Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no disagreement science cannot look for gods that exist outside of the Universe so we can dismiss that issue up front. I propose looking at the problem of testing for gods in a different way.

I'm having a unsatisfying discussion with one person on the SWIFT blog so I thought I'd open it up to a wider group. The discussion was originally about a website Phil recommended called, Understanding Science. (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/394-understanding-what-science-is.html) I am going to stick to the Deist definition of a god here since it simplifies the 'gods exist' question and because that is the direction the blog discussion took anyway.

There are 2 issues in the blog discussion. Do Deists make claims and are those claims testable?

One disagreement in the blog is whether saying, "a god exists", is a claim. It obviously is. Yet many skeptics are willing to overlook this and give Deists a pass on this claim by saying it is not testable. Being a claim and being testable are 2 separate issues. However, I understand the issue of not making testable claims.

The second disagreement then, is on testing the claim, "a god exists".

Deist claim #1: Because I make no claims my god does anything, you cannot directly test for the presence of said god.

This is correct. I cannot test for things which existed before the Big Bang and outside the Universe either. But you have to look more deeply at the issue, "can one test for the existence of gods", than just dismissing it on these grounds.

Before the BB and outside the Universe are untestable things which can be pondered, but nothing can be known about them. These two untestable conditions are reasonable to ponder. While we have no evidence anything existed before the Big Bang and/or outside the Universe, the rest of our knowledge, (things within the Universe generally do have conditions outside them and before them.), makes these two untestable conditions reasonable to ponder.

It is less reasonable to ponder untestable things outside the Universe or before the BB for which there is no evidence and no current knowledge suggesting potential existence. This category includes invisible pink unicorns, invisible garage dragons, and gods.

Belief such things 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.

Which brings me to Deist claim #2: A god exists.

This is the claim most Deists avoid acknowledging is a claim. Some skeptics' view as legit, ignoring the claim a Deist god exists and only recognizing the Deist position, it is not a claim if it is not a testable claim.

The Deist claim, "a god exists" can be addressed with equal validity stated as, "the Deist believes a god exists". Now I can test the claim by asking, is that belief based on an interaction with a real god or is that belief the result of other factors? And asked in that format, it is a testable claim.

The test may not be able to reach absolute certainty, and the test addresses the claim of gods existing indirectly. But indirect, short of proof investigations compose a large body of our scientific works.

Once the claim of belief is tested, you are left with a non-evidence based claim that a god exists. It can be shown the evidence we do have, (and there is a lot of it), overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, all god beliefs, (which would include the Deist god belief), do not result from an interaction with a real god. The evidence supports the conclusion, god beliefs are imaginary beliefs.

The fact that we can't test the above condition for every god belief is no reason we cannot draw a scientific conclusion about all god beliefs. We haven't mapped every single genome either but that hasn't stopped science from drawing a conclusion about how all organisms evolved. Science does not require certainty to draw conclusions, and in fact, certainty is almost never known in scientific conclusions.

Whatever exists outside the Universe or existed before the Big Bang CANNOT BE KNOWN. That includes a Deist's claim that a god exists. The Deist cannot know there is a god outside the Universe anymore than I can know there isn't one. The argument, a god does exist outside the Universe because one could exist, gives weight to one of two answers of something that cannot be known either way.

On the other hand, the evidence actually does support the conclusion god beliefs originated as myths, not from interaction with real gods. The evidence does provide weight that god beliefs are myths. I don't care if gods exist outside the Universe anymore than I care if invisible pink unicorns exist outside the Universe. There is not simply a lack of evidence, but rather, because I can explain the origin of god beliefs, there is nothing left as a reason to bother pondering the existence of gods.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't understand this bit:

The Deist claim, "a god exists" can be addressed with equal validity stated as, "the Deist believes a god exists".

Seems to be these are two completely different propositions.

Just as "Bigfoot exists" is very different from "Some people believe Bigfoot exists".

Can you 'splain this better for me?

[hgc]

The Deist claim, "a god exists" can be addressed with equal validity stated as, "the Deist believes a god exists".


What in the hell does that mean? What is meant by can be addressed with equal validity in regards to two very different statements a god exists and so-and-so believes a god exists?

[hgc]

Yeah! What Joe said!

[geni]

Whatever exists outside the Universe or existed before the Big Bang CANNOT BE KNOWN.

Do you have any evidence for that claim?


On the other hand, the evidence actually does support the conclusion god beliefs originated as myths, not from interaction with real gods. The evidence does provide weight that god beliefs are myths. I don't care if gods exist outside the Universe anymore than I care if invisible pink unicorns exist outside the Universe. There is not simply a lack of evidence, but rather, because I can explain the origin of god beliefs, there is nothing left as a reason to bother pondering the existence of gods.

That you can provide one possible explanition doesn't mean that that explanation is correct. Plently of theories that work fine until you start looking for ways to break them.

So lets consider the beliefs originated as myths theory. The most ovious problem is that there is no real reason to think that beliefs originated in the form of stories. In fact the availible archaeological evidence points to burial practices as the origens of belief. It is also slightly questionable if belief actualy postdates language.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Overall, I agree with the way you think, but you still haven't made these claims more testable (that is falsifiable).

You've made a wonderful case why it's not reasonable to believe them. That they're not necessary (since we can explain the real-world phenomena they purport to explain without them, and we can even explain the origin of the god-myths themselves) and extremely unparsimonious. But that's still not the same as falsifying the claims.

On the "can theists be rational" thread, we've kicked around some of these same issues. Some theists were arguing that "rational" only means something like "not logically impossible".

I forget what flavor of dualism it's called, but there's one that puts all the God/soul claims completely outside the universe. There's no causal connection. My "soul" and the real me just happen to coincide all the time. An absurd notion, but I don't see how it could be considered "testable" in any way.

In fact, the fact that such things are untestable is what makes me think they're completely useless.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Didn't know you guys would be so fast. I had just added this to the OP:


Why not test the "belief in god" instead of "the existence of god"? Testing the existence assumes a conclusion, "gods exist", and tries to fit the evidence to it. Deists in this case have come up with the ultimate 'fitting' exercise, they've simply defined god as not testable as if that supported the existence of a god.

But following the evidence supports the conclusion, god beliefs are imaginary beliefs. That conclusion includes Deist gods. 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.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you have any evidence for that claim?Personally I don't rule out ever knowing these things in the future but it is generally accepted in science that one cannot know anything about conditions before the Big Bang or outside the Universe. I did not make this concept up on my own.


....So lets consider the beliefs originated as myths theory. The most ovious problem is that there is no real reason to think that beliefs originated in the form of stories. In fact the availible archaeological evidence points to burial practices as the origens of belief. It is also slightly questionable if belief actualy postdates language.Are you saying all the god beliefs we know are myths is not overwhelming evidence god beliefs are myths?

A few examples: Ra, Pele, Zeus, Thor, ... I'm sure the list of mythical god beliefs is enormous.

[hgc]

So lets consider the beliefs originated as myths theory. The most ovious problem is that there is no real reason to think that beliefs originated in the form of stories. In fact the availible archaeological evidence points to burial practices as the origens of belief. It is also slightly questionable if belief actualy postdates language.


Um, how about stories of what happens after you die? That's a pretty big part of almost any religious belief system, and it's pretty well wrapped up in burial rituals. I don't see any contradiction, nor any distinction even, between mythic stories forming into anthropomorphised agents of creation/destruction and burial rituals. Why do so many pray to the deseased directly and to their memory, after having buried them with food and hunting implements for the afterlife?

Not only is it knowable by empirical inquiry, it's pretty much been found out all ready.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What in the hell does that mean? What is meant by can be addressed with equal validity in regards to two very different statements a god exists and so-and-so believes a god exists?Besides beliefs in gods, do you have any evidence gods exist? Belief is all we have evidence for. We have no evidence of existence of gods.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why not test the "belief in god" instead of "the existence of god"?

Oh I've done that myself in argumentation. (For example, I don't think anyone actually believes "abortion is murder" or that they'll actually truly see their deceased loved ones again in any meaningful way. I usually point to their behaviors that are completely inconsistent with holding those beliefs.)

However, it's not arguing the same proposition. Testing "belief in god" but it's not the same as testing "the existence of god".

Or at least I don't see how it is.

Testing the existence assumes a conclusion, "gods exist", and tries to fit the evidence to it. Deists in this case have come up with the ultimate 'fitting' exercise, they've simply defined god as not testable as if that supported the existence of a god.
I agree. I think the sole reason for the development of the Deist non-definition of god is a retreat from beliefs in more "fleshed-out" or hands-on ideas of god. And I think it's just more socially acceptable--or was more socially acceptable-- to go to that position than to call oneself an atheist.

But following the evidence supports the conclusion, god beliefs are imaginary beliefs. That conclusion includes Deist gods.
I agree. I take the skeptical model--follow the evidence and tentatively adopt that conclusion as the truth.

But this isn't what is meant by a testable proposition, is it? I thought that meant a falsifiable hypothesis. Since we don't have that, it's most reasonable to follow the skeptical model.

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.
I agree, and that's a very good description of what it means for me to be an atheist. (Although I do enjoy showing how well-defined God concepts are impossible by being internally inconsistent.)

But I thought you were saying you'd found a way to test the proposition "a god exists". Maybe I misread.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Overall, I agree with the way you think, but you still haven't made these claims more testable (that is falsifiable).

You've made a wonderful case why it's not reasonable to believe them. That they're not necessary (since we can explain the real-world phenomena they purport to explain without them, and we can even explain the origin of the god-myths themselves) and extremely unparsimonious. But that's still not the same as falsifying the claims.

On the "can theists be rational" thread, we've kicked around some of these same issues. Some theists were arguing that "rational" only means something like "not logically impossible".

I forget what flavor of dualism it's called, but there's one that puts all the God/soul claims completely outside the universe. There's no causal connection. My "soul" and the real me just happen to coincide all the time. An absurd notion, but I don't see how it could be considered "testable" in any way.

In fact, the fact that such things are untestable is what makes me think they're completely useless.My point is to get past this co-mingling of evidence for beliefs and evidence of existence.

It is clear to me you can draw conclusions about god beliefs. Why is it skeptics and scientists have little problem saying, there is no evidence for fairies ergo fairies are imagined creatures, but they have a hard time making a leap from, there is no evidence for gods ergo gods are imagined beings?

I am once again addressing the double standard some scientists give some god beliefs. And this particular approach to the double standard made sense and seemed worth sharing.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why not test the "belief in god" instead of "the existence of god"?

OK--I follow now.

Still, when you say "test the belief in god" you're not really doubting that there are believers. You're just asking what the evidence believers have for their belief.

In other words, rather than coming up with a way to test an untestable claim, you're just using the skeptical model. If they make a claim, you evaluate the evidence. If there's not compelling evidence, you reject the claim (tentatively--because you'd be willing to change your conclusion if compelling evidence should ever come to light).

I would agree that that's the right approach.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
But this isn't what is meant by a testable proposition, is it? I thought that meant a falsifiable hypothesis. Since we don't have that, it's most reasonable to follow the skeptical model.The falsifiable hypothesis is, a god belief is a belief in an imaginary being. Or there are other ways to word the hypothesis: God beliefs developed without interaction with actual gods.

The non-falsifiable hypothesis is, gods exist that are outside the Universe.

...I agree, and that's a very good description of what it means for me to be an atheist. (Although I do enjoy showing how well-defined God concepts are impossible by being internally inconsistent.)

But I thought you were saying you'd found a way to test the proposition "a god exists". Maybe I misread.I am saying that. But I am taking the question on in a different way. I am saying that claiming a god exists outside the Universe ignores the evidence gods are imaginary creatures.

I am saying one need not have absolute proof to determine if gods are imaginary creatures.

I am saying one need not test every god belief to determine gods are imaginary creatures.

I am saying if the evidence shows gods are imaginary creatures then why are we concerned about the ability or inability of science to test for the existence of gods before we can say that science supports the conclusion gods are imaginary?

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Still, when you say "test the belief in god" you're not really doubting that there are believers. You're just asking what the evidence believers have for their belief. ....Not exactly. I am looking at the evidence of all god believers throughout history as a whole rather than an individual's single god belief. I think it is a double standard to leave certain current god beliefs out of the picture as if there really was a reason to.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The falsifiable hypothesis is, a god belief is a belief in an imaginary being. Or there are other ways to word the hypothesis: God beliefs developed without interaction with actual gods.

The non-falsifiable hypothesis is, gods exist that are outside the Universe.
But what makes it non-falsifiable is saying that the gods exists outside the universe. Adding the layer of beliefs in (itself) doesn't change it. It's the requirement for interaction with gods (that is, backing off of the Deist's undefined god and talking about some form of a hands-on god that does stuff in this universe).


I am saying that. But I am taking the question on in a different way. I am saying that claiming a god exists outside the Universe ignores the evidence gods are imaginary creatures.
As a bit of an aside: I don't think it ignores it. I think historically, it's a reaction to the fact that science started making the old version of god an untenable belief. Rather than jump all the way to calling themselves atheists, Deists just shrunk their god to the gaps in our knowledge (or, if you prefer, put it outside the universe and out of the reach of science).

I think it was an intentional move!

At any rate, I agree with the direction you're saying to go. To me, that's simply the skeptical model. It's not up to me to prove that a god-claim is false. It's up to the god-claimant to provide evidence for that claim. Failing that, I reject the claim.

[Skeptic Ginger]

But what makes it non-falsifiable is saying that the gods exists outside the universe. Adding the layer of beliefs in (itself) doesn't change it. It's the requirement for interaction with gods (that is, backing off of the Deist's undefined god and talking about some form of a hands-on god that does stuff in this universe).Can science not then address the fact fairies are imaginary creatures? Leprechauns? Where's the distinction?

Does science have nothing to say about human imagination and the development of god beliefs and does what science has to say about those things not apply to the question, do gods exist?

The evidence supports the conclusion gods are imaginary beings. End of evidence.

As a bit of an aside: I don't think it ignores it. I think historically, it's a reaction to the fact that science started making the old version of god an untenable belief. Rather than jump all the way to calling themselves atheists, Deists just shrunk their god to the gaps in our knowledge (or, if you prefer, put it outside the universe and out of the reach of science).@the choir

[Zelenius]

Can science not then address the fact fairies are imaginary creatures? Leprechauns? Where's the distinction?

Does science have nothing to say about human imagination and the development of god beliefs and does what science has to say about those things not apply to the question, do gods exist?

The evidence supports the conclusion gods are imaginary beings. End of evidence.

@the choir

I agree wholeheartedly. I think in large part, many scientists and skeptics don't make the case that gods are simply products of the human imagination due to the privileged position of religion in society. Arguments in favor of atheism often become unnecessarily complicated and lost in the wilderness of philosophy as if there is any merit to god-belief, compared to say elf or fairy-belief. It sounds so "crude" and "disrespectful" to compare God or gods to creatures that even most God-believers don't believe exist. In many societies around the globe, God-belief is very nearly universal and plays a very important role in people's lives. Belief in God is therefore considered important, whereas belief in elves is generally not.

Another reason may be due to the flexible, nebulous nature of the "God" concept. In this respect, it can't be compared to elves or pink flying unicorns, which are much easier to define than "God". As far as supernatural ideas go, "God" is in a class by itself; it is an extremely powerful idea, it is often identified with the universe, and/or as the all-powerful creator of the universe. This is why it is often so tempting for many scientists to use "God" metaphorically when describing the nature of reality, even by scientists who are non-believers.

Einstein for all his unparalleled genius and brilliance may have confused matters by his frequent use of "God". By the standard definition of atheism, I believe Einstein was an atheist. Yet to my knowledge, he didn't consider himself to be one, and didn't want "professional atheists" using him in support of their non-belief, even though he stressed he did not believe in a personal God or a God who listens to prayers. I don't think he believed in supernatural anything. Maybe he could best be described as agnostic, which is what he called himself after repeatedly getting asked about his beliefs.

Many historians and biographers of Einstein don't help matters much since they often group him more with traditional religious believers than with atheists and skeptics, since "Einstein believed in God". Even atheist authors, like Richard Dawkins for example may inadvertently make God belief seem more respectable due addressing so many utterly ridiculous "arguments" in favor of God's existence and demolishing them - belief in fairies is seldom if ever treated like this. Of course they'd have less to write about if they said it is as simple as seeing theism as fairy-belief, end of story, no need to dignify any God arguments with a refutation. Certainly, I may be a hypocrite for even participating in this discussion.

Now we have Stuart Kauffman, another brilliant scientist who sees "God" and the universe as synonymous in his book, "Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion." There is nothing new about this, it just seems like the "new pantheism", in reaction to both the "new atheism" and the "new religious fundamentalism". It is an illusory "Third way", yet at its core it is atheism bending over backwards pretending to be something else.

I wish skeptics and scientists did compare God or gods to elves or fairies more often, and would love it if they stopped using "God" even in a metaphorical sense. Too many people refuse to let God die, even those who do not believe in it.

[Zelenius]

Double post.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I wish skeptics and scientists did compare God or gods to elves or fairies more often, and would love it if they stopped using "God" even in a metaphorical sense. Too many people refuse to let God die, even those who do not believe in it.Lovely post, Zel. Join me in battle, the theist skeptics have not yet discovered the thread. ;)

[BillyJoe]

I wish skeptics and scientists did compare God or gods to elves or fairies more often...
God is a little different: The Tooth Faerie, the Easter Bunny, and Father Christmas are all purported do things that we know parents actually do. God at least is purported to do something for which we, as yet, have no answer - the creation of the universe, something out of nothing.

Hey, I said a little different, I'm not going to hijack this thread.

Also God is, at least potentially, falsifiable. If, in the distant future, science does discover how the universe originated, how something arose out of nothing, God would seem to have been falsified.

BJ

[geni]

Um, how about stories of what happens after you die?

Stories require language. Can you show that ceromonial burrial requires the same?

[geni]

Personally I don't rule out ever knowing these things in the future but it is generally accepted in science that one cannot know anything about conditions before the Big Bang or outside the Universe. I did not make this concept up on my own.

No but you appear to have misunderstood it. Our churrent scientific understanding and enigineering ability doesn't let us know what is outside the universe but if thats enough for you to reject a claim you also have to reject string theory.

[westprog]

No but you appear to have misunderstood it. Our churrent scientific understanding and enigineering ability doesn't let us know what is outside the universe but if thats enough for you to reject a claim you also have to reject string theory.

In a sense, if something is scientifically detectable outside the universe, then it's not outside the universe. If something is considered to exist outside the universe, then it must be in principle scientifically undetectable.

The issue as to whether something undetectable outside the universe can interact with the universe has just been covered elsewhere.

[geni]

In a sense, if something is scientifically detectable outside the universe, then it's not outside the universe. If something is considered to exist outside the universe, then it must be in principle scientifically undetectable.

The issue as to whether something undetectable outside the universe can interact with the universe has just been covered elsewhere.

We strongly suspect that something undetectable outside visable universe can interact with the universe. The recent discovery of dark flow points in that dirrection.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Before the BB and outside the Universe are untestable things which can be pondered, but nothing can be known about them. These two untestable conditions are reasonable to ponder. While we have no evidence anything existed before the Big Bang and/or outside the Universe, the rest of our knowledge, (things within the Universe generally do have conditions outside them and before them.), makes these two untestable conditions reasonable to ponder.

As geni and others have suggested, you may be too quick in barring science from "before the Big Bang."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090113-st-before-big-bang.html
"It's no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang," Kamionkowski said. "All of that stuff is hidden by a veil, observationally. If our model holds up, we may have a chance to see beyond this veil."

The next step is to gather better data about the Cosmic Microwave Background, to confirm that the unevenness seen so far really holds up.


This is an important distinction between science and religion. In the former, the "unknowable" often proves a temporary roadblock. God, on the other hand, is permanently unknowable by definition.

[westprog]

We strongly suspect that something undetectable outside visable universe can interact with the universe. The recent discovery of dark flow points in that dirrection.

The visible universe is not the universe. Dark matter, as envisaged, remains part of the universe. That's if dark matter exists, of course.

[Malerin]

Besides beliefs in gods, do you have any evidence gods exist? Belief is all we have evidence for. We have no evidence of existence of gods.

We have indirect evidence via the fine-tuning of the physical constants. We have anecdotal accounts from reliable people who claim to have spiritual experiences related to God and to have observed supernatural phenemena. We now know millions of people have had NDE's, a sizeable percent of which report a highly spiritual experience complete with visitations from dead people, being in the presence of God, and veridical OBE's. Science does not have a satisfactory account for the NDE phenemenon, nor is it clear why we should have evolved as creatures who have intensely spiritual experiences right before death. Children's vivid memories of past lives are evidence that a soul exists, which is indirect evidence for the existence of God.

All of this is evidence, though none of it will be convincing evidence to most people here. How convincing it is will depend on metaphysical atitudes about reality itself.

[paximperium]

The visible universe is not the universe. Dark matter, as envisaged, remains part of the universe. That's if dark matter exists, of course.
Dark Matter interacts with the universe and is therefore part of the universe.

[paximperium]

We have indirect evidence via the fine-tuning of the physical constants.
An argument that you've tried before but has been utterly demolished. Using this discredited claim again despite being corrected is telling.


We have anecdotal accounts from reliable people who claim to have spiritual experiences related to God and to have observed supernatural phenemena. We now know millions of people have had NDE's, a sizeable percent of which report a highly spiritual experience complete with visitations from dead people, being in the presence of God, and veridical OBE's. Anecdotes, inconsistent and unverified claims are not exactly evidence for your god or even a god but is poor evidence for ALL gods, pixies, spirits and juju monsters.


Science does not have a satisfactory account for the NDE phenemenon, nor is it clear why we should have evolved as creatures who have intensely spiritual experiences right before death. So? If and when we actually figure this out, what's going to happen to your "faith"? Will you suddenly become an atheist?

It isn't that surprising that people experience weird things when their brains malfunction.


Children's vivid memories of past lives are evidence that a soul exists, which is indirect evidence for the existence of God.Hahahahahaha...snort. Talk about a big leap into nonsense. Except for the the terrible evidence for "past-life" nonsense, it would be evidence for a soul, not any god. The Buddhist may be a tad surprised.


All of this is evidence, though none of it will be convincing evidence to most people here. How convincing it is will depend on metaphysical atitudes about reality itself.Ahhh, the Malerin cop-out excuse for his sad evidence.

"You all close minded. Open your mindz and accept what I sayz because reality is really subjective blah blah blah..."

[Skeptic Ginger]

No but you appear to have misunderstood it. Our churrent scientific understanding and enigineering ability doesn't let us know what is outside the universe but if thats enough for you to reject a claim you also have to reject string theory.I don't think we need to waste time on this sidetrack. If you think your concept of testable and untestable is relevant then tell us why.

I see no reason a tedious semantic argument about the distinction between "knowable", "testable" and "falsifiable" is necessary here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

We strongly suspect that something undetectable outside visable universe can interact with the universe. The recent discovery of dark flow points in that dirrection.You are confusing unseen dimensions with outside the Universe.

Please take this hijack elsewhere.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

This is an important distinction between science and religion. In the former, the "unknowable" often proves a temporary roadblock. God, on the other hand, is permanently unknowable by definition.The only permanently unknowable god is one defined that way. One can define a god so as to describe it as untestable. We know that.

My premise is that one can determine if god beliefs are based on imagination or based on real gods. One need no longer look for real gods since it can be shown god beliefs are imaginary.

Defining a god as permanently untestable is simply making the scientific process fit the preconceived conclusion, an untestable god exists. That is bad science.

