidence suggesting there are mythical gods and real gods? Evidence, not wishful thinking or hypotheses, is sorely lacking.

Calling it “wishful thinking” is poisoning the well. Calling it hypothesizing is better. It may be a crazy hypothesis, it may have no evidence for it, it may be unnecessary. But so were wormholes. So were matter waves. So were many things.

[Ryan O'Dine]

The uncertainty principle in science applies to theories, not observable facts. So you can be certain the Earth is not flat, but you can never say with absolute certainty the theory of gravity completely explains the shape of the Earth.

A minor quibble. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (ETA: if that's what you're referring to?) applies to observable facts, not theories. It says -- in part and very roughly -- you cannot measure both the position and momentum of an object to arbitrary precision.

[fls]

But I said the probability of what will exist next. I agree that what exists next cannot be determined, but the probability wave of what will exist next is determined by what comes before (I'm pretty sure that is correct).

(That is my understanding as well.)

I'm not saying that you must view it as 'something from nothing'. I'm just saying that it is possible to consider it in that light, so that if someone wondered how Science behaves when faced with the idea, they could see that it doesn't give up and declare something supernatural. It continues to attack the idea and that attack can elicit results.

I guess you are telling me what phyicists have to say about Nothing?

It seems that way to me. I hope so, anyway. I figure if I'm the only one with a particular idea, rather than evidence of my brilliance, it's probably evidence that the idea isn't very good. :)

But, then, is Nothing black or white?
Surely Nothing means the absence of any properties?

Which is another way to describe symmetry.

Linda

[Malerin]

0.0236

You think there's only a 2% chance the Earth is NOT flat?



Okay, but your question seems to have nothing to do with what I have been talking about.

Linda

There was a discussion about certainity and science.

[fls]

You think there's only a 2% chance the Earth is NOT flat?

There's a 2% chance that it would be logically impossible for the earth to be flat.

There was a discussion about certainity and science.

But the certainty in science is not about logical possibilities, but about empirical possibilities.

Linda

[Herzblut]

You are looking for a definition of natural, HZ, not evidence of a claim. At least try to make the question relevant.
Provide examples in the history of science where a phenomenon has been explained by "magical powers".

The only event I can remember ad hoc is Uri Geller, being investigated by some US University a few decades ago. But to be honest, being tricked by that bloke I don't regard as a crowning moment of scientific research.

[ThatSoundAgain]

I don't disagree with most of what you've said, but I'm quite comfortable with the assumption that a designed universe is more likely to produce life than the probabilities the physicists currently give for such universes appearing by random chance alone.

If you're not comfortable with that assumption, that's okay. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. I'm just sharing my viewpoint on the matter.

Beth, me too. This exchange is as much an opportunity to clarify for myself what I think. If I come across as dry, it's a result of trying for precision in a second language.

[BillyJoe]

I'm aware of that. In our discussion, this requires a vast multitude of universes. This is what is referred to as the 'multiverse' theory. Or, as Thatsoundagain points out, an infinite cycle of universe. I agree that those are also reasonable hypotheses.

So then I don't understand why you said that rarity supports an hypothesis other than random chance.
A person's chance of winning Lotto is close to zero, yet some person wins it every week by random chance.

[BillyJoe]

My God of the Self-Aware Universe is:

a) Not mythological; and,
b) Not untestable

But do you agree that science certainly has something to say about the Self-Aware Universe god? For example, such a god must be a product of nature, a product of evolution. Such a god has no bearing on the question of morals, the question of an afterlife.

And, without a multiverse, such a god would be a lonely, self-absorbed, pitiable creature. :(

[BillyJoe]

(That is my understanding as well.)

I'm not saying that you must view it as 'something from nothing'. I'm just saying that it is possible to consider it in that light, so that if someone wondered how Science behaves when faced with the idea, they could see that it doesn't give up and declare something supernatural. It continues to attack the idea and that attack can elicit results.

Okay, but I think that absence of a probability wave in the something from Nothing scenario is a big problem for science because nothing in the natural world that we know of provides an example of that.

It seems that way to me. I hope so, anyway. I figure if I'm the only one with a particular idea, rather than evidence of my brilliance, it's probably evidence that the idea isn't very good. :)

Point taken. :)

Which is another way to describe symmetry.

Around the mulberry bush. :(
But, before there were scientists and science, there was Nothing. Too bad he's not around to stick up for himself. :D

BJ

[Beth]

So then I don't understand why you said that rarity supports an hypothesis other than random chance.
Because that's the criteria by which we reject the hypothesis of random chance. If an observation or set of observations has a sufficiently low probability, the null hypothesis of random chance deviation is rejected.