[Skeptic Ginger]

We have indirect evidence via the fine-tuning of the physical constants. We have anecdotal accounts from reliable people who claim to have spiritual experiences related to God and to have observed supernatural phenemena. We now know millions of people have had NDE's, a sizeable percent of which report a highly spiritual experience complete with visitations from dead people, being in the presence of God, and veridical OBE's. Science does not have a satisfactory account for the NDE phenemenon, nor is it clear why we should have evolved as creatures who have intensely spiritual experiences right before death. Children's vivid memories of past lives are evidence that a soul exists, which is indirect evidence for the existence of God.

All of this is evidence, though none of it will be convincing evidence to most people here. How convincing it is will depend on metaphysical atitudes about reality itself.How convincing it is depends on following the evidence to a conclusion (good science) or fitting the evidence to a preconceived conclusion (bad science).


....and, what Paxi said. :)

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think we need to waste time on this sidetrack. If you think your concept of testable and untestable is relevant then tell us why.

I see no reason a tedious semantic argument about the distinction between "knowable", "testable" and "falsifiable" is necessary here.

In a way, I think these issues are germane. If you'll bear with me a bit. . .

The reason God claims retreat toward something like the un-defined, non-intervening deist God is so that they can remain safe from the scrutiny of science.

You've very correctly made a strong case that "testable" doesn't have to mean we have access to realms that are somehow outside the natural world. (It's similar to a discussion I once had with Schlitt about his assertion that we need to identify all the trapdoors to reject a vanishing illusion as being something supernatural.)

Instead, the burden is on the claimant to provide evidence for his or her claims. If that "evidence" comes up short, we reject the claim. (As you said--period.)

So claims of a God outside the reach of science or completely separated causally from the natural world can't possibly have any evidence to support them and are necessarily rejected.

It is unreasonable even to entertain such claims.

The problem is that a number of folks around here give these words very narrow meanings. One a few threads "rational" was defined as anything that is possible, with "possible" meaning anything that is not logically contradictory. (And yes, at least two of these people said that it would be "rational" to believe the claims of those Nigerian scam e-mails!)

So. . I think the tedious semantic argument over many of these terms is necessary.

Having said that, I think the burden of proof is properly where you have placed it (in the sentence I highlighted above).

[westprog]

Dark Matter interacts with the universe and is therefore part of the universe.

That something interacts with the universe doesn't necessarily make it part of the universe - though dark matter is part of the universe, if it exists.

[Skeptic Ginger]

In a way, I think these issues are germane. Testable and untestable is of course germane, but Geni's sidetrack about whether outside the Universe and before the BB were knowable or not, was not germane.

The reason God claims retreat toward something like the un-defined, non-intervening deist God is so that they can remain safe from the scrutiny of science.....
It is unreasonable even to entertain such claims.But the scientific community does entertain these claims by allowing the "untestable" definition to block scientific scrutiny when there is overwhelming evidence all god beliefs are mythical beliefs.

[paximperium]

That something interacts with the universe doesn't necessarily make it part of the universe - though dark matter is part of the universe, if it exists.
Name one thing that exists that meets your criteria.

[Skeptic Ginger]

That something interacts with the universe doesn't necessarily make it part of the universe - though dark matter is part of the universe, if it exists.Detecting the gravity of dark matter confirmed it exists, unless you want to re-write the physics of gravity laws, but I digress.

Whether or not something interacts with the Universe in the case of god definitions is what supposedly makes a Deist god belief make no testable claims. So for the sake of this discussion, detectable/testable/falsifiable/interacts with the Universe vs something that is not detectable/testable/falsifiable and does not interact with the Universe is the definition being used.

Whether something is or is not interacting with the Universe that is also outside the Universe is a thread hijack. PLEASE FOLKS, take this discussion elsewhere! Assume for the sake of the discussion the claim has been made that an undetectable god exists.

The thread is about how science might examine a claim that an untestable god exists other than to look for evidence of that god directly.

[Malerin]

How convincing it is depends on following the evidence to a conclusion (good science) or fitting the evidence to a preconceived conclusion (bad science).


....and, what Paxi said. :)

How is positing the existence of a spiritual being to explain a highly spiritual event like an NDE "bad science"? "God exists" is currently a much better explanatory hypothesis for NDE accounts than science. Or are you assuming, from the start, that all phenemena must have a material physical cause? Because an assumption like that would need some evidence to support it.

[paximperium]

How is positing the existence of a spiritual being to explain a highly spiritual event like an NDE "bad science"?
Because it is a non-sequitur and semantic juggling, a favorite tactic of Malerin.

You're logic goes like this:
"NDE's are unexplained(according to you) therefore it is spiritual(whatever the hell that means) therefore spirit exists therefore god exist, hallelujah, Bless Jesus!!!"

"God exists" is currently a much better explanatory hypothesis for NDE accounts than science.
No it isn't; it is just your attempt at justifying your nonsense.

Or are you assuming, from the start, that all phenemena must have a material physical cause? Because an assumption like that would need some evidence to support it.
So you have evidence of anything that is non-physical that actually exist?

We always end up with Malerin's solipsistic/idealistic nonsense in an attempt to "special plead" his way out of his illogical nonsense.

[JoeTheJuggler]

How is positing the existence of a spiritual being to explain a highly spiritual event like an NDE "bad science"?
For one, it assumes that an NDE is a "highly spiritual event" in order to prove that it is a spiritual event.

For another, it is unparsimonious. It requires creating entities that aren't required to explain something. And those entities don't actually explain anything anyway.

[paximperium]

For one, it assumes that an NDE is a "highly spiritual event" in order to prove that it is a spiritual event.

For another, it is unparsimonious. It requires creating entities that aren't required to explain something. And those entities don't actually explain anything anyway.
Using some Malerin logic:

NDE=Spiritual=God
NDE=Brain Dysfunction

Therefore:

Brain dysfunction=Spiritual=God

[Malerin]

For one, it assumes that an NDE is a "highly spiritual event" in order to prove that it is a spiritual event.

For the person experiencing it, it is a highly spiritual event. You can put the word "subjective" in front of the claim, if you like. It's still evidence for God.

For another, it is unparsimonious. It requires creating entities that aren't required to explain something.

Parsimony tells us not to multiply entities needlessly. If God exists, then positing God's existence doesn't violate the law of parsimony. In order to invoke parsimony, you need to prove that invoking God is needless, and to do that, you must prove that reality is more likely atheistic than theistic.

And those entities don't actually explain anything anyway.

Sure they do. If God exists, the subjective spiritual experiences people have are actual spiritual experiences. That says quite a bit, right there.

[Herzblut]

For the person experiencing it, it is a highly spiritual event. You can put the word "subjective" in front of the claim, if you like. It's still evidence for God.

It's just evidence for belief in God.

[Skeptic Ginger]

How is positing the existence of a spiritual being to explain a highly spiritual event like an NDE "bad science"? "God exists" is currently a much better explanatory hypothesis for NDE accounts than science. Or are you assuming, from the start, that all phenemena must have a material physical cause? Because an assumption like that would need some evidence to support it.

Evidence from/re NDEs:

Death does not really occur when the heart stops, we know that the brain takes time to die.
There is no evidence of a 'soul'.
NDEs can be artificially created with severe G-forces.
NDEs reflect the person's learned religion, not universal religion. There are similarities such as tunnel, light, dead loved ones, all things which occurred with G-forces if I am not mistaken.

Experiments have been set up looking for evidence the person whose heart stopped actually floated overhead. To date, no one has reported seeing the evidence one could only see from the ceiling looking down.


Where does that evidence lead?

[Malerin]

Evidence from/re NDEs:

Death does not really occur when the heart stops, we know that the brain takes time to die.
There is no evidence of a 'soul'.
NDEs can be artificially created with severe G-forces.
NDEs reflect the person's learned religion, not universal religion. There are similarities such as tunnel, light, dead loved ones, all things which occurred with G-forces if I am not mistaken.

Experiments have been set up looking for evidence the person whose heart stopped actually floated overhead. To date, no one has reported seeing the evidence one could only see from the ceiling looking down.


Where does that evidence lead?

From the largest study done on NDE's:

"And yet, neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy,23 with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia),24 and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots,25 or as in hyperventilation followed by valsalva manoeuvre.4 Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor,26 and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned,27 as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD,28 psilocarpine, and mescaline.21

These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences."

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

Their conclusion comes across as almost mystical:

"With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation."

Where, indeed, does the evidence lead?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Malerin, let me guess, you are the resident 'NDEs are real' forum guy?

The issue here is why are we not using the evidence god beliefs are myths to address untestable gods. The reason I used the Deist god in the OP and the concept of an untestable god was to avoid the very off topic discussion you are trying to start here.


I'm willing to discuss NDEs in light of the claim I have made, there is overwhelming evidence people made beliefs in gods up. As long as you tie it to the thread topic which is more along the theme of, defining gods as untestable is based on political and not scientific reasons.

Scientists have no problem with the anthropological conclusions about the belief in an afterlife being a myth when scientists discuss past cultures. But it is seen as "out of the bounds" to use that same evidence to draw a conclusion there is a pattern there which extends to current afterlife beliefs.

[Malerin]

Malerin, let me guess, you are the resident 'NDEs are real' forum guy?


I don't know if they're real or not. They're fascinating, though. As a theist, I'm sympathetic to theistic explanations, yet I know that Ketamine can produce almost the same sensation. I cited the Lancet study to show that science does not have the final word on NDE's. It's a common belief that NDE's have been reduced to G-force experiences or oxygen-deprivation.

The issue here is why are we not using the evidence god beliefs are myths to address untestable gods.

Depends on how you define "myth". If you mean "a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence", and reality is theistic, then you are wrong from the get-go. If reality is idealistic in the Berkelian sense, you are verifying God's existence every time you observe something. In short, you can't make this sort of claim without getting into some pretty deep metaphysics. But I think you're using myth in another sense.

The reason I used the Deist god in the OP and the concept of an untestable god was to avoid the very off topic discussion you are trying to start here.

You said The Deist claim, "a god exists" can be addressed with equal validity stated as, "the Deist believes a god exists". Now I can test the claim by asking, is that belief based on an interaction with a real god or is that belief the result of other factors? And asked in that format, it is a testable claim

I'm addressing the claim that God is "untestable". If a theist predicts that prayer will make them feel God's presence, prays, and reports they feel God's presence, does that qualify as "testable"? Is the claim "physical matter exists" testable, and is that belief based on an interaction with actual physical matter or the result of other factors?

I'm willing to discuss NDEs in light of the claim I have made, there is overwhelming evidence people made beliefs in gods up.

All beliefs are "made up". The question is, is there evidence to support the belief and does the belief correspond to reality?

As long as you tie it to the thread topic which is more along the theme of, defining gods as untestable is based on political and not scientific reasons.

Why are those the only two options? God can be defined as untestable because God is believed to be... untestable. Many theists believe God is not the sort of thing you're going to be able to test for. Do you think it possible that reality consists of unverifiable things? Or does your view of reality assume everything in it is capable of being proven?

Scientists have no problem with the anthropological conclusions about the belief in an afterlife being a myth when scientists discuss past cultures. But it is seen as "out of the bounds" to use that same evidence to draw a conclusion there is a pattern there which extends to current afterlife beliefs.

I agree that nobody should feel pressured to keep quiet about something. If scientists think that belief in the afterlife is just a myth from the old days, they should feel free to speak their minds. Plenty do. Is there evidence that scientists are being stifled by theists from the major sects?

[Herzblut]

The issue here is why are we not using the evidence god beliefs are myths to address untestable gods.

Using for what? The reference to G in our brain doesn't imply anything about the existence of the referent, G.

Even if all references were caused by pathological hallucinations, the referent might nevertheless exist.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Using for what? The reference to G in our brain doesn't imply anything about the existence of the referent, G.

Even if all references were caused by pathological hallucinations, the referent might nevertheless exist.There is no claim being made here that gods could not possibly exist outside the Universe. Claiming gods could exist because you can define one that is undetectable is not evidence they do exist. Defining a god as untestable is but one more means of fitting the conclusion, gods do exist, to the science or to the evidence. That is bad science.


We have volumes of evidence from human history that people create and then believe in mythical gods. That evidence says something about god beliefs today. If there is evidence your belief is of an imaginary nature, then that evidence also says the thing you believe in doesn't really exist.

The fact it could exist is not evidence it does. Does it prove it doesn't exist? No, but who cares? I have overwhelming evidence the god belief is of an imaginary nature and no evidence whatsoever it is not. There is a repeating pattern.

Science uses repeating patterns to draw the vast majority of scientific conclusions. Science seeks explanations, proof is not required and almost never achieved. Why shouldn't these same principles apply to god beliefs? It is political that they do not apply.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know if they're real or not. They're fascinating, though. As a theist, I'm sympathetic to theistic explanations, yet I know that Ketamine can produce almost the same sensation. I cited the Lancet study to show that science does not have the final word on NDE's. It's a common belief that NDE's have been reduced to G-force experiences or oxygen-deprivation.No one is talking final word or proof. I am talking the evidence overwhelmingly supports god beliefs are of mythical creatures.

You are suggesting there is some evidence NDEs counter my claim there is no evidence supporting gods are real beings. I don't see it. I see what you have presented as only making a case for science not thoroughly understanding the neurological mechanisms of NDEs.

When someone reads the message that can only be seen from the ceiling in a well designed study of NDEs, only then will you have anything supporting true out of body experience. There is nothing in any of the evidence you have suggested here that supports anything other than a brain centered experience.


Depends on how you define "myth". If you mean "a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence", and reality is theistic, then you are wrong from the get-go. If reality is idealistic in the Berkelian sense, you are verifying God's existence every time you observe something. In short, you can't make this sort of claim without getting into some pretty deep metaphysics. But I think you're using myth in another sense.Zeus, Pele, Ra, Ramtha, Thor.... there is a very long list of very well established god myths.



You said

I'm addressing the claim that God is "untestable". If a theist predicts that prayer will make them feel God's presence, prays, and reports they feel God's presence, does that qualify as "testable"? Is the claim "physical matter exists" testable, and is that belief based on an interaction with actual physical matter or the result of other factors?We've had page after page discussions of this where people claim that the conclusion about what a feeling is, is evidence that is what the feeling is. The feeling is the evidence. What it is evidence of, is the conclusion. It is not evidence of gods, it is evidence people have sensations they interpret as gods.


This is a discussion about the scientific process. It is not a discussion about other levels of evidence such as has been claimed about the "feeling gods' presence".


All beliefs are "made up". The question is, is there evidence to support the belief and does the belief correspond to reality?There are beliefs based on testable repeatable evidence. That would be beliefs based on the scientific process. These beliefs change when the evidence supports other conclusions. We know the conclusions are supported by the evidence because they are successful. The scientific method produces successful results.


Why are those the only two options? God can be defined as untestable because God is believed to be... untestable. Many theists believe God is not the sort of thing you're going to be able to test for. Do you think it possible that reality consists of unverifiable things? Or does your view of reality assume everything in it is capable of being proven?Theists fit the evidence to the belief. In this case because following the evidence does not support the belief, you are describing manipulating the process. Prayers are not effective, fine, I'll just change my definition of god and say god doesn't want the test to show prayers are effective.

You can go round and round twisting the evidence and the process to maintain a god belief. That is fitting the evidence to the conclusion and is bad science.

There is lots and lots of evidence god beliefs are made up. There is no evidence god beliefs arose because people interacted with real gods. The question here is why are we ignoring that evidence and not applying it to current god beliefs?



I agree that nobody should feel pressured to keep quiet about something. If scientists think that belief in the afterlife is just a myth from the old days, they should feel free to speak their minds. Plenty do. Is there evidence that scientists are being stifled by theists from the major sects?Are you kidding? Of course some theists are actively fighting scientific discoveries. But that is not what I am talking about here.

I am talking about the fact that the pattern of past god beliefs says a lot about current god beliefs. And if a belief can be shown to be imaginary in nature, that says something about the imaginary thing not existing.

Proof is not needed that the thing does not exist to say the evidence supports it not existing. I don't have to disprove gods exist by testing every single god belief to say, the evidence consistently supports gods are mythical beings.

[BillyJoe]

Maybe we first need to discuss what we mean by "the scientific process" as applied to questions of a non-religious nature.

Then, perhaps we can discus what "the scientific process" should look like when applied specifically to questions of a religious nature.

At the end of this process, we should be able to conclude whether or not it is true, as that science site proclaims*, that science has nothing to say about religion/god

Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

BJ

[Skeptic Ginger]

When I address the problem, what does science have to say about gods, I recognize the fallacy in many scientific position statements on this matter. The usual statements are something like the following: Science deals with the how and religion deals with the why faith-based beliefs differ from science/evidence based beliefs Science doesn't deal with god beliefs, gods are outside the realm of science gods are supernatural therefore untestable The fallacy with these statements is they describe artificial categories which support a political position. The categories are not supportable on the scientific grounds they appear to be supported on.

Take the how vs why question. "Because a god did/said it?" Does that really answer anything? The semantic distinction here is on political grounds. Can science not investigate motives? Of course it can. What motivates a sociopath, nature or nurture? By investigating the how, often the why is answered. Religion does not reveal why a sociopath acts the way they do. Very young children and many animals display moral behaviors without evidence these behaviors were taught. Science can address how that occurs and in doing so answers why it occurs. Religion does not provide these answers.

Can you define what the difference is between faith based beliefs and non-religious fallacies considered unsupported by the evidence? Try it. A person can be just as indoctrinated to believe in ghosts as in gods. How does an alien abduction 'experience' differ from a religious experience except in the scenery?

Does the claim, a Deist god makes no testable claims, mean science supports Deism but not other god beliefs? Or does it mean the scientific community is ignoring the fact the untestable god description doesn't really fit god beliefs except the one god belief designed specifically to avoid cognitive dissonance created by the absence of evidence for one's god belief?

The position that some in the scientific community take creating a special parallel category for god beliefs is full of holes. It's a facade that is easily peered through.

I have recognized the fallacy in these claims that religious/god beliefs are outside the realm of science for some time. After all, look at the myriad of god beliefs excluded here. The scientific community just labels them mythical god beliefs instead of religious god beliefs. Who asks that we prove Thor or Zeus do not exist? I started a long thread discussing the double standard being applied here.

This thread is an extension of that discussion. The focus of the double standard regarding god beliefs is always on what one cannot disprove. This is touted as the reason science has little or nothing to say about belief in gods. We can address the problems of religious claims, Noah's flood, Creation, and so on, but not the core god belief because of the manufactured reason, one can describe a god for which no test can be performed.

I have often said, not only is there no evidence gods exist, there is evidence god beliefs are of an imaginary nature. That little evidence based fact is typically ignored when the discussion, you cannot disprove the existence of gods, comes up in scientific circles.

Thinking about this further, knowing the existence of Deist god was not anymore likely than any other god, it made sense to me that I could use a common scientific principle, that of a recognizable pattern, to develop an evidence based reasoning that gods do not exist. If gods are imaginary, which is what the evidence supports is a consistent pattern, then by definition they do not exist.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I have often said, not only is there no evidence gods exist, there is evidence god beliefs are of an imaginary nature. That little evidence based fact is typically ignored when the discussion, you cannot disprove the existence of gods, comes up in scientific circles.

Thinking about this further, knowing the existence of Deist god was not anymore likely than any other god, it made sense to me that I could use a common scientific principle, that of a recognizable pattern, to develop an evidence based reasoning that gods do not exist. If gods are imaginary, which is what the evidence supports is a consistent pattern, then by definition they do not exist.

Important as it is, I think one can rely too heavily on the fact that God beliefs are based on myth. Surely one can have an imaginary belief in a real thing.

Just because my belief in Star Trekish space aliens is based on imagination (and lacks evidence), should we forgo looking for Star Trekish space aliens?

Do you want to make SETI weep?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Important as it is, I think one can rely too heavily on the fact that God beliefs are based on myth. Surely one can have an imaginary belief in a real thing.

Just because my belief in Star Trekish space aliens is based on imagination (and lacks evidence), should we forgo looking for Star Trekish space aliens?

Do you want to make SETI weep?Speculating on the existence of ETs is based on the fact we have evidence of life in the Universe, (us), evidence of technology, (we've been to Mars and more), evidence of planets that could support life and so on.

All the evidence we have about gods is evidence people made up stories. There is no evidence real gods ever interacted with people.

I am not suggesting people stop imagining the possibilities of anything existing. But do we not as skeptics call woo on the folks who believe they were abducted by aliens? Those people have no supporting evidence and the evidence there is, (past abduction stories involved the creatures du jour, for example), suggests other explanations for the abduction experiences.

Why the double standard? The evidence there is suggests gods are mythical beings. No evidence suggests otherwise. Could gods exist? Sure. Aliens could be abducting people for anal probes. So what? 'Could exist' is not a reason to think gods do exist any more than abductions 'could occur' means they are occurring.

That we need to tread softly in light of the political ramifications of challenging god believers is a separate issue. I am not arguing against that issue. But tell me why, for scientific reasons, god beliefs deserve a double standard?

[gentlehorse]

Long, long ago, in a thread far, far away, BillieJoe asked a question that I'll attempt to paraphrase (because I'm too lazy to go digging for it).

Assume that, in the distant future, humanity achieves knowledge of all that is knowable, and that said body of knowledge does not include an answer to the question "Why is there Something instead of Nothing." As there is no natural explanation for the existence of the universe, is it reasonable to conclude that there might be a supernatural explanation? In other words, could this be considered indirect evidence of the deist god? (I hope I didn't mangle his question too badly.)

When he asked this I thought Man, that's a damn good question, and eagerly awaited a response from somebody a whole lot smarter than me. As I recall, nobody replied.

I think it might, but we'd still be in the same boat. We can have no knowledge of a god that doesn't interact with the universe, so what would it matter?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Only problem with that answer, gentlehorse, is it still leaves the question, "Why is there a god instead of nothing?"

Adding a god layer only gives the appearance you have answered the question. In the distant future, any fool will be able to see that.

[gentlehorse]

Adding a god layer only gives the appearance you have answered the question. In the distant future, any fool will be able to see that.

Well, I'm not just any fool. I'm gentlehorse the fool.

(Grabs dunce cap and heads for the corner...) :)

[BillyJoe]

The idea was that you will have exhausted all natural explanations, leaving only...um...non-natural explanations.
I dunno, I think deists would have a field day.

I could also work the other way of course: a natural explanation could be found thereby disproving the deist god.

Meaning, also, that utimately the existence of the deist god could turn out to be a scientific question after all.

BJ

[Ryan O'Dine]

Speculating on the existence of ETs is based on the fact we have evidence of life in the Universe, (us), evidence of technology, (we've been to Mars and more), evidence of planets that could support life and so on.

All the evidence we have about gods is evidence people made up stories. There is no evidence real gods ever interacted with people.

I am not suggesting people stop imagining the possibilities of anything existing. But do we not as skeptics call woo on the folks who believe they were abducted by aliens? Those people have no supporting evidence and the evidence there is, (past abduction stories involved the creatures du jour, for example), suggests other explanations for the abduction experiences.

Why the double standard? The evidence there is suggests gods are mythical beings. No evidence suggests otherwise. Could gods exist? Sure. Aliens could be abducting people for anal probes. So what? 'Could exist' is not a reason to think gods do exist any more than abductions 'could occur' means they are occurring.

That we need to tread softly in light of the political ramifications of challenging god believers is a separate issue. I am not arguing against that issue. But tell me why, for scientific reasons, god beliefs deserve a double standard?

I concede my Star Trek analogy doesn’t cut the mustard. But I’m not all the way convinced that the myth argument can hold as much weight as your placing on it.

Specific God myths -- Yaweh, Jesus, Krishna, et. al. -- can be dismissed on evidence. But a vague, generic Deist God is less myth than concept. Often you can only wound a concept with evidence. To kill it, you need to show it’s logically impossible.

I think you understand this when you concede above that gods could exist. So maybe we’re in agreement, and I’m just not understanding what the “double standard” is. I've always thought specific God beliefs are considered woo among skeptics and scientists. The concept of God less so. Is that a double standard?

[Piscivore]

Assume that, in the distant future, humanity achieves knowledge of all that is knowable...

At that point, won't we be gods?

[fls]

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

Their conclusion comes across as almost mystical:

"With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22

I looked at the description of this event in detail on a previous thread. It was clear that the timing of the NDE was unknown (i.e. whether or not it corresponded in some part to the flat EEG). Some of the specific events noted by the patient that did allow the timing to be known, were events that clearly occurred well before and well after the portion of her operation where her brain was shut-down.

Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30

If you actually look at the references, this statement is wrong. The EEG begins to show changes in many people about 10s from onset of syncope, but nothing even remotely like flat-lining is seen.

Linda

[fls]

That we need to tread softly in light of the political ramifications of challenging god believers is a separate issue. I am not arguing against that issue. But tell me why, for scientific reasons, god beliefs deserve a double standard?

Who are we looking at for the answer to that question? Or alternatively, who are we trying to persuade?

Linda

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I'm not just any fool. I'm gentlehorse the fool.

(Grabs dunce cap and heads for the corner...) :)Darn, my not politically correct use of the word, 'fool', did not help the communication. Sorry. :o

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who are we looking at for the answer to that question? Or alternatively, who are we trying to persuade?

LindaWell this started when Dr Plait posted a SWIFT blog entry recommending a web site that promotes science. On that web site, the position was stated that is frequently used by many in scientific community that, science does not address god beliefs one way or the other.

This led to a discussion, which I have had before on the forum, that the position, science does not address god beliefs, is a fallacy. It bothers me that the "cannot test gods" principle is not just misused to support god beliefs, but also, that it ignores the other side of the coin here, if the god is imaginary, it does not exist. And one can look at the problem, are gods imagined?

[Skeptic Ginger]

The idea was that you will have exhausted all natural explanations, leaving only...um...non-natural explanations.
I dunno, I think deists would have a field day.

I could also work the other way of course: a natural explanation could be found thereby disproving the deist god.

Meaning, also, that utimately the existence of the deist god could turn out to be a scientific question after all.

BJHow do you exhaust all natural explanations or test all god possibilities either way? Aren't these presumed to be infinite and that is the problem "disproving" gods exist?

I am saying we don't test all the potential evidence for much of anything when we come to a conclusion about what the evidence supports. Have we mapped every genome before saying evolution theory explains how we have the organisms we have today? Heck, for that matter, we had evolution theory long before genetic science confirmed it.

Do we need to test every god belief to determine they are all imaginary gods? Is there not sufficient evidence in the thousands of god myths and absence of god evidence that imagination explains god beliefs?

And isn't it on political grounds rather than scientific grounds that we ignore the above conclusion and instead apply different standards to god beliefs than we apply to everything else science addresses?

I am not objecting to the need for political measures to be used by scientists to address the god question. I am objecting to pretending these are scientific grounds by mis-applying the principle one cannot test things outside the Universe.

[gentlehorse]

At that point, won't we be gods?
How should I know? What do I look like? Buddha? (There is a striking resemblence, but that's entirely beside the point.) :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

I concede my Star Trek analogy doesn’t cut the mustard. But I’m not all the way convinced that the myth argument can hold as much weight as your placing on it.

Specific God myths -- Yaweh, Jesus, Krishna, et. al. -- can be dismissed on evidence. But a vague, generic Deist God is less myth than concept. Often you can only wound a concept with evidence. To kill it, you need to show it’s logically impossible.

I think you understand this when you concede above that gods could exist. So maybe we’re in agreement, and I’m just not understanding what the “double standard” is. I've always thought specific God beliefs are considered woo among skeptics and scientists. The concept of God less so. Is that a double standard?How many fossils do you need to examine to decide they support evolution theory? How many genomes do you map to conclude they support evolution theory.

I have no problem calling it my, "All gods are myths" theory. The problem I am addressing is applying a double standard to the evidence for my theory over the evidence for other scientific theories. Do we typically discuss evolution theory with the caveat, but there could be some life on Earth that didn't evolve so the evidence doesn't "disprove" Creationism?

I will be happy to give you a definition of some organism that could exist but didn't evolve, analogous to the Deist definition of a god that could exist which isn't a myth.

Should we put that caveat definition of the life form which could exist but didn't evolve on science web sites and information pages describing how Creationists should not worry because the science of evolution theory doesn't address their Bible beliefs, science can't test Bible stories with any certainty worth offending their group by?

It's not that science claims evolution is proved or plate tectonics are proved yadda yadda. It's the other conclusion, the one that must not be mentioned, that is at issue. All the evidence supports the, All gods are myths' theory and no evidence supports the, 'All Gods are not myths' theory. All you are saying is well, there could be a god. That is not evidence. There could be an organism that didn't evolve. Why does that organism get so little air time in the science community?


As for showing a concept to be logically impossible: In science theories do not have absolute certainty. They don't need it. Why is the standard for the god concept to be certain no god exists by proving no god could exist, while this is not the standard for other scientific theories? How many Thors, Peles and Zeus's do you need to screw in a light bulb? ;)

[Malerin]

How do you exhaust all natural explanations or test all god possibilities either way? Aren't these presumed to be infinite and that is the problem "disproving" gods exist?

I am saying we don't test all the potential evidence for much of anything when we come to a conclusion about what the evidence supports. Have we mapped every genome before saying evolution theory explains how we have the organisms we have today? Heck, for that matter, we had evolution theory long before genetic science confirmed it.

Do we need to test every god belief to determine they are all imaginary gods? Is there not sufficient evidence in the thousands of god myths and absence of god evidence that imagination explains god beliefs?

And isn't it on political grounds rather than scientific grounds that we ignore the above conclusion and instead apply different standards to god beliefs than we apply to everything else science addresses?

I am not objecting to the need for political measures to be used by scientists to address the god question. I am objecting to pretending these are scientific grounds by mis-applying the principle one cannot test things outside the Universe.

Why do you keep stating there is "absence of god evidence"? Everything I posted here We have indirect evidence via the fine-tuning of the physical constants. We have anecdotal accounts from reliable people who claim to have spiritual experiences related to God and to have observed supernatural phenemena. We now know millions of people have had NDE's, a sizeable percent of which report a highly spiritual experience complete with visitations from dead people, being in the presence of God, and veridical OBE's. Science does not have a satisfactory account for the NDE phenemenon, nor is it clear why we should have evolved as creatures who have intensely spiritual experiences right before death. Children's vivid memories of past lives are evidence that a soul exists, which is indirect evidence for the existence of God.

is evidence for god. It may not be evidence you find very compelling, but it is evidence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because, Malerin, your evidence is not valid. Conclusions have to be removed from what you are calling evidence. Other people must look at the same evidence and come to the same conclusions. I can't look at your personal experience and come to the same conclusion you come to.

I can hook up an eeg or run a PET scan. If you had evidence that gods were communicating with people that could be consistently shown from person to person from message to message in a way that the evidence could be examined and others could verify the conclusion, that would be evidence of gods.

You simply cannot use a conclusion as evidence and that is what you are trying to do. Just saying it is not as convincing as other evidence does not make it evidence of the conclusion.

[Herzblut]

In science theories do not have absolute certainty. They don't need it. Why is the standard for the god concept to be certain no god exists by proving no god could exist, while this is not the standard for other scientific theories?
"God exists" is not a scientific theory. Moreover, science deals with relevant things, your crusade against religion not being one of those.

[paximperium]

"God exists" is not a scientific theory.
It is. "God exist" is claim about reality. This can be tested.

Moreover, science deals with relevant things, Science deals with reality. Unless you are claiming that God's existance is beyond the natural(ie. supernatural), is unreal(ie. fantasy) or is completely irrelevant, it is completely relevant question.

your crusade against religion not being one of those. You make it seems as if a "crusade" against superstition is a bad thing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

"God exists" is not a scientific theory. Moreover, science deals with relevant things, your crusade against religion not being one of those.What Paxi said.

And a couple more things.

'Gods exist' can be a scientific theory. Some people would like to see it as a parallel concept which I think is rather arbitrary. But rather than "god exists" being the issue here, I am saying there is another issue which is clearly within the realm of science and which is routinely addressed using the scientific process. That is, 'god beliefs are myth beliefs'.

We have evidence where god beliefs come from and it is not from people interacting with real gods. That evidence says something about the nature of 'gods'. It says gods are myths. The evidence using the scientific process supports the conclusion gods are myths.

It is not true there is 'no evidence' and therefore it is not correct for scientists to claim there is no way to draw any conclusions about gods.


And, my crusade is not against religion, it is against science pretending there is no evidence, and/or manufacturing a special category for some god beliefs and claiming there is scientific grounds for this position. There is indeed political grounds, but the scientific grounds argument does not hold up to closer scrutiny.

[Malerin]

Because, Malerin, your evidence is not valid. Conclusions have to be removed from what you are calling evidence.

What conclusions have to be removed? Do you dispute people report having spiritual experiences? Is God not an explanation for these experiences? Is it even possible to talk about evidence without there being a corresponding hypothesis in mind?

Other people must look at the same evidence and come to the same conclusions.

Are you sure you want to go there? :) You forget the number of atheists in the world is extremely small. The vast majority of people come to my conclusion, not yours.

Besides, your point is wrong anyway. If 10 idiots on a jury don't know how DNA works, and 2 non-idiots do, does that mean DNA is not evidence because the jury members didn't all come to the same conclusion wrt DNA evidence left at a crime scene? Or look at it another way: everyone who examines the evidence of the fossil record and radioactive dating should come away with the conclusion the Earth is five something billion years old and animals have evolved over time. Does the fact that there are a large number of people who don't come to this conclusion mean the fossil record is not evidence?

I can't look at your personal experience and come to the same conclusion you come to.

Nor would I expect you to, having read your posts. That doesn't make the evidence invalid. There are people here who think 100 heads in a row isn't evidence for a two-headed coin. The fact they don't understand probability doesn't make 100 heads in a row non-evidence. Is it possible you don't come to the same conclusion as me because you're...wrong :eek:

Also, I can't look at my personal experience and come to the same conclusion you do. So who's right?

I can hook up an eeg or run a PET scan.

Which shows that my brain is working, not that the message isn't spiritually inspired. A PET scan is perfectly consistent with idealism or dualism: people have spiritual experiences because God created their brains to give them feelings of spirituality.

If you had evidence that gods were communicating with people that could be consistently shown from person to person from message to message in a way that the evidence could be examined and others could verify the conclusion, that would be evidence of gods.

That would be stronger evidence for gods. And others CAN verify the conclusion. As I said, if we were to stop 100 random people, the vast majority would agree with my conclusion. And suppose SETI picked up a message that was clearly non-random, but totally indecipherable. Wouldn't that be evidence that alien life exists, even though nobody could verify what the message said?

You simply cannot use a conclusion as evidence and that is what you are trying to do.

Not at all. Reported spiritual experiences, NDE's, accounts of past lives from children are actual phenomena (evidence). That evidence has to be explained one way or another. God is an explanatory hypothesis.

Just saying it is not as convincing as other evidence does not make it evidence of the conclusion.

What I listed exists as rea evidence that must be explained, one way or another. I conclude nothing when I say: so-and-so reported having an OBE while near-dead. That is simply evidence. From that point, we look at that hypotheses could explain the evidence. Is the person lying? Is there some materialistic cause we don't fully understand? Did their soul leave their body?

[Herzblut]

It is. "God exist" is claim about reality. This can be tested.
Science deals with reality. Unless you are claiming that God's existance is beyond the natural(ie. supernatural), is unreal(ie. fantasy) or is completely irrelevant, it is completely relevant question.

Work out a test plan and convince somebody to put his money into your research. Good luck.


You make it seems as if a "crusade" against superstition is a bad thing.

A crusade against human nature is preposterous.

[Herzblut]

'Gods exist' can be a scientific theory.

No.


We have evidence where god beliefs come from and it is not from people interacting with real gods.

Christians believe the opposite and there is no way to disprove them scientifically. That's why nobody is investing a single penny trying. Unfortunately, your assertions will remain pure speculations forever.


And, my crusade is not against religion, it is against science pretending there is no evidence, and/or manufacturing a special category for some god beliefs and claiming there is scientific grounds for this position.

You're trying to abuse science for your political agenda, you might better want to pay science instead. All you need is a convincing marketing concept to knock on the door of the White House for some money. All the best!

[Skeptic Ginger]

What conclusions have to be removed? Do you dispute people report having spiritual experiences? Is God not an explanation for these experiences? Is it even possible to talk about evidence without there being a corresponding hypothesis in mind?First, I do not dispute they are having an experience, but yes, I do dispute there is any evidence these folks are having a real god experience. And that is the issue, scientific evidence. The issue is not the long thread we've already hashed over this supposed "not convincing, not scientific quality, not up to scientific standards" evidence. The issue here is about the 'science of gods are a myth' evidence. The issue is not about the theist communities' claims of what constitutes evidence.



Are you sure you want to go there? :) You forget the number of atheists in the world is extremely small. The vast majority of people come to my conclusion, not yours.Yes, I'm sure I want to go there. The scientific process is not about majority rule. It is about reproducible, evidence supported conclusions.



Besides, your point is wrong anyway. If 10 idiots on a jury don't know how DNA works, and 2 non-idiots do, does that mean DNA is not evidence because the jury members didn't all come to the same conclusion wrt DNA evidence left at a crime scene? Or look at it another way: everyone who examines the evidence of the fossil record and radioactive dating should come away with the conclusion the Earth is five something billion years old and animals have evolved over time. Does the fact that there are a large number of people who don't come to this conclusion mean the fossil record is not evidence?Again, the scientific process and what qualifies as evidence is well established. It is not majority rules. I have no problem deferring to the scientific consensus based on the consensus of what constitutes scientific evidence. I do have a problem with double standard applications of what constitutes scientific evidence.



Nor would I expect you to, having read your posts. That doesn't make the evidence invalid. There are people here who think 100 heads in a row isn't evidence for a two-headed coin. The fact they don't understand probability doesn't make 100 heads in a row non-evidence. Is it possible you don't come to the same conclusion as me because you're...wrong :eek: We have waaaaaay more than 100 mythical gods in a row.



Also, I can't look at my personal experience and come to the same conclusion you do. So who's right?Your personal experience is only valid evidence if it can be confirmed.



Which shows that my brain is working, not that the message isn't spiritually inspired. A PET scan is perfectly consistent with idealism or dualism: people have spiritual experiences because God created their brains to give them feelings of spirituality. Put your brain scan/PET/eeg/MRI or similar evidence forward that supports your claim it is evidence gods are communicating with people and let's evaluate it. Until then, there is no scientific evidence of gods existing.




That would be stronger evidence for gods. And others CAN verify the conclusion. As I said, if we were to stop 100 random people, the vast majority would agree with my conclusion. And suppose SETI picked up a message that was clearly non-random, but totally indecipherable. Wouldn't that be evidence that alien life exists, even though nobody could verify what the message said?The evidence of ETs would need peer review, it would need to be credible, and if there was only a single incident it would likely be considered inconclusive. I have no problem applying the scientific process to any evidence you wish to propose. But you must present the evidence, not the conclusion as if that were the evidence.



Not at all. Reported spiritual experiences, NDE's, accounts of past lives from children are actual phenomena (evidence). That evidence has to be explained one way or another. God is an explanatory hypothesis. I'm confident "god did it" is not a viable hypothesis. I have no problem you disagree. I welcome this discussion within the scientific community using the accepted standards of the scientific process. The issue here is that such dialog is ignored. Gods are claimed by many in the scientific community to be outside the realm of science for the simple reason you can define an untestable god. Never mind only Deists define such a god and the scientific community makes no claim it only accepts a Deist god.

I can define an organism that did not evolve. Does that mean we need a caveat every time we mention evolution theory?


What I listed exists as rea[l] evidence that must be explained, one way or another. I conclude nothing when I say: so-and-so reported having an OBE while near-dead. That is simply evidence. From that point, we look at that hypotheses could explain the evidence. Is the person lying? Is there some materialistic cause we don't fully understand? Did their soul leave their body?If you are proposing to address the existence of gods based on scientific standards of inquiry and evidence, go for it. The objection I have here is claiming science has nothing to say about the existence or not of gods because they are outside the realm of science.

[paximperium]

Work out a test plan and convince somebody to put his money into your research. Good luck.
Why should I? I'm not the one claiming some super powered being gives them the right to force others to believe their crap.


A crusade against human nature is preposterous.
So crusading against war/genocide/polygamy/canibalism etc etc etc. is preposterous because it is part of "human nature"(as you have arbitrarily decided based on what exactly?)

[paximperium]

No.
Wow...what an intelligent "reply".


Christians believe the opposite and there is no way to disprove them scientifically. False. Any claim on reality can be tested and disproved.

That's why nobody is investing a single penny trying. Wrong again. You haven't read of all those prayer studies have you?

Unfortunately, your assertions will remain pure speculations forever. False again. The data shows how myths and religions develop. Your hand waving doens't magic it away.


You're trying to abuse science for your political agenda, you might better want to pay science instead. All you need is a convincing marketing concept to knock on the door of the White House for some money. All the best! Yawn...nothing beats a raving ad hominem when you have nothing relevant left.

[BillyJoe]

How do you exhaust all natural explanations or test all god possibilities either way? Aren't these presumed to be infinite and that is the problem "disproving" gods exist?

I think you may have misunderstood what I said, perhaps because I left out a bit. I left it out because I was following on from what gentlehorse said and therefore I thought it would be implied. Anyway here is what I said with the implied bit added in bold:

"The idea was that, if science in the far distant future ever ends up knowing all there is to know except for how something came from nothing, you will have exhausted all natural explanations, leaving only...um...non-natural explanations for how something came from nothing.
I dunno, I think deists would have a field day."

BJ

[rikzilla]

Odin is displeased with this thread.
Since that which can be either pleased or displeased exists....then
obviously Odin exists!

There! We're done! All hail Odin!
-z

[Ryan O'Dine]

How many fossils do you need to examine to decide they support evolution theory? How many genomes do you map to conclude they support evolution theory.

I have no problem calling it my, "All gods are myths" theory. The problem I am addressing is applying a double standard to the evidence for my theory over the evidence for other scientific theories. Do we typically discuss evolution theory with the caveat, but there could be some life on Earth that didn't evolve so the evidence doesn't "disprove" Creationism?

I will be happy to give you a definition of some organism that could exist but didn't evolve, analogous to the Deist definition of a god that could exist which isn't a myth.

Should we put that caveat definition of the life form which could exist but didn't evolve on science web sites and information pages describing how Creationists should not worry because the science of evolution theory doesn't address their Bible beliefs, science can't test Bible stories with any certainty worth offending their group by?

It's not that science claims evolution is proved or plate tectonics are proved yadda yadda. It's the other conclusion, the one that must not be mentioned, that is at issue. All the evidence supports the, All gods are myths' theory and no evidence supports the, 'All Gods are not myths' theory. All you are saying is well, there could be a god. That is not evidence. There could be an organism that didn't evolve. Why does that organism get so little air time in the science community?


As for showing a concept to be logically impossible: In science theories do not have absolute certainty. They don't need it. Why is the standard for the god concept to be certain no god exists by proving no god could exist, while this is not the standard for other scientific theories? How many Thors, Peles and Zeus's do you need to screw in a light bulb? ;)

Science can tackle evolution because it's developed the tools to do the job. God theories are in a different category because they represent an area science is simply not equipped to enter (yet). Since the tools haven't been developed to address question, there is no double standard. God is not a rigorous scientific theory.

Science can discount specific God theories where they enter its working domain. And there's no reason to think a God actually needs to exist. Is that enough to kill the theory?

Let's go back to “Before the Big Bang.” It's not unreasonable to imagine a time when every such theory (and there are multitudes) is proven wrong, and there's still no evidence that there was -- or needs to be -- anything before the BB (there are “atheist” BtBB theories). If BtBB hasn't been scientifically disallowed, is it proper at that point to lay the question of BtBB to rest? I think the best we can say is, “Science cannot offer a definitive conclusion at this point.”

It seems to me that's exactly what science says of God -- and properly so.

[fls]

I think you may have misunderstood what I said, perhaps because I left out a bit. I left it out because I was following on from what gentlehorse said and therefore I thought it would be implied. Anyway here is what I said with the implied bit added in bold:

"The idea was that, if science in the far distant future ever ends up knowing all there is to know except for how something came from nothing, you will have exhausted all natural explanations, leaving only...um...non-natural explanations for how something came from nothing.
I dunno, I think deists would have a field day."

BJ

What has always been of more interest to me is how one knows that you have exhausted all natural explanations?

Linda

[ThatSoundAgain]

I think you may have misunderstood what I said, perhaps because I left out a bit. I left it out because I was following on from what gentlehorse said and therefore I thought it would be implied. Anyway here is what I said with the implied bit added in bold:

"The idea was that, if science in the far distant future ever ends up knowing all there is to know except for how something came from nothing, you will have exhausted all natural explanations, leaving only...um...non-natural explanations for how something came from nothing.
I dunno, I think deists would have a field day."

BJ

There are a couple of problems with tha scenario. One, you're assuming the conclusion, we know everything except that one thing because it cannot be known. Thus, the scenario only works if indeed the explanation cannot be known - which is what we're debating.

Two, there's no way to know for certain that you know everything. I'd further argue that even knowing everything is impossible from within this universe, because your knowledge of the universe would have to be as large as the universe itself. And that's just for the current state, no history included.

That last is a rather interesting problem. See Jorge Luis Borges' "On Rigor in Science", or Umberto Eco's "On the Impossibility of Drawing a Map of the Empire on a Scale of 1 to 1".

ETA: Thanks, Linda, for once again making the point more quickly and clearly.

[Piscivore]

What has always been of more interest to me is how one knows that you have exhausted all natural explanations?

None of the rest of the explanations are labeled "Organic"?

[fls]

Science can tackle evolution because it's developed the tools to do the job. God theories are in a different category because they represent an area science is simply not equipped to enter (yet).

This is the part I don't understand. Why not? Ideas about gods seem to be like any other ideas that we have - they can be addressed based on the source of the idea.

Since the tools haven't been developed to address question, there is no double standard. God is not a rigorous scientific theory.

I agree that God isn't a scientific theory, but how does that matter? Most of what science addresses isn't theory, but rather references to events/observations and the ideas that come from them.

Science can discount specific God theories where they enter its working domain. And there's no reason to think a God actually needs to exist. Is that enough to kill the theory?

Let's go back to “Before the Big Bang.” It's not unreasonable to imagine a time when every such theory (and there are multitudes) is proven wrong, and there's still no evidence that there was -- or needs to be -- anything before the BB (there are “atheist” BtBB theories). If BtBB hasn't been scientifically disallowed, is it proper at that point to lay the question of BtBB to rest? I think the best we can say is, “Science cannot offer a definitive conclusion at this point.”

I think science is interested in addressing/exploring the conditions around the BB and BtBB. I'm not sure science ever reaches a point where it declares that curiosity cannot be satisfied, though. What would stop people from continuing to try to understand? And even if that point were reached for some reason, why would it occur to anyone to arbitrarily insert Goddidit at that point? If Goddidit wasn't a reasonable answer before, why would it be a reasonable answer then? And if it was a reasonable answer before, why did we bother coming up with Gravity and Electromagnetism? We could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble. :)

Linda

[Piscivore]

This is the part I don't understand. Why not? Ideas about gods seem to be like any other ideas that we have - they can be addressed based on the source of the idea.

No, they can't- at least not rationally. It's a red herring fallacy, either ad hom, genetic, or association fallacy, depending on how it is presented.

Just because the Illiad is a myth does not mean it is rational to treat Troy as a myth, or dismiss Helen or Odysseus as fictional characters. We can dismiss some of the things that they are said to have done or experienced as impossible, but not their existence.