A person's chance of winning Lotto is close to zero, yet some person wins it every week by random chance. Does that make buying a lottery ticket a good bet?

The random chance hypothesis can be rescued by presuming a very very large or an infinite set of universes. Since intelligent life will only appear in universes conducive to their development, we can then assume our universe is simply that rare universe that supports life evolving. That hypothesis works, but the assumption of a multiverse is, at least IMO, no less fantastic an assumption than that of an intelligent designer.

[fls]

Okay, but I think that absence of a probability wave in the something from Nothing scenario is a big problem for science because nothing in the natural world that we know of provides an example of that.

How would we know?

Around the mulberry bush. :(

Are you interested in some book recommendations?

Linda

[tsig]

Here's the reasoning: if the odds of a life-permitting universe occuring by chance are 1 in ten trillion trillion trillion, there are only two rational explanations: Either there are a lot of actual universes out there, or something fine-tuned ours to be life-permitting. Believing we just got lucky would be on par with believing a coin that flips heads 100 times in a row is a fair coin.

The odds that we are here is 1/1 therefore the odds that the universe would support life is 1/1.

[tsig]

The complexity has nothing to do with it. Nature has evolved far more complex designs than we humans have yet managed. We're also pretty good at designing simple things like arrowheads and paperclips. Extreme rarity OTOH is considered a good indication that the 'random chance' explanation is not a good fit.

The designer hypothesis comes into play because I find it a startling coincidence that not only are the physical constants of our universe seemingly precisely tuned, but they may also be precisely tuned to the exact values that an intelligent designer might choose for creating a holographic simulation.

If you don't find that a startling coincidence and do not consider that to be evidence supporting the hypothesis of a designer, that's okay. I'm not going to argue the point. The theory is unproven at this stage and even if true, other explanations are possible. That's simply my take on it.

I find it odd that god always uses cutting edge human technology.

[Malerin]

There's a 2% chance that it would be logically impossible for the earth to be flat.

How is a proposition possibly logically impossible? That would mean there are possible worlds where there are no possible worlds where the proposition is true. I guess if you didn't understand a proposition you could say it might be logically impossible ("All emeralds are grue" may be logically impossible depending on what "grue" means).

But that's not the case with "The Earth is flat". That is easily understood and there are possible worlds (in the modal sense) where the Earth is flat (a flat Earth does not involve any logical contradictions). Therefore, "the Earth is flat" is not logically impossible. Do you still believe it's 98% likely the Earth is not flat? Is that how "certain" you are?



But the certainty in science is not about logical possibilities, but about empirical possibilities.

Linda

Which is to say that any claim made by science can be given an epistemic value reflecting the degree to which a person believes the claim corresponds to reality.

[tsig]

I think it's a reasonable assumption that if a universe were created by an intelligent designer, then the probability that it contains life is considerably higher than the odds currently given by the physicists for ours. If you don't agree, that's fine. As I said earlier, this is just my take on it.

Why would the designer favor life over non-life? Maybe he's running a big chem experiment and we are just chance contaminants.

[Ryan O'Dine]

But do you agree that science certainly has something to say about the Self-Aware Universe god? For example, such a god must be a product of nature, a product of evolution.

Absolutely my point. That you can define a god that has such material properties.

Such a god has no bearing on the question of morals, the question of an afterlife.
Well... unless his massive, universe-sized brain gives him insights into such things that us puny earthlings haven't yet fathomed.

And, without a multiverse, such a god would be a lonely, self-absorbed, pitiable creature. :(

:D possibly. Or maybe his gigantic brain is company enough.

[Ryan O'Dine]

The random chance hypothesis can be rescued by presuming a very very large or an infinite set of universes. Since intelligent life will only appear in universes conducive to their development, we can then assume our universe is simply that rare universe that supports life evolving. That hypothesis works, but the assumption of a multiverse is, at least IMO, no less fantastic an assumption than that of an intelligent designer.

I'm going to jump in here to say that a multiverse has the advantage that it can be mathematically modeled. In fact, in some interpretations of accepted theory, it falls out naturally.

The same cannot be said of an intelligent designer.

[fls]

How is a proposition possibly logically impossible? That would mean there are possible worlds where there are no possible worlds where the proposition is true. I guess if you didn't understand a proposition you could say it might be logically impossible ("All emeralds are grue" may be logically impossible depending on what "grue" means).