[fls]

No, they can't- at least not rationally. It's a red herring fallacy, either ad hom, genetic, or association fallacy, depending on how it is presented.

Just because the Illiad is a myth does not mean it is rational to treat Troy as a myth, or dismiss Helen or Odysseus as fictional characters. We can dismiss some of the things that they are said to have done or experienced as impossible, but not their existence.

But that's what I mean. The Illiad is a myth, but wouldn't we all consider it reasonable to look at the extent to which it represents real people, places and events, and to tease apart how and where it becomes fictional? And to study the process of myth-making, its function, as the consequence of other functional activities, etc.?

Linda

[Piscivore]

But that's what I mean. The Illiad is a myth, but wouldn't we all consider it reasonable to look at the extent to which it represents real people, places and events, and to tease apart how and where it becomes fictional?
Sure, but that's not what is going on here. It was presented that "the evidence actually does support the conclusion god beliefs originated as myths, not from interaction with real gods"

Now, first, the dichotomy presented (either "originated as myth" or "from interaction with real gods") is false. There is no evidence that the myths did not originate from interaction with real gods, and plenty of evidence -Troy included- that myths can be formed from and based on real events and real entities. People exaggerate real events and real entities all the time. Just because something is a myth does not mean it is wholly false. Certain properties or qualities of gods (or mythical characters) may be shown through evidence to be false, but that does not mean there is no such entity. Achilles probably wasn't invulnerable to harm from being dipped int he river Styx, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a real person.

Further, if the entirety of "the evidence" that god beliefs originated as myths is that we know of gods from mythical stories, that's a genetic fallacy. As much as saying "the reason we know Troy originated as myth is that we know the Illiad is a myth" is fallacious.

And to study the process of myth-making, its function, as the consequence of other functional activities, etc.?
That's a discipline wholly unrelated to the existence of gods. And the fact that people make up stories does not mean that things in a made up story are false. That's genetic fallacy again.

[fls]

Sure, but that's not what is going on here. It was presented that "the evidence actually does support the conclusion god beliefs originated as myths, not from interaction with real gods"

Now, first, the dichotomy presented (either "originated as myth" or "from interaction with real gods") is false. There is no evidence that the myths did not originate from interaction with real gods, and plenty of evidence -Troy included- that myths can be formed from and based on real events and real entities. People exaggerate real events and real entities all the time. Just because something is a myth does not mean it is wholly false. Certain properties or qualities of gods (or mythical characters) may be shown through evidence to be false, but that does not mean there is no such entity. Achilles probably wasn't invulnerable to harm from being dipped int he river Styx, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a real person.

It's my impression that that's what is going on, though - that these stories are studied much as we study many other myths - by considering what sorts of interactions can lead to these stories and what sorts of properties get attributed to these characters. A story about someone can indicate that that someone was real, but we look for independent information about that person. And it is one thing to propose that the person is real and quite another to propose that their magical qualities were real, when we have independent confirmation that people exist, but not of the magical qualities. And even now we see how magical qualities are mistakenly attributed.

Further, if the entirety of "the evidence" that god beliefs originated as myths is that we know of gods from mythical stories, that's a genetic fallacy. As much as saying "the reason we know Troy originated as myth is that we know the Illiad is a myth" is fallacious.

I agree, but I don't think that is what is being said. It's certainly not what I'm saying and it isn't the impression that I get from scholars, either.

That's a discipline wholly unrelated to the existence of gods. And the fact that people make up stories does not mean that things in a made up story are false. That's genetic fallacy again.

Much of our history is tied up in story-telling. We study the process when it comes to the veracity of other stories. I simply don't understand why that same study cannot be applied to god-stories. Again, I'm not saying that because some stories contain fictional elements to various degrees that anyone is saying that all stories are pure fiction.

Linda

[Ryan O'Dine]

This is the part I don't understand. Why not? Ideas about gods seem to be like any other ideas that we have - they can be addressed based on the source of the idea.

…

I agree that God isn't a scientific theory, but how does that matter? Most of what science addresses isn't theory, but rather references to events/observations and the ideas that come from them.

Piscivore has done some of my responding for me. I'll just add that whereas specific God stories can be analyzed as you suggest, one cannot necessarily generalize from them to the overarching God Theory. Part of the reason -- and one of the ways we know the God theory is not a proper scientific theory -- is that the minimum requirements are lacking: there's no well-defined set of terms.

In other words, we have no agreed upon definition of God, of his attributes, of his testable qualities. Specific God myths are often sufficiently defined to dismiss. Not so the vague, generic Deist God skeptigirl wishes to drop into the Atlantic with concrete shoes.

I think science is interested in addressing/exploring the conditions around the BB and BtBB. I'm not sure science ever reaches a point where it declares that curiosity cannot be satisfied, though. What would stop people from continuing to try to understand? And even if that point were reached for some reason, why would it occur to anyone to arbitrarily insert Goddidit at that point? If Goddidit wasn't a reasonable answer before, why would it be a reasonable answer then? And if it was a reasonable answer before, why did we bother coming up with Gravity and Electromagnetism? We could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble. :)

Linda

I didn't mean to suggest that science ever does or should give up on a question. My point was that there are times and questions where the best it can do is to say, “this is not presently amenable to scientific inquiry.” Which I believe is the case with the theory of God.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you may have misunderstood what I said, perhaps because I left out a bit. I left it out because I was following on from what gentlehorse said and therefore I thought it would be implied. Anyway here is what I said with the implied bit added in bold:

"The idea was that, if science in the far distant future ever ends up knowing all there is to know except for how something came from nothing, you will have exhausted all natural explanations, leaving only...um...non-natural explanations for how something came from nothing.
I dunno, I think deists would have a field day."

BJWhich goes back to my answer, adding a "God did it" layer only begs the same question, where did this god come from. In other words, "god did it", answers nothing. It merely gives a false impression it answers the question. I commented in the future this would be obvious even to a fool, but subsequently apologized to all the people today who currently think "god did it" actually answers something.

"God did it" is one of the biggest nonsensical answers theists give.

"God made the Universe."
"Who made God?"
[fill in any answer dodge here you want]

[Malerin]

First, I do not dispute they are having an experience, but yes, I do dispute there is any evidence these folks are having a real god experience. And that is the issue, scientific evidence. The issue is not the long thread we've already hashed over this supposed "not convincing, not scientific quality, not up to scientific standards" evidence. The issue here is about the 'science of gods are a myth' evidence. The issue is not about the theist communities' claims of what constitutes evidence.

If someone you trust calls and tells you your house is on fire, do you wait for them to bring you a smoldering chunk of wood you can test in the lab before you believe them? As others have told you, you're just not going to get that kind of evidence investigating theism. It's in a whole nother realm. That doesn't mean it's not true. (I think the whole notion of "scientific evidence" breaks down when examined closely, but that's for a radicical skeptic's thread).



Yes, I'm sure I want to go there. The scientific process is not about majority rule.

I agree. I'm glad to see you backing away from your claim that Other people must look at the same evidence and come to the same conclusions
The conclusions that other people come to are irrelevant.

It is about reproducible, evidence supported conclusions.

Is a one-time message that SETI picks up reproducible? Would it still confirm the hypothesis "aliens exist"?



Again, the scientific process and what qualifies as evidence is well established. It is not majority rules. I have no problem deferring to the scientific consensus based on the consensus of what constitutes scientific evidence. I do have a problem with double standard applications of what constitutes scientific evidence.

You brought up "other people" into this. Regardless, you may not think anecdotal accounts are scientific evidence, yet certain areas of science depend on anecdotal accounts and subjective experience.



We have waaaaaay more than 100 mythical gods in a row.

But the question is of the generic form "Does God exist?" We can posit 100 different aliens, consider them all ridiculous and still not have made a dent in the hypothesis "Does alien life exist?".



Your personal experience is only valid evidence if it can be confirmed.

And it can be. Millions and millions of people have reported the same experience. Do you think I'm the only person in the world who's ever claimed to have a spiritual experience? Now, if you want to confirm the reported spiritual account is an actual spiritual account, that's a lot more metaphysical.



Put your brain scan/PET/eeg/MRI or similar evidence forward that supports your claim it is evidence gods are communicating with people and let's evaluate it. Until then, there is no scientific evidence of gods existing.

Nor did I claim there was "scientific evidence". I claimed there was evidence God exists.




The evidence of ETs would need peer review, it would need to be credible, and if there was only a single incident it would likely be considered inconclusive.

A message beamed directly at SETI, obviously non-random, but indecphirable would be "inconclusive"? Think a message consisting of radio waves coming in binary form 134267 134267 134267. We might not know what it means, but it would be very good evidence that alien intelligence exists.

I have no problem applying the scientific process to any evidence you wish to propose. But you must present the evidence, not the conclusion as if that were the evidence.

I am presenting the evidence. NDE's and cross-cultural subjective spiritual accounts are a real phenemenon. "God exists" explains why this phenemena exists.


I'm confident "god did it" is not a viable hypothesis. I have no problem you disagree. I welcome this discussion within the scientific community using the accepted standards of the scientific process.

As others have pointed out, "God exists" is not something you're going to find out in a lab (probably).

The issue here is that such dialog is ignored. Gods are claimed by many in the scientific community to be outside the realm of science for the simple reason you can define an untestable god. Never mind only Deists define such a god and the scientific community makes no claim it only accepts a Deist god.

Defining God to be untestable does not mean there is no God.

I can define an organism that did not evolve. Does that mean we need a caveat every time we mention evolution theory?

If you're unsure whether that organism exists or not, yes, you would need a caveat.


If you are proposing to address the existence of gods based on scientific standards of inquiry and evidence, go for it. The objection I have here is claiming science has nothing to say about the existence or not of gods because they are outside the realm of science.


What do you think science should say then?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Science can tackle evolution because it's developed the tools to do the job. God theories are in a different category because they represent an area science is simply not equipped to enter (yet). Since the tools haven't been developed to address question, there is no double standard. God is not a rigorous scientific theory.You are repeating the thing I am arguing against as if that changes anything. It doesn't.

All the evidence, lots and lots of it, supports the conclusion people make up god myths.
No scientific evidence supports the conclusion that any gods are the source of any god myths.

How many god myths does it take to recognize a pattern? How many trees do you need to see to recognize a new tree is a tree when you see one? How many alien abductions do you need to investigate to recognize the next alien abduction fits the same pattern?

Claiming we don't have the tools to recognize the pattern of god myths is not a scientifically sound statement.

Science can discount specific God theories where they enter its working domain. And there's no reason to think a God actually needs to exist. Is that enough to kill the theory?What theory? "Gods exist" is a conclusion. A theory is an overall framework explaining evidence. "Gods exist" is not evidence.

The evidence we have is 'god beliefs'. If you take the hypothesis, real gods explain god beliefs, it fails because there is no supporting evidence. You can take the usual cop out and say you couldn't think of any way to test that hypothesis because it is possible to define an untestable god.

But if you take the hypothesis, human imagination explains god beliefs, now you actually find supporting evidence for that hypothesis.

So here are some in the scientific community saying we can't test the god hypothesis. But that ignores the fact we have a viable hypothesis with supporting evidence that does answer the god question. The evidence supports the conclusion that "god beliefs" originate from imagination. Period, the end. No unexplained evidence is left over to require further hypotheses or theories.

You tell me, what evidence is left that needs explaining?

Let's go back to “Before the Big Bang.” It's not unreasonable to imagine a time when every such theory (and there are multitudes) is proven wrong, and there's still no evidence that there was -- or needs to be -- anything before the BB (there are “atheist” BtBB theories). If BtBB hasn't been scientifically disallowed, is it proper at that point to lay the question of BtBB to rest? I think the best we can say is, “Science cannot offer a definitive conclusion at this point.”

It seems to me that's exactly what science says of God -- and properly so.Pondering the possibility that something could have existed before the Big Bang is reasonable based on the fact everything else we see in the Universe appears to have had something before its beginning.

It is not reasonable on scientific grounds to ponder the existence of anything a person could possibly imagine. Thus on what basis does one ponder the possibility actual flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns or invisible garage dragons exist? There is none.

The fact lots of people believe in gods has been explained by following the evidence which supports the conclusion those gods are myths. There is no reasonable scientific grounds to ponder the existence of real gods except as human fantasies like FSMs, IPUs and IGDs.

Remember, I am not arguing there are no political issues here regarding god beliefs. I am arguing the scientific case for claiming science doesn't go there is full of holes.



-

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, they can't- at least not rationally. It's a red herring fallacy, either ad hom, genetic, or association fallacy, depending on how it is presented.

Just because the Illiad is a myth does not mean it is rational to treat Troy as a myth, or dismiss Helen or Odysseus as fictional characters. We can dismiss some of the things that they are said to have done or experienced as impossible, but not their existence.You've provided an example of a myth based on some real thing. I'm saying the same thing. God myths are explained on the basis of natural contributions to their origination. No evidence suggests real gods contributed to any god myth.

The idea we might look for the real Troy behind the story is reasonable. It is reasonable to look for the real stories behind god myths. There are plenty. Floods for example are common in god myths. Floods are real things. We understand how real flood stories become flood myths. The theory god myths are based on human imagination is supported by the evidence. What contributes to those myths makes up the bulk of that evidence. Observing new god myths form like the Cargo Cults even tests and confirms the theory.

[Piscivore]

It's my impression that that's what is going on, though - that these stories are studied much as we study many other myths - by considering what sorts of interactions can lead to these stories and what sorts of properties get attributed to these characters.
Agreed. Which is why if there is a god there is very good reason to think that it bears little to no relation to anything a current religion follows, or what any theist currently espouse.

This says nothing about the existence of such an entity, however.

A story about someone can indicate that that someone was real, but we look for independent information about that person.
Agreed. Which is why the variable, clearly accretionary, and obviously mythical properties and identities assigned to specific gods are less interesting to me than the fact that every single culture of which I am aware has had a god concept of some kind.

Once this layer of mythologization is stripped away, we seem to have much more corroborating literary reference for this mysterious entity at the core of these stories than we do Achilles, yeah?

And it is one thing to propose that the person is real and quite another to propose that their magical qualities were real, when we have independent confirmation that people exist, but not of the magical qualities.
Quite so. In fact, I'd go so far to say that we know enough about how the universe operates to flat out state that many of these magical qualities are indeed impossible.

That says that the mythologised, accretionary qualities are false, and any entity that must have these qualities does not exist- but it does not rule out the possibility that there is an entity to whom these qualities are mistakenly assigned due to the mythologising process we know exists.

And even now we see how magical qualities are mistakenly attributed.
Quite so- which rules "magical qualities" out as a test for esistence of an entity in mythology.

I agree, but I don't think that is what is being said. It's certainly not what I'm saying and it isn't the impression that I get from scholars, either.
I'm not talking about your argument or the scholars', I'm talking about the one in the OP which I've heard proffered many times already. If there is something more subtle than "god stories are myths => gods are myths" is meant it is not coming across to me.

Much of our history is tied up in story-telling. We study the process when it comes to the veracity of other stories. I simply don't understand why that same study cannot be applied to god-stories. Again, I'm not saying that because some stories contain fictional elements to various degrees that anyone is saying that all stories are pure fiction.
Exactly, which is why a story being fiction cannot be used to test for the veracity of any element of the story.

[Piscivore]

You've provided an example of a myth based on some real thing. I'm saying the same thing. God myths are explained on the basis of natural contributions to their origination. No evidence suggests real gods contributed to any god myth.
What is a "real god"?

The idea we might look for the real Troy behind the story is reasonable. It is reasonable to look for the real stories behind god myths. There are plenty. Floods for example are common in god myths. Floods are real things. We understand how real flood stories become flood myths. The theory god myths are based on human imagination is supported by the evidence. What contributes to those myths makes up the bulk of that evidence. Observing new god myths form like the Cargo Cults even tests and confirms the theory.
How are you certain that no "real thing" we do not know about or recognise yet isn't behind the god myths just as much as Troy or a C-47?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Now, first, the dichotomy presented (either "originated as myth" or "from interaction with real gods") is false.Is the dichotomy false because there is a third option?


There is no evidence that the myths did not originate from interaction with real gods, and plenty of evidence -Troy included- that myths can be formed from and based on real events and real entities. People exaggerate real events and real entities all the time. Just because something is a myth does not mean it is wholly false. Certain properties or qualities of gods (or mythical characters) may be shown through evidence to be false, but that does not mean there is no such entity. Achilles probably wasn't invulnerable to harm from being dipped int he river Styx, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a real person.

Further, if the entirety of "the evidence" that god beliefs originated as myths is that we know of gods from mythical stories, that's a genetic fallacy. As much as saying "the reason we know Troy originated as myth is that we know the Illiad is a myth" is fallacious.

That's a discipline wholly unrelated to the existence of gods. And the fact that people make up stories does not mean that things in a made up story are false. That's genetic fallacy again.I'll take this as a, "no", to the question I just asked. The choices are two, imaginary gods or real gods.

Moving on to your second objection. If you think you have some convincing evidence that real gods contributed to any god myths, present it.

There is another more logical way to look at your analogy. The myth in your example originated from observations of the natural world, as do many myths according to what the evidence shows.

Do we have evidence myths contain bits of truth? Yes. The bits of truth, however, turn out not to be the fantastic magical parts of the myths, the bits of truth turn out consistently to be natural real things.

I understand your argument, but it fails to support the claim any of the true bits in myths are the magical fantastic bits. The pattern is consistent, not that everything in a myth is false. I have not drawn that conclusion. The pattern is that everything in the myth which is true, is also not supernatural. That is the conclusion I have drawn. Any evidence you have which contradicts that conclusion is invited.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is a "real god"?


How are you certain that no "real thing" we do not know about or recognise yet isn't behind the god myths just as much as Troy or a C-47?I'm certain there is no evidence that any of the magical parts of myths are real. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

What myth can you cite in which the real bits were the supernatural magical bits?

A "real god" is a being with magical, supernatural abilities like all the other magical beings with supernatural abilities we have yet to find evidence supporting the existence of.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Agreed. Which is why if there is a god there is very good reason to think that it bears little to no relation to anything a current religion follows, or what any theist currently espouse.

This says nothing about the existence of such an entity, however.....[snip].Think about the arguments from Creationists. What do they have in common with the discussion here?

They try to use debunking of evolution theory as evidence for Creation. And they use the false pretense that because we can't "prove" a theory we should speak of evolution theory as tentative.


I am not arguing one cannot describe a Deist untestable/not falsifiable god. I am arguing against treating the conclusions we draw about the evidence against everything magical and supernatural except certain gods with a double standard. I have made this argument before.

In adding to my case here, I am pointing out that the standard in science is to follow the evidence.
The standard in science is the evidence supports a theory, it doesn't have to prove the theory.
The standard in science is not to create special categories of evidence. (That is a politically based choice which I am not belittling the importance of.)
There is no scientific evidence supporting magical supernatural beings.
There is evidence supporting humans making up myths about magical supernatural beings.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory, ALL god beliefs are of imaginary beings.

Other than the claim one cannot PROVE this theory, which is true for just about every scientific theory, there is no evidence supporting the alternative theory, some god beliefs are the result of actual human encounters with real gods.


It is on political grounds, not scientific grounds, that some in the scientific community avoid acknowledging that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory, ALL god beliefs are of imaginary beings.

Political grounds may indeed be important here. I'll even go so far and say they are important.

But the theory, 'all god beliefs are beliefs of imaginary beings', unjustifiably remains the one evidence supported theory that must not be named. The scientific justification for ignoring the evidence is not there. Simply because one can describe an untestable god, is not scientific justification for ignoring the evidence that people imagine gods while there is no evidence people have really encountered gods.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Exactly, which is why a story being fiction cannot be used to test for the veracity of any element of the story.Except Linda and I are looking at a particular quality of the elements found in the myth, not the specific element of the myth. I can understand why you see the god part of the myth as an element. It is. But it is the magical supernatural quality of the god that is not found in common between the real world and the myth. That is what I am saying there is no evidence of.

[Piscivore]

Is the dichotomy false because there is a third option?
Yes.

I'll take this as a, "no", to the question I just asked. The choices are two, imaginary gods or real gods.
That's not the original dichotomy you presented. I think from talking with you about this that you think that it is, but it is not. "Originated with myth" and "Imaginary gods" are not the same thing because some things that may appear to "originate" with myth might not actually, simply because the origins of lots of myths are not known. Our theories and conjectures that they do are not evidence that they are. The evidence that you keep citing is only evidence of change in myth, not evidence that it is made up wholesale. Look at Troy, again. It was once thought to be myth, now we don't think it is.

I know you're going to say next that "but Troy was there all along", sure- but before we found it, we didn't know that. That may be the position we are in now with gods. No science or evidence rules that out, as yet. It is very very unlively, but not certain by a long shot- especially since we do not have the first clue what "god" might be- just a lot of opinion- yours included- is based on what we know is flawed information.

Moving on to your second objection. If you think you have some convincing evidence that real gods contributed to any god myths, present it.
Every single culture in the world, ever, has had a myth about some kind of god belief. Why?

There is another more logical way to look at your analogy. The myth in your example originated from observations of the natural world, as do many myths according to what the evidence shows.

Do we have evidence myths contain bits of truth? Yes. The bits of truth, however, turn out not to be the fantastic magical parts of the myths, the bits of truth turn out consistently to be natural real things.
Yeah, if you'll read, I specifically said that any "god" entity would have to not be "magical".

Over and over again you assume that "god" = "supernatural". That's not necessarily so.

I understand your argument, but it fails to support the claim any of the true bits in myths are the magical fantastic bits. The pattern is consistent, not that everything in a myth is false. I have not drawn that conclusion. The pattern is that everything in the myth which is true, is also not supernatural. That is the conclusion I have drawn. Any evidence you have which contradicts that conclusion is invited.
I stipulated that. Why are you assuming "god" = "supernatural"?

[Piscivore]

I'm certain there is no evidence that any of the magical parts of myths are real. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

What myth can you cite in which the real bits were the supernatural magical bits?

A "real god" is a being with magical, supernatural abilities like all the other magical beings with supernatural abilities we have yet to find evidence supporting the existence of.

Think about the arguments from Creationists. What do they have in common with the discussion here?

They try to use debunking of evolution theory as evidence for Creation. And they use the false pretense that because we can't "prove" a theory we should speak of evolution theory as tentative.

That's a fallacy, yes. That's not what I'm doing. I'm calling into question your assumption "god" = "supernatural".

I am not arguing one cannot describe a Deist untestable/not falsifiable god. I am arguing against treating the conclusions we draw about the evidence against everything magical and supernatural except certain gods with a double standard. I have made this argument before.
You still have yet to do anything but assert this alleged "double standard".

Treating different concepts differently is not a "double standard. A deist god that is not alleged to be "supernatural" in any way is not getting "special treatment". Treating gods that are not claimed to be "supernatural" with the same yardstick as those that are is "special treatment"- it's called a fallacy of association.

There is no scientific evidence supporting magical supernatural beings.
There is evidence supporting humans making up myths about magical supernatural beings.
Agreed. Why do you assume "god" = "magical supernatural being"?

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory, ALL god beliefs are of imaginary beings.
What other evidence do you have other than that most gods you know about have myths woven around them?

Other than the claim one cannot PROVE this theory, which is true for just about every scientific theory, there is no evidence supporting the alternative theory, some god beliefs are the result of actual human encounters with real gods.
Every single culture in the world, ever, has had a myth about some kind of god belief. Why? Why did none of them (that I know of) start with a purely naturalisitc, scientific explanation first?


It is on political grounds, not scientific grounds, that some in the scientific community avoid acknowledging that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory, ALL god beliefs are of imaginary beings.
Do you have evidence of this political influence? Could it just be that the scientific community recognises your hypothesis as logically flawed, like I and several other here do?

Political grounds may indeed be important here. I'll even go so far and say they are important.

But the theory, 'all god beliefs are beliefs of imaginary beings', unjustifiably remains the one evidence supported theory that must not be named.
Yeah, who sounds like a creationist now. Should we "teach the controversy", since the scientific community is so cowed?

The scientific justification for ignoring the evidence is not there.
There doesn't need to be- simple logic shows that it is fallacy-ridden and wrong.

Simply because one can describe an untestable god, is not scientific justification for ignoring the evidence that people imagine gods while there is no evidence people have really encountered gods.
Maybe not, but it is logical justification to say that because people imagine some gods, or some characteristic of gods, they did so for all of them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Good grief, Pisci, if we ain't talking supernatural here, then what on Earth are you talking about? I'm not arguing there wasn't a Jesus (though I think The God Who Wasn't There" makes a good case for it.).

You've lost me. What is your issue? That real people inspired god myths? D'uh! That's the point.

I'll look more carefully at what you've written after you clear this up and when this maddening database error thing quits. Aaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!!!

[Skeptic Ginger]

If someone you trust calls and tells you your house is on fire, do you wait for them to bring you a smoldering chunk of wood you can test in the lab before you believe them? As others have told you, you're just not going to get that kind of evidence investigating theism. It's in a whole nother realm. That doesn't mean it's not true. (I think the whole notion of "scientific evidence" breaks down when examined closely, but that's for a radicical skeptic's thread).

I agree. I'm glad to see you backing away from your claim that ...

The conclusions that other people come to are irrelevant.I'm not sure what claim you think I am backing away from but since I've not backed away from any of my claims here I assume it was something you misunderstood.

As for the evidence you are trying to present as scientific evidence, I'm sorry, Malerin but I am only the messenger here about what is and is not scientific evidence. And personal gut feelings, spiritual experiences and the like are not scientific evidence of gods.

I am talking about people within the scientific community addressing (or not) scientific evidence.


...Is a one-time message that SETI picks up reproducible? Would it still confirm the hypothesis "aliens exist"?If the source were confirmed and the message unmistakable, yes, otherwise no. If god showed up and it was clearly not a trick, you'd have your evidence.

You brought up "other people" into this. Regardless, you may not think anecdotal accounts are scientific evidence, yet certain areas of science depend on anecdotal accounts and subjective experience. Systematically collected anecdotal accounts, especially with controls are definitely scientific evidence. We use such data often in medical research. One additional requirement, however, is you have to demonstrate how the evidence supports the conclusion.

So for example, I cannot conduct a survey where the questions are biased and then claim the result supports my biased conclusion. One needs to validate one's methodology in scientific research. One doesn't just say, I surveyed 20 people and 18 believed in God therefore that is evidence God exists. I would need to demonstrate that the evidence supported the conclusion. You cannot use the conclusion in this case as evidence. You would need more than that.


But the question is of the generic form "Does God exist?" We can posit 100 different aliens, consider them all ridiculous and still not have made a dent in the hypothesis "Does alien life exist?".There's more than one way to test what you are asking here in your example. It is the alternative I am talking about testing.

Evidence shows god myths are common. Zeus, Ra, Pele, Thor...... and so on.
Evidence is lacking real gods exist. Prayers aren't really answered, for example. The Bible contains only the knowledge one would expect to see in the time and place the texts were written. It doesn't get the germ theory right, for example. If a real god inspired the Bible, knowledge of the germ theory thousands of years before the microscope was invented would be hard to explain. But that knowledge is not in the Bible. Fear of lepers and a ban on pork don't cut it. Leprosy is really not very contagious and you could just cook the pork.

And it can be. Millions and millions of people have reported the same experience. Do you think I'm the only person in the world who's ever claimed to have a spiritual experience? Now, if you want to confirm the reported spiritual account is an actual spiritual account, that's a lot more metaphysical.

Nor did I claim there was "scientific evidence". I claimed there was evidence God exists.Yes, you did but this thread and what I'm talking about is scientific evidence.

I am presenting the evidence. NDE's and cross-cultural subjective spiritual accounts are a real phenemenon. "God exists" explains why this phenemena exists.If you really had the scientific evidence you would be applying for the MDC.

Defining God to be untestable does not mean there is no God.And it is not a reason to ignore the evidence people develop god myths.

If you're unsure whether that organism exists or not, yes, you would need a caveat.But there is no evidence organisms that did not evolve exist on Earth, only evidence organisms that evolved do, so no caveat. No evidence gods exist, only evidence god myths are common, so no caveat.

What do you think science should say then?The evidence supports the conclusion people invent god beliefs. There is no evidence supporting the conclusion real gods exist. Period, the end, no caveat about untestable gods is justified on scientific grounds. It is understood theories which best explain the evidence don't require proof.

[Hokulele]

Every single culture in the world, ever, has had a myth about some kind of god belief. Why?


I strongly disagree with this line of reasoning. Although almost every culture has some form of god concept (IIRC, there is an Amazonian tribe which has no god concepts whatsoever, but I am too lazy to track down a hard reference at the moment), they aren't all the same god concept. There is a big difference between the workings of ancestor worship, animism, and Abrahamic monotheism.

I believe this is a relic of shoehorning anything religious/supernatural into the English word "god". It is similar to the problem you would find trying to claim a Chinese long is the same creature as a French wyvern just because we can refer to all of them as dragons. (Campbell did interesting work, but his cramming everything into one archetypical suitcase was asinine.)

Saying that all cultures are pointing towards the same god concept is a gross oversimplification.

[Piscivore]

I strongly disagree with this line of reasoning. Although almost every culture has some form of god concept (IIRC, there is an Amazonian tribe which has no god concepts whatsoever, but I am too lazy to track down a hard reference at the moment), they aren't all the same god concept. There is a big difference between the workings of ancestor worship, animism, and Abrahamic monotheism.
I'd love to see that reference. And yes, there is a big difference. That's years of cultural evolution at work. A game of "telephone" across the millenia.

I believe this is a relic of shoehorning anything religious/supernatural into the English word "god". It is similar to the problem you would find trying to claim a Chinese long is the same creature as a French wyvern just because we can refer to all of them as dragons. (Campbell did interesting work, but his cramming everything into one archetypical suitcase was asinine.)
I agree with that as well. That's not what I am saying.

Saying that all cultures are pointing towards the same god concept is a gross oversimplification.
Yes it is. I didn't say that. I said that there could be some idea or entity that caused similar ideas to germinate. It could be as simple a thing as "we don't really die", or "there's something bigger than us", or even "there's something in the bushes watching me". That there is danger in the bushes is real, even if the creature the poor little slob is imagining isn't.

[Piscivore]

I'll look more carefully at what you've written after you clear this up and when this maddening database error thing quits. Aaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!!!

I'm with you there.

[Hokulele]

I'd love to see that reference. And yes, there is a big difference.


Bastard. It will have to wait a bit as I am on the road this week, and I am not sure if it is Googlable.

That's years of cultural evolution at work. A game of "telephone" across the millenia.


Or, they are completely different concepts that emerged separately, for completely different reasons, and cultural anthropologists choose to emphasize their similarities rather than their differences.


I agree with that as well. That's not what I am saying.


OK, I apologize. It did seem like it was what you were saying, especially as there seems to be some confusion between god-belief, religion, and the supernatural in this thread.

Yes it is. I didn't say that. I said that there could be some idea or entity that caused similar ideas to germinate. It could be as simple a thing as "we don't really die", or "there's something bigger than us", or even "there's something in the bushes watching me". That there is danger in the bushes is real, even if the creature the poor little slob is imagining isn't.


Well, if it comes down to that, I would say that the commonality between all religions, god-based or not, is, "Life is unfair. What can I do about it or who can I blame?" The god bit comes in due to the fact that humanity generally prefers to be able to blame someone, even if that someone ends up really being themselves (see Catholicism for a lovely example).

Cats, on the other hand, generally blame everything on the dog.

[BillyJoe]

What has always been of more interest to me is how one knows that you have exhausted all natural explanations?

If, at some time in the far distant future, science can explain everything except "how something came from nothing", if there is finally a Theory Of Everything except "how something came from nothing" and therefore no more clues as to how to answer that final question, then I would say that no further progress would be possible for a natural explanation of that final question, leaving only a supernatural explanation.

[BillyJoe]

There are a couple of problems with that scenario. One, you're assuming the conclusion, we know everything except that one thing because it cannot be known. Thus, the scenario only works if indeed the explanation cannot be known - which is what we're debating.

If we have a Theory Of Everything except "how something arose from nothing", how do we approach that final question when everything else has been neatly tied up and explained. It would be like having a jig-saw picture puzzle with one bit remaining but nowhere to place it because the picture puzzle is complete.

Two, there's no way to know for certain that you know everything.

Not everything but everything except "how something came from nothing". And we would know this because there is nothing left in need of an explanation.

I'd further argue that even knowing everything is impossible from within this universe, because your knowledge of the universe would have to be as large as the universe itself. And that's just for the current state, no history included.

You are arguing that it is impossible to know everything from within the universe (just as it is impossible to represent the universe on a computer). Interesting point. In other words, you are arguing that my hypothetical scenario is impossible. Maybe I can accept that.

That last is a rather interesting problem. See Jorge Luis Borges' "On Rigor in Science", or Umberto Eco's "On the Impossibility of Drawing a Map of the Empire on a Scale of 1 to 1".

I think I get the picture.

[BillyJoe]

Which goes back to my answer, adding a "God did it" layer only begs the same question, where did this god come from. In other words, "god did it", answers nothing. It merely gives a false impression it answers the question. I commented in the future this would be obvious even to a fool, but subsequently apologized to all the people today who currently think "god did it" actually answers something.

I agree. I just thought it would be a geat result for deists if science ever
got to the stage of having a theory of everything except for "how something came from nothing". They could argue that, all natural explanations having been exhausted, the explanation for "how something came from nothing" must be supernatural.

"God did it" is one of the biggest nonsensical answers theists give.

Yeah but the deists have The Ultimate Gap: A god who does nothing except start the whole shebang by creating something out of nothing.

"God made the Universe."
"Who made God?"
[fill in any answer dodge here you want]

Maybe supernatural entities require supernatural explanations and perhaps supernatural explanations are beyond the capabilities of mere mortals.

[BillyJoe]

I'm calling into question your assumption "god" = "supernatural".


I get it...

The deist god is a natural being.
When man knows everything, he will be god. And, like the deist god before him, he will create other universes containing people who will think a supernatural deist god created their universe, until they too know everything and become natural gods who create further universes...

All we need now is a theory of circular time to get rid of that nasty unexplainable first deist god and we're....

...all packaged up neat and tidy.

[fls]

Piscivore has done some of my responding for me. I'll just add that whereas specific God stories can be analyzed as you suggest, one cannot necessarily generalize from them to the overarching God Theory. Part of the reason -- and one of the ways we know the God theory is not a proper scientific theory -- is that the minimum requirements are lacking: there's no well-defined set of terms.

I disagree. God doesn't exist separately from the collection of entities variously subsumed under that heading. One simply addresses the sources of the ideas of each of those entities or one addresses group characteristics in order to draw conclusions about the group.

In other words, we have no agreed upon definition of God, of his attributes, of his testable qualities. Specific God myths are often sufficiently defined to dismiss. Not so the vague, generic Deist God skeptigirl wishes to drop into the Atlantic with concrete shoes.

The Deist God seems well-defined to me - well enough to be recognizable as redundant.

I didn't mean to suggest that science ever does or should give up on a question. My point was that there are times and questions where the best it can do is to say, “this is not presently amenable to scientific inquiry.” Which I believe is the case with the theory of God.

But when has science ever said that something is not amenable to scientific inquiry? And why would anyone say that about this 'theory of God' when clearly it has been and is amenable to scientific inquiry?

Linda

[fls]

This says nothing about the existence of such an entity, however.

Agreed. Which is why the variable, clearly accretionary, and obviously mythical properties and identities assigned to specific gods are less interesting to me than the fact that every single culture of which I am aware has had a god concept of some kind.

Once this layer of mythologization is stripped away, we seem to have much more corroborating literary reference for this mysterious entity at the core of these stories than we do Achilles, yeah?

Of course. And that's why we have proven the existence of this entity (technically, entities) many times over.

That says that the mythologised, accretionary qualities are false, and any entity that must have these qualities does not exist- but it does not rule out the possibility that there is an entity to whom these qualities are mistakenly assigned due to the mythologising process we know exists.

Exactly. And we already know these entities exist and the assignment of magical properties was a mistake.

I'm not talking about your argument or the scholars', I'm talking about the one in the OP which I've heard proffered many times already. If there is something more subtle than "god stories are myths => gods are myths" is meant it is not coming across to me.

Oh. It comes across to me as something more like "the god-like properties of mythical entities are not independently confirmed".

Linda

[fls]

What is a "real god"?

A capricious creative or controlling force.

How are you certain that no "real thing" we do not know about or recognise yet isn't behind the god myths just as much as Troy or a C-47?

We already know that real things are behind the god myths, so it is reasonable to think that we will discover yet another real thing is behind the residual god myths of 'Fine-Tuner' or 'Before the Big Bang'. And that realization (as far as I can tell), is the whole point of this thread. We have good reason, based on past performance, to be fairly certain that additional real things are available for discovery, just like Gravity and Electromagnetism and Solar Flares we discovered to be the real things behind prior god myths. Why would we assume otherwise?

Linda

[fls]

If, at some time in the far distant future, science can explain everything except "how something came from nothing", if there is finally a Theory Of Everything except "how something came from nothing" and therefore no more clues as to how to answer that final question, then I would say that no further progress would be possible for a natural explanation of that final question, leaving only a supernatural explanation.

That's the part I don't understand. How does ignorance allow one to make a statement of knowledge. If you don't know anything about a something, how can you say what the characteristics of that something must be (i.e. 'supernatural' vs. 'natural')?

Linda

[Ryan O'Dine]

You are repeating the thing I am arguing against as if that changes anything. It doesn't.

I like to think that by restating an issue, it gives both parties an opportunity to elaborate. Sometimes that brings the parties closer, sometimes it just annoys them.

All the evidence, lots and lots of it, supports the conclusion people make up god myths.
No scientific evidence supports the conclusion that any gods are the source of any god myths.

Yes. But can you go from there to saying that science therefore disproves the existence of God? Isn't that what you're doing?

How many god myths does it take to recognize a pattern? How many trees do you need to see to recognize a new tree is a tree when you see one? How many alien abductions do you need to investigate to recognize the next alien abduction fits the same pattern?

I wonder if that question is really relevant to your arguments.

Consider the archaea. Before certain techniques of genetic analysis were developed, when science saw a single celled prokaryote, it was a bacteria. There was no evidence for a different kind of prokayote, certainly no need to propose one, and no predictions of groundbreaking new techniques. The wrong conclusion at that stage would have been, “we have seen and classified millions of bacteria, there's no honking big gap in our grasp of microbe classification; therefore science has determined there can be no other kind of prokaryote.” The right conclusion: “At this time, we know of only one kind of prokaryote.”

Please note: I'm only addressing here the question of “how many makes a conclusive pattern?”.

Claiming we don't have the tools to recognize the pattern of god myths is not a scientifically sound statement.

Emphatically not my claim. Recognizing a pattern of god myths is one thing. Discounting the possibility of God based on that particular pattern may or may not be scientifically appropriate.

What theory? "Gods exist" is a conclusion. A theory is an overall framework explaining evidence. "Gods exist" is not evidence.

The evidence we have is 'god beliefs'. If you take the hypothesis, real gods explain god beliefs, it fails because there is no supporting evidence. You can take the usual cop out and say you couldn't think of any way to test that hypothesis because it is possible to define an untestable god.

But if you take the hypothesis, human imagination explains god beliefs, now you actually find supporting evidence for that hypothesis.

So here are some in the scientific community saying we can't test the god hypothesis. But that ignores the fact we have a viable hypothesis with supporting evidence that does answer the god question. The evidence supports the conclusion that "god beliefs" originate from imagination. Period, the end. No unexplained evidence is left over to require further hypotheses or theories.

You tell me, what evidence is left that needs explaining?

Pondering the possibility that something could have existed before the Big Bang is reasonable based on the fact everything else we see in the Universe appears to have had something before its beginning.

It is not reasonable on scientific grounds to ponder the existence of anything a person could possibly imagine. Thus on what basis does one ponder the possibility actual flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns or invisible garage dragons exist? There is none.

The fact lots of people believe in gods has been explained by following the evidence which supports the conclusion those gods are myths. There is no reasonable scientific grounds to ponder the existence of real gods except as human fantasies like FSMs, IPUs and IGDs.

Remember, I am not arguing there are no political issues here regarding god beliefs. I am arguing the scientific case for claiming science doesn't go there is full of holes.
-

I agree with almost all of what you say. I disagree only with the conclusion. Often science can extrapolate from specific cases to the general. My belief is that that just isn't possible here.

You say “There is no reasonable scientific grounds to ponder the existence of real gods except as human fantasies like FSMs, IPUs and IGDs.” Absolutely. But having no scientific grounds to ponder something is not the same as science concluding that that something doesn't exist. In fact, if science has no grounds to ponder something, it has no grounds to reach a conclusion about that something.

Let me emphasize that my issue with your arguments is less about the existence of God, and more about the conditions science needs to come to a conclusion in any given case. I hope that's clear.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I disagree. God doesn't exist separately from the collection of entities variously subsumed under that heading. One simply addresses the sources of the ideas of each of those entities or one addresses group characteristics in order to draw conclusions about the group.

I think the problem here is that there are definitions of God that are not mythical in nature, and the Deist God is one of them. You can do what both you and skeptigirl propose about the mythologies. But a God defined as, say, “an overarching universal intelligence” lies outside the “Mythological Gods” group. Conclusions about the latter may or may not hold for the former.

The Deist God seems well-defined to me - well enough to be recognizable as redundant.

Not trying to be snarky, but could you define the deist God so I know what you mean?

But when has science ever said that something is not amenable to scientific inquiry?

Not amenable at this time. That last is all-important, and history -- as I'm sure you're aware -- is jam-packed with examples. Darwin had no clue how characteristics were passed on, and no way of finding out – it was decades and many technical advancements before the discovery of genetics was possible. A thermal theory of the sun was not possible before relativity and spectrometry. And so on.

We can only test things when we have the tools to test for them.

And why would anyone say that about this 'theory of God' when clearly it has been and is amenable to scientific inquiry?

Linda

You can test God mythologies. My contention is that that is not the same as testing for God. (As I said, there are non-mythological notions of God.)

[fls]

I think the problem here is that there are definitions of God that are not mythical in nature, and the Deist God is one of them. You can do what both you and skeptigirl propose about the mythologies. But a God defined as, say, “an overarching universal intelligence” lies outside the “Mythological Gods” group. Conclusions about the latter may or may not hold for the former.

I think that when Skeptigirl refers to mythological gods, she isn't referring necessarily to "gods as the subject of mythological type stories", but rather "gods as entities with characteristics that appear magical/imaginary/fabulous" (Skeptigirl can clarify that). I think that could also apply to the Deist God, although I agree that that issue needs to be made explicit (it isn't something that can necessarily be assumed to be implied).

Not trying to be snarky, but could you define the deist God so I know what you mean?

As far as I know, that is what is meant by "an overarching universal intelligence"? It is a characteristic that is 'fabulous' compared to that which we have direct experience of. And there isn't anything we know of that makes the characteristic necessary (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion :)).

Not amenable at this time. That last is all-important, and history -- as I'm sure you're aware -- is jam-packed with examples. Darwin had no clue how characteristics were passed on, and no way of finding out – it was decades and many technical advancements before the discovery of genetics was possible. A thermal theory of the sun was not possible before relativity and spectrometry. And so on.

EXACTLY! And even under those circumstances, Darwin didn't declare that characteristics were passed on in a supernatural manner. Or we didn't assume that the sun formed and burned in a supernatural manner.

We can only test things when we have the tools to test for them.

My point is that even when we recognize that we don't have the tools to test for something, we don't then go on to assume that the thing we cannot test for has the set of characteristics 'supernatural'.

You can test God mythologies. My contention is that that is not the same as testing for God. (As I said, there are non-mythological notions of God.)

I think that without some sort of 'fabulous' nature, whatever it is that you are talking about would not be a god. And that science is amenable to addressing whether or not something is 'fabulous' in nature.

Linda

[Skeptic Ginger]

....I said that there could be some idea or entity that caused similar ideas to germinate. It could be as simple a thing as "we don't really die", or "there's something bigger than us", or even "there's something in the bushes watching me". That there is danger in the bushes is real, even if the creature the poor little slob is imagining isn't.OK, now I see where you are going with this line of reasoning.

Your idea has been hypothesized many times before but the evidence says, no.

This is part of my point. Follow the evidence. Forget the untestable god garbage which is not following the evidence.

Here's the evidence in favor of your hypothesis, feel free to add to it: god myths are universally common.

That's it. That's all the evidence that supports the hypothesis, real god(s) inspired god myths.

Here's the evidence supporting god beliefs are all myths:

1) What Hoke said is valid. Not only are the god concepts too dissimilar to support your hypothesis, many of them outright contradict each other.

2) The themes that are similar between god myths: explaining the world, wanting life after death, and trying to affect major events like illness, death and natural disasters, are all consistent with what we know about the psychology of human behavior.

3) The hypothesis, god beliefs are invented, was directly observed with the Cargo Cults.

So, a better hypothesis, that the consistent themes are due to natural human tendencies and traits, is consistent with the evidence, no magic intervention is at all suggested by this evidence.

Is a god which you hypothesize is sending messages to humans all over the planet consistent with the definition of a Deist god that isn't detectable? You might as well just say god beliefs appeared by magic. Is that an hypothesis we would entertain using the scientific process to explain any other human belief?

When you take away the double standard, the evidence is not inexplicable. It supports a rational conclusion. The evidence is best explained by natural causes.

Is it proved that your hypothesis is wrong? No. But so what? I don't have to prove it. I need merely develop the best theory that explains the evidence. Anything beyond that is political and not science. Making up special evidence categories and defining special untestable gods is not warranted by the evidence and is not consistent with the scientific process.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the problem here is that there are definitions of God that are not mythical in nature, and the Deist God is one of them. What evidence do you have that a Deist god is NOT a myth?

Not trying to be snarky, but could you define the deist God so I know what you mean?A Deist god is supposedly a god for which the believer "makes no testable claims" therefore science cannot investigate said god. This means the god set the Universe in motion then sat back to watch.

The problems with this myth are several. If the god did nothing after creating the Universe, that also means the god could not have made its presence known to anyone within that universe.

Such a god would also be irrelevant to anyone within the universe since it takes no further actions.

Claiming a god could exist is not evidence a god does exist.

Essentially a Deist god is simply an attempt to move the goalpost off the playing field. The more gods that are identified as mythical (Pele, Ra, Thor, Zeus, etc) the less and less likely any other god looks to not be a myth. Solution, claim you cannot see, touch or hear the invisible friend. :rolleyes:

Not amenable at this time. That last is all-important, and history -- as I'm sure you're aware -- is jam-packed with examples. Darwin had no clue how characteristics were passed on, and no way of finding out – it was decades and many technical advancements before the discovery of genetics was possible. A thermal theory of the sun was not possible before relativity and spectrometry. And so on.

We can only test things when we have the tools to test for them.When you find the evidence for any real gods, let us know.

You can test God mythologies. My contention is that that is not the same as testing for God. (As I said, there are non-mythological notions of God.)Neither is it mine, exactly. My contention is you can demonstrate the evidence supports the conclusion that god beliefs are not based on real gods. Therefore one need not bother with defining untestable gods.

[Herzblut]

False. Any claim on reality can be tested and disproved.