But that's not the case with "The Earth is flat". That is easily understood and there are possible worlds (in the modal sense) where the Earth is flat (a flat Earth does not involve any logical contradictions). Therefore, "the Earth is flat" is not logically impossible. Do you still believe it's 98% likely the Earth is not flat? Is that how "certain" you are?

You forgot about the smartass factor. :)

Which is to say that any claim made by science can be given an epistemic value reflecting the degree to which a person believes the claim corresponds to reality.

Which seems to have nothing to do with what you asked or said above.

Linda

[Beth]

I'm going to jump in here to say that a multiverse has the advantage that it can be mathematically modeled. In fact, in some interpretations of accepted theory, it falls out naturally.

The same cannot be said of an intelligent designer.

I find them the same in that neither has any empirical evidence to support it. The designer hypothesis has a few advantages as well :D. My preferred hypothesis is that physicists will someday discover a reason that the constants are constrained to the values they have. But that's just "the we don't know" answer.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Why would the designer favor life over non-life? Maybe he's running a big chem experiment and we are just chance contaminants.

Yes, or we're living in a misconfigured random number generator that someone forgot to switch off. Or that produces results that are "good enough" for the application it's feeding.

[Skeptic Ginger]

A minor quibble. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (ETA: if that's what you're referring to?) applies to observable facts, not theories. It says -- in part and very roughly -- you cannot measure both the position and momentum of an object to arbitrary precision.I know the difference between the uncertainty principle and the uncertainty in scientific language I speak of.

I am referring to the problem science has communicating the uncertainty language to the lay public. Like Malerin here is having a hard time with the concept, facts remain uncertain in science.

Here's what I've been saying on this subject for quite some time. I wrote this comment replying to Mike the Mad Biologist's entry, I'm on the Fence Regarding Sciencedebate 2008 (http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2007/12/im_on_the_fence_regarding_scie.php)Even bringing up the topic in scientific circles creates a backlash. There is a mistaken belief that persuasion connotates deceit. When I mention the problem of the anti-science crowd and to quote Rick Piltz, its "predatory relationship to the uncertainty language of science"**, I get a backlash of arguments about proof and theories which misses the point. You don't have to speak inaccurately about scientific concepts to close the door to those predators.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why separate out the messy parts of science – the imagination, the contemplation, the wild-ass speculation? It's all integral.Um, because the thread is about the specific issue of overusing the "can't prove gods" and underusing the "evidence for gods being invented by humans".

You seem to be ignoring the discussion in favor of your unrelated one.


...

God is a wormhole in the novel of religion. Because it's based on fiction, and there's no observation requiring it, does not mean science should stop considering the possibilities. And considering possibilities, however far out, does not a double standard make.Considering the possibilities is not what I'm talking about here and if you weren't off on your own discussion you might have noticed that.

Earth to Ryan: I am talking about claiming science does not deal with god beliefs because gods are outside the realm of science. In your contemplating, they are not.

The conclusion I draw is that God is not required to explain anything, and all gods defined by religion are fictional. The conclusion I do NOT draw is that science has a double standard because in spite of everything, it's willing to entertain notions of God.(emphasis mine)

Earth to Ryan: I am talking about claiming science does not deal with god beliefs because gods are outside the realm of science. What you've just said is the polar opposite!

Have I not, in this thread, given an example of a god that falls outside the only two god categories you seem to be considering? My God of the Self-Aware Universe is:

a) Not mythological; and,
b) Not untestable

Ultimately, I don't think you and I have different ideas about God. I think we have different ideas about science, and what makes for a double standard.

Earth to Ryan: No one is objecting to testable god hypotheses here.

Calling it “wishful thinking” is poisoning the well. Calling it hypothesizing is better. It may be a crazy hypothesis, it may have no evidence for it, it may be unnecessary. But so were wormholes. So were matter waves. So were many things.Wishful thinking is claiming gods exist and ignoring the evidence which says only that god myths exist.

You are off on your own discussion and think people are objecting to things they are not debating.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....There was a discussion about certainity and science.And you apparently ignored what I posted about the certainty concept in science. If you ignore the post that addresses your problem, that indicates you may not want to learn anything new.

Let me try again before I assume that is correct.

I've found a good discussion of the issue of certainty of facts in science. These are common definitions in science. We all use them. That's called the scientific process.

Facts Are Well-Confirmed Observations (http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Fact.html)This point troubles people - sometimes a lot. Aren't facts things that we know to be absolutely true? Isn't that the meaning of "fact"? Well, it is the common conception of the word, but let's think about this...

Can a Fact Be Wrong?