Especially if it's true. :D


Wrong again. You haven't read of all those prayer studies have you?

Why wrong? And: no, I haven't.


False again. The data shows how myths and religions develop. Your hand waving doens't magic it away.

Data as such doesn't show a thing.


Yawn...nothing beats a raving ad hominem when you have nothing relevant left.

Good luck again collecting your research budget.

[Herzblut]

My contention is you can demonstrate the evidence supports the conclusion that god beliefs are not based on real gods.
Circular reasoning.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....Yes. But can you go from there to saying that science therefore disproves the existence of God? Isn't that what you're doing?You make your case for repitition. I must again repeat what you can find I have already written several times, I am not addressing the question of proving gods do or do not exist. There is no reason to address this question.

I am addressing the matter of following the evidence which supports the conclusion, not that gods don't exist, but that all god beliefs originate in human imagination. If the belief is from one's imagination, and not based on real gods, that leaves no more reason to ponder if gods exist than to ponder what if it were turtles all the way down.

Whether real gods exist is not necessary to address once we've shown the evidence of belief is not evidence of gods. What is left to base gods existing on? The contrived untestable god could exist. So what? It is merely an exercise in 'what ifs?'



...
Please note: I'm only addressing here the question of “how many makes a conclusive pattern?”."Conclusive" is more or less a lay term. "Evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion" is technically how one states a scientific conclusion. There are an awful lot of known mythical gods. We have the Cargo Cults which provide direct evidence of a god myth developing. Pisci wants the commonness of god beliefs to be considered as possible evidence real gods underlie the myths. I have already addressed why that hypothesis fails. What is left that does not support, 'the origin of gods beliefs is imagination'?


...Emphatically not my claim. Recognizing a pattern of god myths is one thing. Discounting the possibility of God based on that particular pattern may or may not be scientifically appropriate.Break the habit here, Ryan. The habitual answer is "yes but it doesn't prove gods don't exist"

Develop a new pattern. The evidence supports the theory god beliefs result from human storytelling and human imagination.

It's the political implication of that change that is stopping you, not the science of it.

...I agree with almost all of what you say. I disagree only with the conclusion. Often science can extrapolate from specific cases to the general. My belief is that that just isn't possible here.And yet it is possible with so many other scientific theories. Can you identify the specific scientific argument for why we must disprove gods, while with everything else we use the standard of, the evidence supports?

...You say “There is no reasonable scientific grounds to ponder the existence of real gods except as human fantasies like FSMs, IPUs and IGDs.” Absolutely. But having no scientific grounds to ponder something is not the same as science concluding that that something doesn't exist. In fact, if science has no grounds to ponder something, it has no grounds to reach a conclusion about that something.See above discussion.

...Let me emphasize that my issue with your arguments is less about the existence of God, and more about the conditions science needs to come to a conclusion in any given case. I hope that's clear.I repeat, "Break the habit here, Ryan. The habitual answer is "yes but it doesn't prove gods don't exist"

Develop a new pattern. The evidence supports the theory god beliefs result from human storytelling and human imagination."

[Skeptic Ginger]

I understand people are making the claim, we haven't got the evidence to conclude gods don't exist. Stop yourselves from thinking of this problem in those terms.

The above claim is being merged with the theory I have put forth, the evidence is explained by god myths, not by real gods.

Un-merge the two. Stop worrying about proving every theist in the world believes in a myth. That is a political, not a scientific problem. Science is only concerned with the evidence.

Can you identify the specific scientific argument for why we must disprove gods, while with everything else we use the standard of, the evidence supports?

Once you identify that, we can move on to really looking at what the evidence does or does not support. But until people recognize this is where the politics is interfering with the science, it is clouding an analysis of the evidence.

[Herzblut]

The above claim is being merged with the theory I have put forth, the evidence is explained by god myths, not by real gods.

Science never explains anything using "real gods" - per construction. Methodological naturalism is namely a scientific doctrine. Hence, your conclusion is part of your premise, which makes your reasoning perfectly circular.

Science limits itself to naturalism, it is therefore no big surprise that scientific models of god believe are all naturalistic.

[Beth]

Once you identify that, we can move on to really looking at what the evidence does or does not support. But until people recognize this is where the politics is interfering with the science, it is clouding an analysis of the evidence.

Speaking of where the evidence leads us, I have a question for you Skeptigirl. I gather that it is a matter of consensus among well respected theoretical physicists that our universe is 'fine-tuned'. While there is some disagreement on the exact level of magnitude of the probability of various constants having the values required by the best theories, there is strong agreement that they are very unlikely to occur by chance alone.

There is a rather new theory that these constants are in fact, not just finely-tuned, but that these constants are in the exact relationships required for our universe to be considered a hologram. This is not yet proven but we may well have the data to prove or disprove the theory in the next 3-5 years. If such a theory proves true, I think that would constitute evidence that points towards a designer. How do you feel about it? Would such a finding suggest a creator to you?

[Malerin]

I'm not sure what claim you think I am backing away from but since I've not backed away from any of my claims here I assume it was something you misunderstood.

The claim that evidence must convince everyone.

As for the evidence you are trying to present as scientific evidence, I'm sorry, Malerin but I am only the messenger here about what is and is not scientific evidence.

That's quite an ego you got there.

And personal gut feelings, spiritual experiences and the like are not scientific evidence of gods.

Never claimed they were.

I am talking about people within the scientific community addressing (or not) scientific evidence.

As has been pointed out, the scientific community doesn't concern itself with God's existence or non-existence.


If the source were confirmed and the message unmistakable, yes, otherwise no. If god showed up and it was clearly not a trick, you'd have your evidence.

How would you confirm a one-time message that the VLA happens to pick up?

Systematically collected anecdotal accounts, especially with controls are definitely scientific evidence. We use such data often in medical research. One additional requirement, however, is you have to demonstrate how the evidence supports the conclusion.

We can do the same thing with theism. We can systematical collect anecdotes from people claiming to have had religious experiences. We can control for drug users, history of mental illness, compulsive liars, etc. We can also demonstrate how the evidence supports the conclusion: people have religious experiences because God exists (Pr(E/"God exists") > .5). In other words, given that God exists, it is likely that people would report having religious experiences.

So for example, I cannot conduct a survey where the questions are biased and then claim the result supports my biased conclusion. One needs to validate one's methodology in scientific research. One doesn't just say, I surveyed 20 people and 18 believed in God therefore that is evidence God exists.

That's not what I'm claiming should be done. We survey 20 people and find out how many report having had a religious experience. I'm guessing the number will be quite high. The high number of people who claim to have had religious experiences then becomes the evidence. You keep assuming that the evidence is "God exists". That is the hypothesis. The evidence are the various phenemena I've described, none of which included "God exists".

I would need to demonstrate that the evidence supported the conclusion. You cannot use the conclusion in this case as evidence. You would need more than that.

If you step back from the strawman you keep building, you would see that's not being done.


There's more than one way to test what you are asking here in your example. It is the alternative I am talking about testing.

Evidence shows god myths are common. Zeus, Ra, Pele, Thor...... and so on.

As another poster pointed out, it's also odd that God myths are universal. I've never heard of a primitive culture that started out atheistic. Why this universal need to invoke God? Why didn't the scientific method kick in much earlier in our history?


Evidence is lacking real gods exist.

Evidence is lacking that toasters are conscious (and by lacking, I mean non-existent). Doesn't stop some of the people here from believing it.

Prayers aren't really answered, for example.

Depends on the prayer. I've prayed to have a good day. It's been answered lots of times.

The Bible contains only the knowledge one would expect to see in the time and place the texts were written. It doesn't get the germ theory right, for example. If a real god inspired the Bible, knowledge of the germ theory thousands of years before the microscope was invented would be hard to explain. But that knowledge is not in the Bible. Fear of lepers and a ban on pork don't cut it. Leprosy is really not very contagious and you could just cook the pork.

I thought we were talking about theism in general. Why the switch to Christianity? :confused:

Yes, you did but this thread and what I'm talking about is scientific evidence.

But your claim is no evidence supports the, 'All Gods are not myths' theory Do you want to amend it to "no scientific evidence"?

If you really had the scientific evidence you would be applying for the MDC.

I never claimed to have "scientific evidence". By the way, define "scientific evidence" please.

And it is not a reason to ignore the evidence people develop god myths.

Of course they develop them. People developed "germ theory" too. The question is, does the myth reflect reality in any way?

But there is no evidence organisms that did not evolve exist on Earth, only evidence organisms that evolved do, so no caveat. No evidence gods exist, only evidence god myths are common, so no caveat.

You mean "no scientific evidence", right? Because reported religious experiences are evidence.

The evidence supports the conclusion people invent god beliefs.

People have invented every theory there is. Again, the question is, does the theory match reality?

There is no evidence supporting the conclusion real gods exist.

Sure there is. NDE's, spiritual accounts, anecdotal accounts of the supernatural, the precise values of the constants, etc.

Period, the end, no caveat about untestable gods is justified on scientific grounds. It is understood theories which best explain the evidence don't require proof.

And why does God not explain the evidence of reported religious experiences? Seems to me, "God exists" explains it quite well: people report religious experiences because they are having authentic religious experiences.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Science limits itself to naturalism, it is therefore no big surprise that scientific models of god believe are all naturalistic.That's what the theists like to claim. In reality, science looks for evidence supported conclusions. That is what is meant by "natural". If the evidence supported gods and magic, that's what the evidence would support.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Speaking of where the evidence leads us, I have a question for you Skeptigirl. I gather that it is a matter of consensus among well respected theoretical physicists that our universe is 'fine-tuned'. While there is some disagreement on the exact level of magnitude of the probability of various constants having the values required by the best theories, there is strong agreement that they are very unlikely to occur by chance alone.

There is a rather new theory that these constants are in fact, not just finely-tuned, but that these constants are in the exact relationships required for our universe to be considered a hologram. This is not yet proven but we may well have the data to prove or disprove the theory in the next 3-5 years. If such a theory proves true, I think that would constitute evidence that points towards a designer. How do you feel about it? Would such a finding suggest a creator to you?A hologram doesn't point toward a designer. Nor does being "fine tuned" You'd need a little more reasoning behind that hypothesis to make the claim.

I found the hologram idea interesting. I'm waiting for a better lay explanation of exactly what they mean by it, or at least for more reading to come out on the viewpoint. It fits with my concept of future time and past time being edges of the Universe, but I don't claim to have a Universe concept that is in keeping with the sophisticated physics of today.

[Malerin]

A hologram doesn't point toward a designer. Nor does being "fine tuned" You'd need a little more reasoning behind that hypothesis to make the claim.

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.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll try to tackle this, Malerin, but we may be approaching the recycle chamber here where the discussion fails to move forward.The claim that evidence must convince everyone.You are confusing two different things. You are confusing what I said about the evidence you suggested was scientific. That was the anecdotes people believe represent god encounters. If those anecdotes cannot be independently verified as evidence of god (and they so far certainly haven't been) then those experiences or whatever you want to call them, are evidence of experiences. They are not evidence of gods.

This is not to be confused with scientifically verifiable evidence for which there is no consensus about conclusions drawn from the evidence.


That's quite an ego you got there.If you can make the case there is scientific evidence for the existence of gods, go for it. Obviously I am not the only one who doesn't buy your NDEs are really supernatural experiences. I don't think we are going to reach a consensus there. But I'm pretty sure the scientific consensus about god experiences being evidence of gods is what I've said it is.



As has been pointed out, the scientific community doesn't concern itself with God's existence or non-existence.You need to go back to the start and read the OP. That's what the whole discussion is about.

How would you confirm a one-time message that the VLA happens to pick up?Not relevant to this discussion.

We can do the same thing with theism. We can systematical collect anecdotes from people claiming to have had religious experiences. We can control for drug users, history of mental illness, compulsive liars, etc. We can also demonstrate how the evidence supports the conclusion: people have religious experiences because God exists (Pr(E/"God exists") > .5). In other words, given that God exists, it is likely that people would report having religious experiences.You would find inconsistent incompatibly different god beliefs. That is not consistent with a god as the source of those beliefs.


That's not what I'm claiming should be done. We survey 20 people and find out how many report having had a religious experience. I'm guessing the number will be quite high. The high number of people who claim to have had religious experiences then becomes the evidence. You keep assuming that the evidence is "God exists". That is the hypothesis. The evidence are the various phenemena I've described, none of which included "God exists".Your evidence supports the conclusion lots of people believe god myths.



If you step back from the strawman you keep building, you would see that's not being done.You are confusing a straw man with trying to explain to you why you are missing the mark. An experience is evidence of an experience. To say any more you need more than just the individual's conclusion about what the experience was.




As another poster pointed out, it's also odd that God myths are universal. I've never heard of a primitive culture that started out atheistic. Why this universal need to invoke God? Why didn't the scientific method kick in much earlier in our history?The myths are actually not universal. Number of gods, what the gods do, creation stories, flood stories, ancestors vs gods, heaven vs becoming a star etc etc etc... These inconsistencies are better explained as coming from human origin. If there were that may gods out there messing with things, I think there would be more evidence than just a bunch of stories.

We could go on and on here discussing the evidence. I'm confident what it would show. But even if it didn't, I have said, by all means make the scientific case that god beliefs are evidence of real gods. My objection is to the failure to address this evidence, regardless of what it actually supports. Instead of making the case the evidence supports people interacted with real gods, we hear this "but you can't prove gods don't exist".

Stop with the 'can't prove it' garbage. Make a case for what the evidence supports.



Evidence is lacking that toasters are conscious (and by lacking, I mean non-existent). Doesn't stop some of the people here from believing it.Toaster myths. :)


Depends on the prayer. I've prayed to have a good day. It's been answered lots of times.You can pray a coin lands on heads. Your prayer will be answered approximately half the time. :)


I thought we were talking about theism in general. Why the switch to Christianity? :confused:Lots of Christians in the neighborhood so it makes for examples people can relate to.



But your claim is Do you want to amend it to "no scientific evidence"?

I never claimed to have "scientific evidence". By the way, define "scientific evidence" please. You may have missed the point this is about the scientific community's typical position science does not test for gods.


Of course they develop them. People developed "germ theory" too. The question is, does the myth reflect reality in any way?The evidence says, yes. Myths reflect reality and not magical gods.



You mean "no scientific evidence", right? Because reported religious experiences are evidence.Conclusions are not evidence. I agree to disagree with you.



People have invented every theory there is. Again, the question is, does the theory match reality?That's what I am talking about.



Sure there is. NDE's, spiritual accounts, anecdotal accounts of the supernatural, the precise values of the constants, etc....

...And why does God not explain the evidence of reported religious experiences? Seems to me, "God exists" explains it quite well: people report religious experiences because they are having authentic religious experiences.See post # 122.

[BillyJoe]

That's the part I don't understand. How does ignorance allow one to make a statement of knowledge. If you don't know anything about a something, how can you say what the characteristics of that something must be (i.e. 'supernatural' vs. 'natural')?

If you are talking about the situation that obtains at the present time, I am in full agreement.
But I'm not sure that you are responding to my hypothetical scenario.

In my hypothetical scenario, I am fast forwarding into the distant future to a time when science knows everything and has a Theory Of Everything that explains everything. Except "how something came from nothing". Like completing a jig-saw puzzle that all fits together nicely but finding that there is one piece left over.

If you still object, then perhaps imagine that the above scenario has obtained for 10,000 years. Would you now be prepared to say that all natural explanations have been exhausted and that, therefore, the explanation for the ultimate question must be...well, let us say, non-natural.

BJ

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.Those odds are meaningless speculation. Regardless of how exact someone thinks things had to be, that is no indication of how often things end up that way because we don't have the rest of the data to know. And, we don't know how many universes are out there.

But more importantly, "god did it", is not an answer. The Easter bunny did it. Space aliens did it. None of those hypotheses add one iota of answer other than to claim, we don't know therefore magic did it. We do know, OTOH, that the answer, "it was magic", has been disproved time and time again as an explanation for other things before they were understood.

[Skeptic Ginger]

BillyJoe, how does saying, god did it, tell you anything when you cannot say how god got there? Something from nothing was made by something that was always there? Not a very satisfying answer. Might as well just leave it at, the nothing that was always there was the stuff the Universe was made from. ;)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Science never explains anything using "real gods" - per construction. Methodological naturalism is namely a scientific doctrine. Hence, your conclusion is part of your premise, which makes your reasoning perfectly circular.

Science limits itself to naturalism, it is therefore no big surprise that scientific models of god believe are all naturalistic.Nice try but no cigar.

If the evidence supports I have the magical power to levitate then that's what the evidence supports. It becomes part of the natural world because the evidence makes it natural.

If there was evidence for an extra-corporeal existence after death, then that becomes a natural thing. The only reason it is unnatural now is because there is no evidence supporting it to be true.

It is a myth that science is biased against any outcome the evidence supports.

[BillyJoe]

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.

False dichotomy :D

There are other possible reasons. One of them is that value of all these parameters are interconnected in some way and, once one has a definite value, the value of the others follow...um...naturally. This alone would reduce the luck factor. But it is also possible that one of the values cannot be other than it is. Our knowledge at present is not sufficiently advanced to know whether or not this is true.

My answer:
I don't know. I'm going to wait for more evidence. I'm not jumping to conclusions about a Designer...
...been there, done that. Been fooled too many times.

BJ

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe, how does saying, god did it, tell you anything when you cannot say how god got there? Something from nothing was made by something that was always there? Not a very satisfying answer. Might as well just leave it at, the nothing that was always there was the stuff the Universe was made from. ;)

The smily tells me you don't think that is a very satisfying asnwer. :D

So why not the former answer in that particular hypothetical scenario. If all natural explanations have been exhausted (the picture puzzle is complete), why not a non-natural explanation - an explanation that we mere mortals have not the slightest capability of understanding (can an ant understand physics?)?

Seems to me that is at least on an equal footing to continuing to hope for some breakthrough for a natural explanation in the next 10,000 years.

BJ

[Skeptic Ginger]

I just don't see a single itty bitty reason whatsoever to throw "magic did it" into the mix. The evidence would be what it would be. Why invent answers that are not in evidence?

[BillyJoe]

...not even in this very very special hypothetical scenario that someone here assures me cannot never ever happen? :(

:D

BJ

[Skeptic Ginger]

...not even in this very very special hypothetical scenario that someone here assures me cannot never ever happen? :(

:D

BJNope, not even your special case.

Think about it. You are saying we have figured out everything except one last thing. So you give up and say, voila, god did it.

Did some god decide to make itself known and provide any reason we should invoke the 'god did it' reason?

Long before this 'knowledge' happened I looked closely at the god myths and determined they were as lacking in evidence as all the other woo discussed on JREF. I see no more reason to say, god did it, than to say, the Easter Bunny did it.

[BillyJoe]

I'm saying that one last thing cannot be figured out.

Everything fits together like a jig-saw puzzle. Except the remaining piece. It does not fit in the puzzle because the puzzle is complete. Maybe that piece, lying outside the puzzle, explains why the puzzle is there.

BJ

[Beth]

A hologram doesn't point toward a designer. Nor does being "fine tuned"

Okay. We'll just have to disagree on this point. While I wouldn't consider it conclusive as there are other possible explanations, I would consider it evidence that points toward a designer. Thanks for answering my question.

[Egg]

If the evidence supports I have the magical power to levitate then that's what the evidence supports. It becomes part of the natural world because the evidence makes it natural.

I can see how the evidence could support your ability to levitate, but how could it support that the power was "magical"?

I just don't see a single itty bitty reason whatsoever to throw "magic did it" into the mix. The evidence would be what it would be. Why invent answers that are not in evidence?

It strikes me that you're the one throwing "magic did it" into the mix. I don't think anyone else in the thread has used the word in describing gods. How are you defining "magic"?

[Egg]

3) The hypothesis, god beliefs are invented, was directly observed with the Cargo Cults.



I would say that one of the key observations about Cargo Cults is that they were based on encountering significantly superior technology and not just on imagination.

You suggest we have "overwhelming evidence" that earlier god beliefs were based on imagination. What sort of evidence are you talking about here? Do we have any kind of concrete evidence to tell us what led to such beliefs?

[Malerin]

Those odds are meaningless speculation the consensus view in cosmology.

Over the course of several threads, I've quoted probably a dozen physicists in support of my claim. To date, only one opposing expert has been cited. I'll see your Victor Stenger and raise you a Stephen Hawking and Andrei Linde ;)

[Ryan O'Dine]

...snip...
I think that without some sort of 'fabulous' nature, whatever it is that you are talking about would not be a god. And that science is amenable to addressing whether or not something is 'fabulous' in nature.

Linda

I suppose we're getting to the heart of the matter. Being supernatural is a traditional property of God, but is it necessary?

Perhaps I'm venturing onto thin ice, but the case can be made for a materialistic Deist God as we've described. Intelligence isn't supernatural, nor is a really, really big intelligence. As the A.I. folks will tell you, it's possible that intelligence need not be confined to a neuron-filled brain. You see where I'm going.

And actually, I'm a little rusty on my philosophers, but I believe both Spinoza and the Transcendentalists also formulated non-supernatural, materialistic gods.

So if you can live with the above, perhaps you'll agree – the “God” concept simply has too wide a latitude for science to rule it out.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Can you identify the specific scientific argument for why we must disprove gods, while with everything else we use the standard of, the evidence supports?

If 90% of the worlds population believes something adamantly, and science decides to treat it with more weight than is demanded by the objective evidence alone, what exactly is the harm?

[BillyJoe]

While I wouldn't consider it conclusive as there are other possible explanations, I would consider it evidence that points toward a designer.

The "other possible explanations" are natural explanations.
But "a designer" is a supernatural explanation.
We should always prefer natural to supernatural explanations for the simple reason that a supernatural explanation entails positing the existence of an entity who poses a greater mystery than the thing we are trying to explain.

BJ

[BillyJoe]

...the case can be made for a materialistic Deist God as we've described. Intelligence isn't supernatural, nor is a really, really big intelligence. As the A.I. folks will tell you, it's possible that intelligence need not be confined to a neuron-filled brain. You see where I'm going.

Yes, I've been there.
But it doesn't seem to work. Here's why:

Instead of god, the universe could have been created by a superior alien being from another universe. Is that god? If so, what about the superior alien who created that alien's universe? And it's turtles all the way up. And what about us? Could a human evolve sufficiently and/or accumulate sufficient knowledge to be able to create other universes in which he is regarded as being a god?

This thread is about whether science has anything to say about god. Obviously, science would have something to say about materialist gods like the ones described above.

On the other hand, the concept of a deist god is of a being who is nothing (non-material) and who created something from nothing. The purpose of this thread is to ask if science has anything to say about such a being.

(It seems we already agree that science has something to say about the interventionist theistc god)

BJ

[Beth]

The "other possible explanations" are natural explanations.
But "a designer" is a supernatural explanation.
We should always prefer natural to supernatural explanations for the simple reason that a supernatural explanation entails positing the existence of an entity who poses a greater mystery than the thing we are trying to explain.

BJ

Yes, well, when the other possible explanations are things like additional universes, and "we don't know, but it's possible there is some constraint on those values that we'll figure out at some point in the future", I don't find the designer explanation to be much more of a stretch. I agree that all are possible explanations. The "We don't know but maybe we'll find out in the future" is my personal favorite, but I don't find either of the other two hard to fathom either.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Yes, I've been there.
But it doesn't seem to work. Here's why:

Instead of god, the universe could have been created by a superior alien being from another universe. Is that god? If so, what about the superior alien who created that alien's universe? And it's turtles all the way...um...up. And what about us? Could a human evolve sufficiently and/or accumulate sufficient knowledge to be able to create other universes in which he is regarded as being a god?

This thread is about whether science has anything to say about god. Obviously, science would have something to say about materialist gods like the ones described above.

On the other hand, the concept of a deist god is of a being who is nothing (non-material) and who created something from nothing. The purpose of this thread is to ask if science has anything to say about such a being.

(Because it seems we already agree that science has something to say about the interventionist theistc god)

BJ

I'm actually wondering if we can move away from the religious gods and give the philosophical gods a little breathing room.

In that spirit, imagine the universe as a computer. It starts from completely natural causes, the conditions at the Big Bang giving it its initial conditions, the laws of physics its algorithms. Now imagine this computer naturally becomes self-aware. Could you not call that self-aware entity a god?

Perhaps its intelligence is so great that we ourselves aren't developed enough to communicate with it, though it's theoretically possible to do so (see Carl Sagan's novel Contact if you want the sci fi version).

Can I not call that a non-religious, materialistic, acceptably defined god? If not, why not?

(I admit there's no reason to believe in such a god, but it would give science a reason to keep its hat in the ring, so to speak.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm saying that one last thing cannot be figured out.

Everything fits together like a jig-saw puzzle. Except the remaining piece. It does not fit in the puzzle because the puzzle is complete. Maybe that piece, lying outside the puzzle, explains why the puzzle is there.

BJIt isn't that I don't get what you said, BJ. I'm saying that without any rational reason, I'd just opt to leave the last unknown unknown rather than faking an answer.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay. We'll just have to disagree on this point. While I wouldn't consider it conclusive as there are other possible explanations, I would consider it evidence that points toward a designer. Thanks for answering my question.But you are saying extremely complex and rare implies design and I am asking you to justify that implication. Lots of very rare complex things exist that were not designed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If 90% of the worlds population believes something adamantly, and science decides to treat it with more weight than is demanded by the objective evidence alone, what exactly is the harm?That is not a scientific argument.

I concede there is a political argument here. My complaint is with claiming that political argument can be made on scientific grounds. The scientific argument is full of holes.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can see how the evidence could support your ability to levitate, but how could it support that the power was "magical"?That's the point, once the evidence supports it, it is 'natural'. Thus the idea science does not look for supernatural explanations is misinterpreted to mean certain explanations are ruled out. What is ruled out are baseless explanations.



It strikes me that you're the one throwing "magic did it" into the mix. I don't think anyone else in the thread has used the word in describing gods. How are you defining "magic"?God did it by magic. Whether you call it magic or say god did it is the same thing.

Either you can explain how something occurred based on the evidence, you cannot explain it, or you say it happened by magic. Who performs the magic doesn't matter.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would say that one of the key observations about Cargo Cults is that they were based on encountering significantly superior technology and not just on imagination.

You suggest we have "overwhelming evidence" that earlier god beliefs were based on imagination. What sort of evidence are you talking about here? Do we have any kind of concrete evidence to tell us what led to such beliefs?Or you could more justifiably say the Cargo cults were based on encountering a natural phenomena that was not understood.

Again, if people want to present an evidence based case supporting god beliefs originating from real encounters with real gods, by all means, write that paper. I welcome it. The complaint I make here is using the fact one can describe an untestable god to then claim science has nothing to say about the likelihood gods exist.

It is my hypothesis your case would be extremely weak, while the evidence supporting god beliefs as myths would be very strong. The end result is still that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion gods are myths. I don't need to prove my conclusion. I wouldn't need to prove the conclusion people imagined fairies and leprechauns, why would I need to prove gods fall in the same category?

[Skeptic Ginger]

....And it's turtles all the way up.

BJOh that's great. I love that metaphor.

[Beth]

But you are saying extremely complex and rare implies design and I am asking you to justify that implication. Lots of very rare complex things exist that were not designed.

That's not what I'm saying. Yes, lots of very rare complex things exist that were not designed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

(I admit there's no reason to believe in such a god, but it would give science a reason to keep its hat in the ring, so to speak.)I think your speculation is still going back to the, "yes but, you can't prove it", and that is not what I am saying at all.

Maybe if I review the history and the issue....

Religious organizations made the false accusation science is out to disprove god.
Theists who embrace science also have some cognitive dissonance to deal with.

Rather than call 'disproving god' a false accusation, and in order to address the cognitive dissonance, some scientists developed the response, science and religion are parallel, they deal with separate issues, science looks at how, religion looks at why, science doesn't address the supernatural, faith based beliefs differ from evidence based beliefs, yadda yadda.

The website which prompted this discussion had a typical, have your religion cake and eat your science too, statement. From the site: (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#c1)
Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God. ...


From my science based perspective, this argument is full of holes. You cannot make a case on scientific grounds for the above. You can make a case for taking the position religion and science don't contradict each other based on political grounds, but close exam of the argument on scientific grounds finds it is an unsound argument.

What makes it unsound? In a nutshell, fitting the evidence to the conclusion, "god(s) exist(s)"; rather than following the evidence to its conclusion, how does the evidence best explain god beliefs?

Do we want politics interfering in what science has to say about anything else? How about global warming? If the evidence supports a conclusion that is not politically correct what should we do? Make up new definitions for faith based climate change and evidence based climate change? If I think about it, maybe I could come up with a definition of an untestable climate.

In order to fit the evidence to the conclusion, (clearly not acceptable in science), special categories need to be created. Why and how become two different things implying morality is magical instead of biological in nature. Faith based evidence is claimed to be different, yet defining the difference between faith in homeopathy and faith in the current god du jour cannot be articulated on scientific grounds. The little matter that gods of the past are myths is rarely mentioned as possible evidence gods of the present are also myths. The fact one discounts all god beliefs that differ substantially from one's own is not addressed even though one might use scientific evidence to discount the incompatible god beliefs. And, the fact one can describe an untestable god is tossed around as if that means science can have nothing else to say about any evidence for or against gods, that is of course, unless one is addressing gods already concluded to be myths.


Getting back to your comments, Ryan, is it possible there could be a god we could not detect? Sure. Is it possible we could encounter evidence gods exist in the future? Of course. Do those two possibilities change what the evidence we currently have says about the nature of god beliefs? No.

You can consider anything you want when you hypothesize about possible explanations for the evidence which supports a conclusion about god beliefs. But the fact you can hypothesize untestable gods does not change the evidence. How does someone's hypothesis about the potential for an untestable god limit science so that it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities? Nonsense! Defining an untestable god does not negate all the evidence that exists which does allow us to evaluate claims of the supernatural. There is no evidence suggesting science need create a parallel universe to avoid evidence based conclusions about things people choose to believe in.

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's not what I'm saying. Yes, lots of very rare complex things exist that were not designed.So explain how/why evidence of a rare combination of elements/events implies design?

Undesigned rare complex things exist. So how is the existence of a rare complex thing evidence for or against a design?

[BillyJoe]

It isn't that I don't get what you said, BJ. I'm saying that without any rational reason, I'd just opt to leave the last unknown unknown rather than faking an answer.

As a matter of fact so do I. :)

I'm just trying to come up with a scenario for a deist god about which science could have nothing to say. That's about the closest I can get: Everything is known - hoping that that is even possible - except something from nothing and 10,000 years with no further progress.
But you're really difficult to please, Skeptigirl :mad: so I'm going to pass now.

Apart from which, it is clear from that site that it is actually a theistic god that they are being politically correct about. I mean who really cares about deists or the deistic god. It created us, then ignored us, and then doesn't even provide us with an afterlife. Goddamn cheek!

BJ

[Skeptic Ginger]

Circular reasoning.This is one of the sillier things you've said.

The evidence supports the following conclusion:
The conclusion is: god beliefs are the result of human imagination.
In addition, there is no evidence supporting the following conclusion:
That conclusion is: god beliefs are the result of humans interacting with real gods.


I take it you are oblivious to the fact there is any evidence?

[Skeptic Ginger]

....I'm just trying to come up with a scenario for a deist god about which science could have nothing to say.But science already supposedly has nothing to say about a Deist god. And I'm saying the pattern of god myths applies to all gods including a deist god. Your scenario did not make a difference in my logic structure of this problem.

....But you're really difficult to please, Skeptigirl :mad: so I'm going to pass now....

BJPass is fine. I can't blame me in this case, however, for being unconvinced. :D

Though in other cases..... I'm sure there's some mia culpa around somewhere.

[paximperium]

Especially if it's true. :D
Now that was "intelligent" for a troll. Are you actually trying to even sound intelligent or are you going to keep playing the wannabee pseudo-philosopher?


Why wrong? And: no, I haven't.Let me see.
You make a false claim based on your ignorance and you ask "why wrong"? Wow.

Data as such doesn't show a thing.More hand waving. Nope, the evidence is still there.

Good luck again collecting your research budget.
Wow...amazing...a rehash of an already used ad hominem. Can't think of anything new or original?
BTW: The Templeton Foundation and a few other groups have already spent quite a bit of money of these religious research and I found a few grants online. Thanks for airing your ignorance in public again.

[Egg]

That's the point, once the evidence supports it, it is 'natural'. Thus the idea science does not look for supernatural explanations is misinterpreted to mean certain explanations are ruled out. What is ruled out are baseless explanations.

Presumably science cannot (not does not) look for supernatural explanations, since it deals only with the natural. I guess it depends how you define "natural" and "supernatural".
Science doesn't rule out baseless explanations. That would be making the assumption that we already have all the evidence we're ever going to have.

God did it by magic. Whether you call it magic or say god did it is the same thing.

It is? On what are you basing that assumption?

Either you can explain how something occurred based on the evidence, you cannot explain it, or you say it happened by magic. Who performs the magic doesn't matter.
I'm having trouble making sense of what you're saying. I would have thought "magic" was usually just another way of saying you cannot explain it. Could you please explain how you are defining "magic" and "supernatural"?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I use magical thinking and magical explanations synonymously with claiming things happened without explanation. Gods, invisible sky daddy, it's all the same to me.

So I guess I need to know why you think, 'god did it', differs from, 'it happened by magic'?

Either things happen by means we can determine (now or in the future), (evidence based beliefs) or people just make up things and say that's how it happened (non-evidence based beliefs). I understand god believers don't believe they (or someone before them) have just made things up, but the bottom line is there is no evidence to support the belief - aka it happened by magic.

[Egg]

Or you could more justifiably say the Cargo cults were based on encountering a natural phenomena that was not understood.

I don't see why that might be more justifiable than what I said, but yes it was something they didn't understand and we could describe it as natural in the sense that the technology was created using physical, understood phenomena.

Again, if people want to present an evidence based case supporting god beliefs originating from real encounters with real gods, by all means, write that paper. I welcome it. The complaint I make here is using the fact one can describe an untestable god to then claim science has nothing to say about the likelihood gods exist.

It is my hypothesis your case would be extremely weak, while the evidence supporting god beliefs as myths would be very strong. The end result is still that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion gods are myths. I don't need to prove my conclusion. I wouldn't need to prove the conclusion people imagined fairies and leprechauns, why would I need to prove gods fall in the same category?
You're the one making the case that gods are all imaginary. It doesn't matter how many times you claim that the evidence is overwhelming. All that tells me is that you find it overwhelming.

The way you talk about it leads me to think you must have evidence I'm unaware of about how various god beliefs began. By the way you're avoiding the question, should I take it that you already presented all the evidence your basing your conclusion on?

[Egg]

I use magical thinking and magical explanations synonymously with claiming things happened without explanation. Gods, invisible sky daddy, it's all the same to me.

So I guess I need to know why you think, 'god did it', differs from, 'it happened by magic'?

When you say without explanation, do you mean literally without explanation or without a known explanation?

"God did it" tells us nothing about how it was done. Presumably, if God does something there could potentially be an explanation.

I guess in the same way that we might say about the military technology the Cargo Cult guys saw was made by humans. In itself, it isn't an explanation for how that technology works.

Either things happen by means we can determine (now or in the future), (evidence based beliefs) or people just make up things and say that's how it happened (non-evidence based beliefs).
Surely this is a false dichotomy?
There could be means we can't ever determine and there are plenty of steps between making stuff up out of thin air and having solid, undeniable scientific evidence.

Take the Cargo Cults. They may have had mistaken beliefs, but those beliefs were based on evidence.


I understand god believers don't believe they (or someone before them) have just made things up, but the bottom line is there is no evidence to support the belief - aka it happened by magic.
I'd disagree with the "no evidence". I think it takes a fair bit of clarification and definitions of evidence and a particular philosophical slant to make such a claim. I certainly don't understand your leap to calling that magic.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The point here is not to make the case for god beliefs being myths, though I am certain that case can be made.

The point here is to address the evidence for god beliefs rather than accepting the artificial excuse that because one can define an untestable god none of the evidence supporting the case that god beliefs are myths means anything.

I might start a different thread making that case that the god beliefs are myths. But the point here is, by all means argue the scientific evidence. Just don't claim there is no scientific evidence to address, which is what it means when people say science doesn't have anything to say, one way or the other, about the existence of gods.

If all gods are myths, they don't exist. The evidence only has to be a preponderance. The evidence does not have to provide absolute proof.

[Skeptic Ginger]

As for the Cargo cult evidence, you need to back up. I said they provided direct evidence of a god myth being created.

You are presenting an hypothesis for how a real god might have created a god belief. I presented an EXAMPLE of how a god myth was created without a real god.

Theory: god beliefs are myth beliefs. People created god beliefs but never had real encounters with real gods.
Testing that hypothesis: the creation of a god myth is observed with the Cargo cults.

You need to understand how that differs from saying the Cargo cults prove all god beliefs are myths. The Cargo cults only add to the evidence, they are not the only evidence. Testing an hypothesis means predicting what will happen and then observing it happen.

Just because you can hypothesize how other god beliefs might have formed and we could still have god myths does not weaken the evidence of observing a prediction.

Given your hypothesis, now you need to find some supporting evidence that some god beliefs are real and some are mythical. In a way, that makes even less sense than all or none.

[fls]

If you are talking about the situation that obtains at the present time, I am in full agreement.
But I'm not sure that you are responding to my hypothetical scenario.

In my hypothetical scenario, I am fast forwarding into the distant future to a time when science knows everything and has a Theory Of Everything that explains everything. Except "how something came from nothing". Like completing a jig-saw puzzle that all fits together nicely but finding that there is one piece left over.

If you still object, then perhaps imagine that the above scenario has obtained for 10,000 years. Would you now be prepared to say that all natural explanations have been exhausted and that, therefore, the explanation for the ultimate question must be...well, let us say, non-natural.

BJ

What do you mean when you say "non-natural"?

At best, you may be able to say that something is 'causeless'. But even then, we don't consider something that is causeless as "non-natural". For example, even though we cannot find hidden variables in quantum mechanics, we do not consider electrons to be supernatural.

Linda

[fls]

I suppose we're getting to the heart of the matter. Being supernatural is a traditional property of God, but is it necessary?

It seems to be. If God can't be capricious, it loses something essential. After all, we have already discovered God many times over (Lorenz invariance, Gravity, Higgs boson, etc.), yet it doesn't really occur to call any of what we discovered 'God' because none of it is capricious.

Perhaps I'm venturing onto thin ice, but the case can be made for a materialistic Deist God as we've described. Intelligence isn't supernatural, nor is a really, really big intelligence. As the A.I. folks will tell you, it's possible that intelligence need not be confined to a neuron-filled brain. You see where I'm going.

Intelligence in the absence of a brain of some sort would be supernatural, would it not?

And actually, I'm a little rusty on my philosophers, but I believe both Spinoza and the Transcendentalists also formulated non-supernatural, materialistic gods.

As far as I can tell, Spinoza's God was simply Naturalism, in which case it is simply redundant.

I don't know about the Transcendentalists - I thought their god wasn't material. I thought they were idealists.

So if you can live with the above, perhaps you'll agree – the “God” concept simply has too wide a latitude for science to rule it out.

Any time someone talks about God, it is either capricious or redundant, which is what people seem to mean by 'supernatural'. Either they are talking about events which are lawless and the consequence of a capricious entity, or they are talking about something which cannot be discovered by reference to natural events - i.e. events in the presence of the thing are indistinguishable from its absence, making it a redundant explanation.

Linda

[fls]

Science never explains anything using "real gods" - per construction. Methodological naturalism is namely a scientific doctrine. Hence, your conclusion is part of your premise, which makes your reasoning perfectly circular.

Science limits itself to naturalism, it is therefore no big surprise that scientific models of god believe are all naturalistic.

Science may not call something a "real god" a priori, but it certainly can discover something that we would call a "real god" a posteriori. And that's the point with the issue of 'god beliefs'. The conditions under which they arise do not lead us to discover a necessary entity with "real god" characteristics. The movement of the heavenly bodies led us to discover a necessary entity (Gravity). But since that necessary entity did not have "real god" characteristics, it didn't occur to us to call this entity "God". Nor did it occur to us to postulate that Gravity was responsible for our spiritual experiences, even though God was responsible for the movement of the heavenly bodies and our spiritual experiences. If we had discovered that Gravity was capricious, then we may have elected to call it "God". If we discover that fine-tuning is capricious, I suspect we will claim to have found God.

Linda

[Beth]

So explain how/why evidence of a rare combination of elements/events implies design?

Undesigned rare complex things exist. So how is the existence of a rare complex thing evidence for or against a design?

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.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Maybe if I review the history and the issue....


Thank you for elaborating. I appreciate it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Extreme rarity OTOH is considered a good indication that the 'random chance' explanation is not a good fit.
..Again I ask, how is extreme rarity better explained by purpose than by chance? I can see the tendency to want to assume that, but on closer exam there is no there there.


The other way the rarity issue is looked as is to say, regardless of how rare as far as universes go, obviously we are going to exist in the one rare universe we are capable of existing in. In other words, there could be trillions of universes out there where life doesn't exist, but regardless, this is going to be the one we are in because it is the one we can be in.

[Skeptic Ginger]

@Beth:

Looks like parky76 took up your issue. Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4455466#post4455466) and in the next post is my answer to the OP in this thread, Why isn't intricate design considered evidence of a higher intellence? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136056)

[BillyJoe]

What do you mean when you say "non-natural"?

At best, you may be able to say that something is 'causeless'. But even then, we don't consider something that is causeless as "non-natural". For example, even though we cannot find hidden variables in quantum mechanics, we do not consider electrons to be supernatural.

If I said it was 'causeless', I would be eliminating the deist god, which would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise :( which was to show that, in the far distant future, scientists may have to admit that science, after having found the explanation of everything else, cannot explain how something came from nothing, even after another 10,000 years effort trying to solve this one last puzzle. After 10,000 years, there would be a case, don't you think, for concluding that the explanation is not discoverable by science. In other words that there is not a natural explanation for something from nothing. Meaning the explanation must be non-natural. Or, my original word, supernatural.

I'm not sure that you can say it could be 'causeless' just because we already have the example of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics we already have something and then there is a probability of something else. In the case of the origin of the universe, there is nothing and then there is something. That nothing includes no laws of physics, no quantum mechanics, and no causeless entities. How does something come from nothing when that nothing includes no laws and no causeless entities?

I'm not sure if I'm making sense to anyone but myself here. :(

BJ

[fls]

If I said it was 'causeless', I would be eliminating the deist god, which would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise :( which was to show that, in the far distant future, scientists may have to admit that science, after having found the explanation of everything else, cannot explain how something came from nothing, even after another 10,000 years effort trying to solve this one last puzzle. After 10,000 years, there would be a case, don't you think, for concluding that the explanation is not discoverable by science. In other words that there is not a natural explanation for something from nothing. Meaning the explanation must be non-natural. Or, my original word, supernatural.

Okay, I think that is what I was getting at. We would find the idea of causelessness unsatisfactory and would therefore make up a cause (i.e. the deist god). I will admit that I cannot imagine, even 10,000 years from now, how science/naturalism would consider that a satisfactory solution given that it simply raises far more questions than it answers, but it is certainly consistent with human nature.

My next question is, would that god have anything to do with the gods we have now, considering that none of the information that would give us the idea about that god is currently available to us? As an analogy - if our space exploration discovers an entitiy which consists mostly of hydrocarbon chains in the form of multiple string-like appendages with an ability to levitate, can it reasonably be said that it is the source of our FSM myths?

I'm not sure that you can say it could be 'causeless' just because we already have the example of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics we already have something and then there is a probability of something else.

But as far as we can tell, we don't have something - that is, a particle has one value or the other, but there is no cause as to which it is. The value (e.g. spin direction) comes from nothing.

In the case of the origin of the universe, there is nothing and then there is something. That nothing includes no laws of physics, no quantum mechanics, and no causeless entities. How does something come from nothing when that nothing includes no laws and no causeless entities?

Broken symmetry. One property that Nothing has is symmetry.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense to anyone but myself here. :(

BJ

I admit that it makes no sense to me that when we encounter "I don't know", inserting an entity with magical powers will be considered justifiably preferable to just leaving it be.

Linda

[Herzblut]

If the evidence supports I have the magical power to levitate then that's what the evidence supports. It becomes part of the natural world because the evidence makes it natural.

If there was evidence for an extra-corporeal existence after death, then that becomes a natural thing. The only reason it is unnatural now is because there is no evidence supporting it to be true.

What is the evidence supporting your claims?

[Ryan O'Dine]

It seems to be. If God can't be capricious, it loses something essential. After all, we have already discovered God many times over (Lorenz invariance, Gravity, Higgs boson, etc.), yet it doesn't really occur to call any of what we discovered 'God' because none of it is capricious.

If God is necessarily supernatural, then we have no quarrel. I guess I'm not thoroughly convinced that's the case, but at this point, that's more my problem to ponder than yours to solve.

Intelligence in the absence of a brain of some sort would be supernatural, would it not?

The intelligence in my example has a substrate -- the matter and energy of the universe.

My little attempt to construct a naturalistic God. I won't be too hurt if you're not bowled over.

[Beth]

@Beth:

Looks like parky76 took up your issue. Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4455466#post4455466) and in the next post is my answer to the OP in this thread, Why isn't intricate design considered evidence of a higher intellence? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136056)

As I said before, complexity has nothing to do with it. We're not in disagreement on this point.

Again I ask, how is extreme rarity better explained by purpose than by chance? I can see the tendency to want to assume that, but on closer exam there is no there there. Extreme rarity is better explained by cause than by random chance. Purpose is one such cause. When the probability of a particular observed outcome is sufficiently low if we assume random chance, that's generally considered reason to reject the assumption of random chance and accept an alternative hypothesis of cause. This is pretty standard in most scientific endeavors.

The other way the rarity issue is looked as is to say, regardless of how rare as far as universes go, obviously we are going to exist in the one rare universe we are capable of existing in. In other words, there could be trillions of universes out there where life doesn't exist, but regardless, this is going to be the one we are in because it is the one we can be in. I'm familiar with this line of argument. Yes, the 'trillions of other universes' explanation is a hypotheses that explains both the seeming fine-tuning of our universe and the existance of life within it. At this point, we can only say that both are supported by our current models of our universe. Both seem plausible hypotheses to me. By what reasoning do you justify accepting one as plausible but not the other?

[fls]

If God is necessarily supernatural, then we have no quarrel. I guess I'm not thoroughly convinced that's the case, but at this point, that's more my problem to ponder than yours to solve.

I'm not so much trying to persuade others to my point-of-view as trying to find a description that adequately covers what it is that everyone thinks of when they think of gods. Or rather, what it is that is useful about gods, what it is we think they do for us.

The intelligence in my example has a substrate -- the matter and energy of the universe.

My little attempt to construct a naturalistic God. I won't be too hurt if you're not bowled over.

I don't think "material" necessarily distinguishes supernatural from natural - that is, something supernatural could still be formed from matter and energy. I think that the usefulness of the idea of a universal intelligence comes from its ability to step outside of the constraints provided by the rest of the universe (i.e. a form of 'free will'); a way for humans to contribute to the purpose of the universe. Whether it's material or not, I think the value in the idea comes from not being constrained by laws (or random) like everything else appears to be. That is, it fits under the 'capricious' part of 'supernatural'.