YES!! Can "many competent observers" be wrong? Of course! For instance, according to the definition of "fact":

# At about the same time, it was a fact that the sun orbited the earth. Ask any 15th century astronomer!
# A little over a century ago, it was a fact that disease was caused by "bad blood". Therefore, the most common treatment for illness was bloodletting. If you were ill, your doctor (or barber, who treated a lot of illness at the time...) would open a vein in your arm in order to drain out the "bad blood". This was just as common as prescribing antibiotics today!
# At one time, it was a fact that major calamities were caused by the stars. In fact, the word "disaster" comes from the roots "dis", meaning bad, and "aster" meaning star. Any competent adviser would advise you to consult the stars before any major undertaking!
# In 1491, it was a fact that the earth was flat. If you asked any competent scientist, sailor, or map maker in 1491 - they would tell you that the earth was flat!
(Note: Actually, this isn't true - many, if not most, of the competent scientists of antiquity knew that the Earth wasn't flat. The Alexandrian Greek Eratosthenes made an ingenious calculation of the circumference of the Earth, for instance. However, it is a fact that most modern physics students believe that everyone before Columbus thought that the Earth was flat, so it makes a really convincing example, nonetheless! For more information on the flat earth idea, check out this article. (Link furnished by Chase Harwell))

How can we know that something is absolutely true? Nature has no answer book (as far as I know) that we can look in to "check our answers" - like we commonly check our assignments in school.

About all we can do, as rational beings, is make the best observations that we can, and try to ensure that competent observers confirm the observations. A fact is a well-confirmed observation(emphasis mine)

The point is science is always open to the possibility new information may change the certainty of an old fact. Are all facts that uncertain? No, but the principle is to treat all facts the same. It is possible new discoveries will change current conclusions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Provide examples in the history of science where a phenomenon has been explained by "magical powers".

The only event I can remember ad hoc is Uri Geller, ....Are you serious? The roots of science all began with magic explaining everything that was not understood. This evolved erratically into modern science. Only in the last 100 years has the real essence of the scientific process developed uniformly across most scientific fields.

Astrology was long considered a science. Was there a mechanism for the effect of the planets and stars on people?

[babbits]

Could we define a 'true' god as factor x that we hypothesize to 'explain' the unknown cause?

Let's take Jehovah as our first model.

Some of us personalize it, and ascribe all sorts of human attributes to it -- literally creating god in man's image. We can infer the the attributes of power and wisdom came from the notion of the ideal, strong but wise chief/king; but we also infer that such a being would make a very dangerous enemy. So we find out how to please it.

That's why the first commandments are how not to piss it off. Only secondarily do we have a list of common sense rules for co-operative living.

It not only created the universe, but also accounts for all unexplained biological phenomena. It follows that it controls our crops, the animals, diseases, reproduction, -- and the fate of our tribe.

Other cultures have found it hard to ascribe all the faces of the natural world to just one god. How could the loving protective nature of the parent birds toward the nestlings co-exist with the indifferent cruelty seen in nature? So, one god is a thunderer and another in charge of the crops. That version has fewer inherent contradictions -- but also less elegance.

But as science grows in knowledge and power, the god's role shrinks. A theist will pray at the bedside of a child, but he/she will also administer modern drugs. And if that theist forgets one measure, odds are it will be the prayer.

Superstitious dread may have a survival value -- for the tribe, certainly not for the individual. But it would encourage the survival of our genes, via our closest relatives. It would unify the tribe, and lead to the acceptance of authority. (Just as god is based on the model of the tribal chief, the tribal chief takes his authority from the god.)

So it's not sufficient that most people ascribe the cause of mysteries to the god. There must also be an almost panicky need for the god to exist. So the impersonal deist-god, sort of a creative clockwork, has not nearly the emotional appeal that a loving, attentive, strict but fair, enemy-smiting personal god has.

The personal god is only relinquished with reluctant trepidation. "Existential angst"? How now to rationalize the unknown?

As for those who don't have the god-gene, they are in the minority. And if they get too loud in their protests against the 'wasteful' killing of so many young animals for sacrifice, well, maybe it's best to just snuff them, too. Don't want to irritate IT, and risk vengeance against the entire tribe. Which probably explains why atheists are in the minority.

So I don't think the god(s) will go away soon. Not as long as there's any genuine mystery about the natural world, and the fearful need not to offend it.

And given our intellectual limitations, being the product of evolution in an environment in which we could survive with the minimum 4-dimensional model, the mystery may never go away -- for humans.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm trying hard to relate your comments to the thread topic, babbits. It isn't happening.

[Herzblut]

Are you serious? The roots of science all began with magic explaining everything that was not understood. This evolved erratically into modern science. Only in the last 100 years has the real essence of the scientific process developed uniformly across most scientific fields.

Oh. You want to prefix your fascinating claim that science would credit you with "magical powers" if the "evidence" led it there with ..eh.. "If I lived centuries ago"?

Astrology was long considered a science.
You have the funny habit of justifying one bold claim (life after death is considered unnatural just because it's lacking evidence) by another, unrelated, one. And no, astrology has absolutely nothing to do with science. You probably confuse it with "astronomy", but that's no problem.

[BillyJoe]

She said was. Past tense

[BillyJoe]

How would we know?
How would we know what?

Are you interested in some book recommendations?
My daughter just gave me Alice in Wonderland.
I think you might find that hard to beat.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Um, because the thread is about the specific issue of overusing the "can't prove gods" and underusing the "evidence for gods being invented by humans".

You seem to be ignoring the discussion in favor of your unrelated one.
You seem to be ignoring what I was specifically responding to.

Considering the possibilities is not what I'm talking about here and if you weren't off on your own discussion you might have noticed that.


What you're talking about is science having a double standard...
...snip...
I am once again addressing the double standard some scientists give some god beliefs.
...snip...
I'm merely pointing out there isn't any.

Earth to Ryan:
How did you figure out I'm not on earth! Very perceptive. But can you tell me where I am? (Er... loaded question. I withdraw it on fear of the answer.)

I am talking about claiming science does not deal with god beliefs because gods are outside the realm of science. In your contemplating, they are not.


From the OP:
Belief such things [gods --ed] exist is not evidence they exist. Widespread belief could be argued as a reason to ponder these things might exist outside the Universe, but I am arguing that is not the case because once we examine the nature of that widespread belief, nothing is left supporting a reason to ponder the actual existence of gods. (Your bolding.)

My point: we can examine that widespread belief, dismiss it, and still have something left “supporting a reason to ponder the actual existence of gods.”

From your first post after the OP:
I don't need to test for the existence of something the evidence supports is imagined to conclude it doesn't exist. And I don't have to test every single god belief to draw that conclusion. I can support the conclusion that all god beliefs are imaginary with overwhelming evidence by looking at a sufficient number of god beliefs and finding no variation from the conclusion.(Your bolding.)

You've left out a whole class of god beliefs. As I've shown.

Wishful thinking is claiming gods exist and ignoring the evidence which says only that god myths exist.(Your bolding.)

Not entirely. Wishful thinking also implies an emotional investment. Thus, poisoning the well.

You are off on your own discussion and think people are objecting to things they are not debating.
Nonsense.

I've been holding off asking this because it puts you on the spot a little, skeptigirl, but perhaps I can be forgiven at this point.

It may be helpful if you were to give a concrete, specific example or two from the real world where you see this double standard actually being exercised (“the double standard some scientists give some god beliefs”). Perhaps, by moving away from these poorly expressed abstractions, we can get to firmer ground.

If that's asking too much, then I'm not sure you and I are going to get anywhere. Which is fine. I've enjoyed the discussion.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I know the difference between the uncertainty principle and the uncertainty in scientific language I speak of.

You used the phrase "The uncertainty principle in science" (post 258), which almost invariably means Heisenberg's.

No doubt you knew what you were talking about, but others may have been understandably confused.

[BillyJoe]

Because that's the criteria by which we reject the hypothesis of random chance. If an observation or set of observations has a sufficiently low probability, the null hypothesis of random chance deviation is rejected.
Yes.

Does that make buying a lottery ticket a good bet?
No, but at least you have a small chance but, if you don't buy a ticket, your chance is even less.

The random chance hypothesis can be rescued by presuming a very very large or an infinite set of universes. Since intelligent life will only appear in universes conducive to their development, we can then assume our universe is simply that rare universe that supports life evolving. That hypothesis works...
One entry in a lotto of a trillion trillion trillion tickets.

...but the assumption of a multiverse is, at least IMO, no less fantastic an assumption than that of an intelligent designer.
But, in the multiverse lotto draw, we know that there is at least one ticket. How many gods do you see.

[Beth]

[QUOTE]...but the assumption of a multiverse is, at least IMO, no less fantastic an assumption than that of an intelligent designer.
But, in the multiverse lotto draw, we know that there is at least one ticket. How many gods do you see.

Gods are rather tricky to define and thus are hard to spot. Intelligent designers, however, abound.

[BillyJoe]

Have any of them designed a universe?

[Beth]

Have any of them designed a universe?

Only small ones :)