ETA: Naturalistic doesn't just mean 'material', though. It also refers to the process of forming ideas by reference to material events. A universal intelligence isn't really an idea that comes from reference to natural events (i.e. observations that make the explanation useful, necessary, and sufficient), but is rather the product of wishful thinking that isn't necessarily excluded by observation...yet.

Linda

[Egg]

As for the Cargo cult evidence, you need to back up. I said they provided direct evidence of a god myth being created.

You are presenting an hypothesis for how a real god might have created a god belief. I presented an EXAMPLE of how a god myth was created without a real god.

Theory: god beliefs are myth beliefs. People created god beliefs but never had real encounters with real gods.
Testing that hypothesis: the creation of a god myth is observed with the Cargo cults.

You need to understand how that differs from saying the Cargo cults prove all god beliefs are myths. The Cargo cults only add to the evidence, they are not the only evidence. Testing an hypothesis means predicting what will happen and then observing it happen.

Just because you can hypothesize how other god beliefs might have formed and we could still have god myths does not weaken the evidence of observing a prediction.

Given your hypothesis, now you need to find some supporting evidence that some god beliefs are real and some are mythical. In a way, that makes even less sense than all or none.

You must have read a I post I didn't write. I didn't present a hypothesis, I just questioned yours.

I need to back up about something I didn't say and I need to understand why something else I didn't say isn't right?? :confused:

Perhaps that could be said to be evidence that all my posts are imaginary ;).



Here's a hypothesis that is perhaps a better fit of the Cargo Cult evidence, since it doesn't require using semantics to ignore the superior technology involved:
MyFc4HFZdDc&feature=related
Can't say I find that terribly convincing either.

[Piscivore]

Sorry for not getting back to you on this, I've been sick and drugged.
OK, now I see where you are going with this line of reasoning.

Your idea has been hypothesized many times before but the evidence says, no.

This is part of my point. Follow the evidence. Forget the untestable god garbage which is not following the evidence.
Yeah, see, this looks exactly like cherry picking to me. "We've got some gods that figure heavily in myths, and we know people make up myths, so let's just "forget" about all the gods that people believe in that aren't obviously myths, and then we can say that "gods are myths"". I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. You don't get to "forget" about the exceptions that undermine your hypothesis to make it work.

Here's the evidence in favor of your hypothesis, feel free to add to it: god myths are universally common.

That's it. That's all the evidence that supports the hypothesis, real god(s) inspired god myths.
We still have a fundamental unresolved difference in what constitutes a "real god" though. You are still insisting that a "real god" has to be something supernatural. Why?

Look at the cargo cults you mention- they are essentially "praying" to a real thing- a C-47. There's nothing supernatural at all about it, and it works essentially like their religion says- One makes entreaties into a boxy thing and good stuff falls from a big thing in the air. That the people who formed the religion did not understand the mechanisms and entities involved - see "Clarke's Third Law"- and ascribed magical properties to these airplanes does not make them any less real- or any less gods.

Where you are falling down is assuming that "god" means something objective and universal. It doesn't. It means something different to every single person who thinks something about god. You simply cannot say that god beliefs are all myths for the same reason you can't say beauty beliefs are all about big tits.

Here's the evidence supporting god beliefs are all myths:

1) What Hoke said is valid. Not only are the god concepts too dissimilar to support your hypothesis, many of them outright contradict each other.
Exactly. But the fact that humans espouse some sort of "god belief" frequently, spontaneously, in such variety, and (nearly) universally points to something- and I think that something is the fact that human beings create "god" for themselves- just like "art" or "corporations". And in that sense is very real.

2) The themes that are similar between god myths: explaining the world, wanting life after death, and trying to affect major events like illness, death and natural disasters, are all consistent with what we know about the psychology of human behavior.
Which is what, exactly?

3) The hypothesis, god beliefs are invented, was directly observed with the Cargo Cults.

So, a better hypothesis, that the consistent themes are due to natural human tendencies and traits, is consistent with the evidence, no magic intervention is at all suggested by this evidence.
Right, which is why I am saying that it is your assumption that "god = supernatural" is what is in error here. "God" can be almost anything to anybody. A sabretooth tiger, a C-47, a planet crossing the heavens, a housecat, the sun, the harvest of a food crop, or a sense of beauty and awe at the majesty of the universe. Those are not a myth, even if myths grow up around them.

Is a god which you hypothesize is sending messages to humans all over the planet consistent with the definition of a Deist god that isn't detectable?
When did I say anything about sending any messages? Gravity doesn't send any messages, but people are still aware of it.

You might as well just say god beliefs appeared by magic. Is that an hypothesis we would entertain using the scientific process to explain any other human belief?
Please. We already agreed that people make up stuff about things. What you're suggesting is that if they didn't make up all of it, it's not god. That's incorrect.

Is it proved that your hypothesis is wrong? No. But so what? I don't have to prove it. I need merely develop the best theory that explains the evidence.
...And the best "theory" does not "forget" about things that are inconvenient to its elegance- or truth value. That's wishful thinking, not science.

Making up special evidence categories and defining special untestable gods is not warranted by the evidence and is not consistent with the scientific process.
I'm not making up special evidence categories- if you think that I am, which are those?

I'm not defining any "special untestable gods". I'm talking about gods that other people claim to worship. That's the test of an entity's "godhood".

[Piscivore]

It seems to be. If God can't be capricious, it loses something essential.

What, exactly? Many gods are not said to be "capricous"- why is that a neccesary criteria?

[fls]

What, exactly? Many gods are not said to be "capricous"- why is that a neccesary criteria?

Can you give me an example of a god that doesn't have the ability to act outside of the constraints which seem to govern nature?

Linda

[Piscivore]

Can you give me an example of a god that doesn't have the ability to act outside of the constraints which seem to govern nature?

Linda

A god that is nature, just off the top of my head. But that's beside the point. You question is just another way to say that "god = supernatural". Why is this a requirement to be god?

[Hokulele]

A god that is nature, just off the top of my head. But that's beside the point. You question is just another way to say that "god = supernatural". Why is this a requirement to be god?


It may be that god=supernatural is necessary for a concept to be universally accepted as a god. Unlike a C-47.

(As an aside, I can see from the earlier post of yours where you compare "god" to "art" that we are more in agreement than disagreement.)

[BjornTheCyborg]

For the sake of simplicity I'm going to respond to the original post.


The fact that we can't test the above condition for every god belief is no reason we cannot draw a scientific conclusion about all god beliefs.


Sure it is.

Assuming that God's existence is verifiable, which it obviously isn't, we would have to test each individual claim.


We haven't mapped every single genome either but that hasn't stopped science from drawing a conclusion about how all organisms evolved. Science does not require certainty to draw conclusions, and in fact, certainty is almost never known in scientific conclusions.

What?! Science always requires certainty about it's conclusions. This is why evolution is still considered a theory.


On the other hand, the evidence actually does support the conclusion god beliefs originated as myths, not from interaction with real gods.[/B] The evidence does provide weight that god beliefs are myths.


You cannot generalize conclusions about certain "God beliefs" to others.


I don't care if gods exist outside the Universe anymore than I care if invisible pink unicorns exist outside the Universe. There is not simply a lack of evidence, but rather, because I can explain the origin of god beliefs, there is nothing left as a reason to bother pondering the existence of gods.

Really? So you are able to explain, scientifically, that which is often attributed to God? Wow.

[fls]

A god that is nature, just off the top of my head.

Then you are simply talking about God as a redundancy (which was the other part of my description). Although it still seems unlikely to me that people really don't expect anything at all from Naturegod.

But that's beside the point. You question is just another way to say that "god = supernatural". Why is this a requirement to be god?

I am simply describing a characteristic that seems to be common to all gods. I'm willing to consider that some people truly are interested in redundant/irrelevant gods (although I'm interested in discussing whether that is really the case), but for all gods that aren't redundant, it seems to be a common characteristic. If you can give some examples of gods that aren't expected to act outside of the constraints of nature, I would appreciate it.

Linda

[Piscivore]

It may be that god=supernatural is necessary for a concept to be universally accepted as a god. Unlike a C-47.
Right, as far as the airplane goes- but that's my point. You're never going to find anything universally accepted as a god- even the supernatural ones.

[Piscivore]

Then you are simply talking about God as a redundancy (which was the other part of my description). Although it still seems unlikely to me that people really don't expect anything at all from Naturegod.



I am simply describing a characteristic that seems to be common to all gods. I'm willing to consider that some people truly are interested in redundant/irrelevant gods (although I'm interested in discussing whether that is really the case), but for all gods that aren't redundant, it seems to be a common characteristic. If you can give some examples of gods that aren't expected to act outside of the constraints of nature, I would appreciate it.

Linda

Look at Jefferson's.

[fls]

Look at Jefferson's.

It is my impression that Jefferson believed in a conscious God who was responsbile for creation and morality, but he didn't believe in the trappings of various religions. Do you have a different impression?

Linda

[Piscivore]

It is my impression that Jefferson believed in a conscious God who was responsbile for creation and morality, but he didn't believe in the trappings of various religions. Do you have a different impression?

Linda

No. He also very specifically rejected miracles and the bible's fantastic cosmology.

As for creation and morality, the specifics of the beginnings of the universe were and remain largely unknown scientifically (and I do not doubt he would have embraced our current scientific knowledge unreservedly) and morality is subjective, these things are still, even in our day, untestable.

[fls]

No. He also very specifically rejected miracles and the bible's fantastic cosmology.

As for creation and morality, the specifics of the beginnings of the universe were and remain largely unknown scientifically (and I do not doubt he would have embraced our current scientific knowledge unreservedly) and morality is subjective, these things are still, even in our day, untestable.

God would have had the option of not creating this universe or of creating a different universe, would it not? And didn't God inspire humans?

I'm not sure what you mean by untestable or how that is relevant.

Linda

[fls]

What?! Science always requires certainty about it's conclusions. This is why evolution is still considered a theory.

Can you give some examples of things that Science is certain about?

Linda

[Piscivore]

God would have had the option of not creating this universe or of creating a different universe, would it not?
Which god? Jefferson's? Maybe, I don't know. I'm not god and I don't know if Jefferson ever addressed that particular item.

And didn't God inspire humans?
Yes, and? So does a sunset, does that make it supernatural?

I'm not sure what you mean by untestable or how that is relevant.
It's relevant to the OP, and to the question of if something that's not subject to scientific evidence yet is also not supernatural.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is the evidence supporting your claims?You are looking for a definition of natural, HZ, not evidence of a claim. At least try to make the question relevant.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

It's relevant to the OP, and to the question of if something that's not subject to scientific evidence yet is also not supernatural.
I'm not quite following this line of thought. How one words a question or problem might make it relevant to scientific exploration, but everything in the natural world is subject to investigation should one choose to ask a science question about it.


It would help if you could relate this to the point in the OP: that the evidence explaining what god beliefs are is ignored, and instead the assumption is made the belief is about a real thing. If that real thing is natural it is testable. Only when the scientific community contrives a definition of an untestable god does a god become untestable.

I am saying this approach assumes a conclusion, 'gods exist'. When in reality all we have is evidence 'belief in gods exist'. I am saying that if we really want to consider just the science here and not the politics, then we have evidence god beliefs are beliefs in mythical beings. We have no evidence god beliefs resulted from actual god encounters.

Some folks here want to argue that conclusion. Fine, but they need to argue it on the evidence not on the fact one could contrive an untestable god.

How is your untestable natural god relevant here? It makes no sense.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If God is necessarily supernatural, then we have no quarrel. I guess I'm not thoroughly convinced that's the case, but at this point, that's more my problem to ponder than yours to solve.



The intelligence in my example has a substrate -- the matter and energy of the universe.

My little attempt to construct a naturalistic God. I won't be too hurt if you're not bowled over.Same reply as above. I don't get your point. If the supposed god is natural, then how is it untestable?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Extreme rarity is better explained by cause than by random chance. ...No Beth, it isn't. Diamonds are more rare than houses.

The same argument applies whether it is rarity or complexity.

[fls]

Which god? Jefferson's? Maybe, I don't know. I'm not god and I don't know if Jefferson ever addressed that particular item.

Wikipedia states that he was responsible for the reference to the rights of men as endowed by their Creator in the Declaration of Independence, so it does look like he considered God supernatural at least in the sense of creation.

Yes, and? So does a sunset, does that make it supernatural?

A sunset isn't considered conscious or an event that is arbitrary (i.e. that it occurs (or not) by intent).

It's relevant to the OP, and to the question of if something that's not subject to scientific evidence yet is also not supernatural.

Why would you say that the creation of the universe and morality are not subject to scientific evidence?

Linda

[Beth]

No Beth, it isn't. Diamonds are more rare than houses. The same argument applies whether it is rarity or complexity.

I simply disagree with this. For most scientific tests, the rarity of an observed outcome is how we determine whether the null hypothesis (which is typically that random chance can reasonably account for the observations) should be rejected or not. The relative rarity of an observation or set of observations, which is expressed as a probability, is a crucial component of scientific tests of hypotheses. Complexity doesn't enter into it other than as a potential factor in computing the theoretical probability of the observation under the null hypothesis of random chance.

[BjornTheCyborg]

Can you give some examples of things that Science is certain about?

Linda

What I said was that science requires certainty in it's conclusions. This is different than saying that science has concluded something to a point of certainty.

But since you asked, I would say that whole Earth revolving around the sun thing seems pretty certain.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You must have read a I post I didn't write. I didn't present a hypothesis, I just questioned yours.

I need to back up about something I didn't say and I need to understand why something else I didn't say isn't right?? :confused:

Perhaps that could be said to be evidence that all my posts are imaginary ;).
...You said that the Cargo cult could be an example of [.....] That is an hypothesis.

I said it was an example of [......] that tested an hypothesis.

Let's look at the 2 hypotheses, however, because I think it helps show the reason you are left with an hypothesis and I have an example supporting mine.

Yours: God beliefs could result from encounters with superior beings and those superior beings could be gods.
Mine: God beliefs result from encounters with natural events/beings/whatever, but not from encounters with real gods.

The Cargo cults could be seen as confirming your hypothesis. But you've only shown superior beings could have been gods. You have not shown that the superior beings the god beliefs were based on, were gods.

So while part of your hypothesis was tested, god beliefs resulted from encounters with superior beings, you have not tested all of your hypothesis, gods beliefs were the result of contact with real gods.

Whereas, my hypothesis, natural events/encounters led to god beliefs was directly tested if you consider the Cargo cults an experiment.

The only part of my hypothesis not tested, was did it apply to all god beliefs? But for that I am relying on other evidence, the commonness of known god myths, and the concept this best explains the evidence. The fact we can speculate on other explanations for the evidence is fine. But in the end, you go with what the evidence does support, not what it could support.

The problem with this particular topic is that so many people try so hard to fit the evidence to the conclusion, god(s) exist(s). That is not good science.

Alternative conclusions affect the certainty of your conclusions. That's fine. I think any scientific examination of the evidence supports the conclusion gods are mythical beings. But I don't mind at all that some people don't draw the same conclusion about the preponderance of evidence. And certainly lots of people have not actually looked at the preponderance of the evidence.

Excluding the question of how god beliefs developed, and the evidence that god beliefs are the result of human imagination (or not if that's your conclusion) as not being within the realm of science when they clearly are, is what my objection is.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I simply disagree with this. For most scientific tests, the rarity of an observed outcome is how we determine whether the null hypothesis (which is typically that random chance can reasonably account for the observations) should be rejected or not. The relative rarity of an observation or set of observations, which is expressed as a probability, is a crucial component of scientific tests of hypotheses. Complexity doesn't enter into it other than as a potential factor in computing the theoretical probability of the observation under the null hypothesis of random chance.I think you misunderstand how this statistic is calculated. Random chance is completely relevant to the rate of occurrence.

If something is common, say headaches, then the number of headaches coming from a drug has to be very large for it to be more common than chance.

If something is rare, say an allergic reaction, then the number of allergic reactions doesn't need to be very high to say it is more frequent than chance.

You can't say what it would take to be more common than by chance if you don't know the normal rate of occurrence, and we have nothing to compare something to. It is NOT rareness, it is relative rareness.

And even then, you've only shown a relationship. You haven't yet even shown causality. And just as with rareness or complexity, nothing about causality or an association alone implies design.

[Piscivore]

I'm not quite following this line of thought. How one words a question or problem might make it relevant to scientific exploration, but everything in the natural world is subject to investigation should one choose to ask a science question about it.
Quite so. I don't theink the question you are asking is a science question, because you start with the unwarranted assumtion that gods are not subjective and gods are inherently supernatural. That's not the case. Asking a question that's tailored to fit the evidence you do have to prove an hypothesis you want to be true is not science.

It would help if you could relate this to the point in the OP: that the evidence explaining what god beliefs are is ignored, and instead the assumption is made the belief is about a real thing.
That's the assumption that theists put forth, and which you wish to examine scientifically, is it not? Shouldn't you be investigating the hypothesis as presented?

Further, your assumption that "god = supernatural" specifically excludes the possibility that the belief could be about a real thing- because if it isn't a "real thing"- i.e. isn't supernatural- it's not god. That's not sound logic.

If that real thing is natural it is testable. Only when the scientific community contrives a definition of an untestable god does a god become untestable.
No, "god" is not testable because the definition of god is subjective, and subjective things are not testable.

I am saying this approach assumes a conclusion, 'gods exist'.
Actually, yours is much closer to assuming god exists, because your assumption seems to be that there is only one god to test for. Sure, you name drop "Zeus Pele Thor" what have you, but as fictional characters to be compared to and equated with "god"- the "real god"- not as part of the set "gods".

When in reality all we have is evidence 'belief in gods exist'.
What you mean to say is that no scientific evidence exists, but it can't, because subjectively defined entities are not scientifically testible themselves.

Subjective evidence is available for gods, just the same as subjective evidence is available to show something is beautiful. But these are not science.

I am saying that if we really want to consider just the science here and not the politics, then we have evidence god beliefs are beliefs in mythical beings.
We have evidence some god beliefs are beliefs in mythical beings. There's some evidence our earliest ancestors worshipped animals- both the ones that fed them, and the ones that fed on them. Are they "mythical" too? Or are they not gods, because they are "real"?

We have no evidence god beliefs resulted from actual god encounters.
Given that "god" is undefined in that sentence, it is nonsense. You yourself brought up the cargo cults, wherein their god is something very real, even if the beliefs surrounding the god are not factual.

Some folks here want to argue that conclusion. Fine, but they need to argue it on the evidence not on the fact one could contrive an untestable god.
I have not been arguing on that basis.

How is your untestable natural god relevant here? It makes no sense.
Of course not, because you assume that "god = supernatural". Why?

[Hokulele]

But since you asked, I would say that whole Earth revolving around the sun thing seems pretty certain.


Well, other than the picky little fact that it doesn't.

[Piscivore]

Wikipedia states that he was responsible for the reference to the rights of men as endowed by their Creator in the Declaration of Independence, so it does look like he considered God supernatural at least in the sense of creation.
How does that follow?

And I'd be wary to consider a document that was plainly written as political polemic as outlining a point of theology.

A sunset isn't considered conscious or an event that is arbitrary (i.e. that it occurs (or not) by intent).
Okay... another person can inspire. How is "insipring people" proof of supernaturality?

Why would you say that the creation of the universe and morality are not subject to scientific evidence?

Linda
In the case of the creation of the universe, as of now we have relatively little evidence of how the creation of the universe happened, and only hypotheses to explain it. And, in fact, I specifically said that Jefferson would most likely accept whatever scientific evidence was available. The point of that was that his belief that god was the creator was likely based on the absence of evidence- or the means to gather it- in his own time of any scientific notion of the origin of the universe.

Morality, on the other hand is entirely subjective. Some people and cultures value security over liberty, some the opposite. Some people and cultures value rights to property over rights to life, others do not. Some people value virginity and sexual abstinence, some do not. How does one determine scientifically what everyone values, when no one values the same things?

[Beth]

I think you misunderstand how this statistic is calculated. Random chance is completely relevant to the rate of occurrence. Right. I've no argument with this.

If something is common, say headaches, then the number of headaches coming from a drug has to be very large for it to be more common than chance.

If something is rare, say an allergic reaction, then the number of allergic reactions doesn't need to be very high to say it is more frequent than chance.
You can't say what it would take to be more common than by chance if you don't know the normal rate of occurrence, and we have nothing to compare something to. It is NOT rareness, it is relative rareness. I've no disagreement with any of this. Nor does it contradict anything I've said.

However, in the case we are discussing, the seeming 'fine-tuning' of the universe and the possibility that it is a hologram, we do have ways of computing what the theoretical probability of that occuring by random chance assuming our current physical models of the universe are correct. That probability has been computed by well-respected physicists are being very very low.

And even then, you've only shown a relationship. You haven't yet even shown causality. And just as with rareness or complexity, nothing about causality or an association alone implies design.

Yes, I'm aware that causality is not demostrated. Nor have I claimed that it was. It is simply being hypothesized as one possible cause. I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

[Piscivore]

Well, other than the picky little fact that it doesn't.

It doesn't?

[Beth]

It doesn't?

I think she means that the earth revolves around the N-S axis and orbits the sun. Definitely a picky little fact. His meaning was clear even if his terminology was correct.

[Piscivore]

I think she means that the earth revolves around the N-S axis and orbits the sun. Definitely a picky little fact. His meaning was clear even if his terminology was correct.

What's it doing while it orbits...? :D

[Hokulele]

Nope, but that is nice and pedantic as well.

I meant that both the sun and earth co-orbit their common center of mass. Neither object is fixed at the center of anything.

[Piscivore]

Nope, but that is nice and pedantic as well.

I meant that both the sun and earth co-orbit their common center of mass. Neither object is fixed at the center of anything.

But in the course of so co-orbiting, the earth travels a path that takes it around the sun, and it is revolving as it does so, yes?

I don't see where he said that anything was fixed or at the centre of anything... :p

[BillyJoe]

The Earth rotates about its axis and revolves around the common centre of gravity of the Earth and the Sun.

But it doesn't even do that.
There's the effect of the moon and the lesser effect of the planets and the infinitesmal effects of the other masses in our galaxies and the vanishingly small effect of the other galaxies in the universe.

Which brings us back to the original point that conclusions are never certain in science.

BJ

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
However, in the case we are discussing, the seeming 'fine-tuning' of the universe and the possibility that it is a hologram, we do have ways of computing what the theoretical probability of that occuring by random chance assuming our current physical models of the universe are correct. That probability has been computed by well-respected physicists are being very very low....You are missing the important part of the point. Say you've determined it is extremely rare that the Universe has occurred the way ours has. Now you have to compare that to something else, in this case, the frequency of god created universes. Only then would you see that the god created universes occur more often than one would expect by chance.

In other words it isn't how rare or not rare something is, it is how the thing you want to test COMPARES to the baseline. All you have is the proposed baseline.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Quite so. I don't theink the question you are asking is a science question, because you start with the unwarranted assumtion that gods are not subjective and gods are inherently supernatural. That's not the case. Asking a question that's tailored to fit the evidence you do have to prove an hypothesis you want to be true is not science.I am talking only about the scientific evidence here. I make no assumptions. I am saying look at the evidence.

1) There are thousands of gods the evidence supports are myths.
2) There are no gods with clear evidence they exist.
3) We have observed natural events that developed into god myths.

What evidence are you suggesting we look at? Or why are you suggesting we not look at the evidence I listed?


That's the assumption that theists put forth, and which you wish to examine scientifically, is it not? Shouldn't you be investigating the hypothesis as presented?First, there is no evidence of any god. So based on that, you suggest I should take a Deist claim, that they make no claims and they believe in an untestable god, and ignore all the evidence that every other god belief is a myth as if that had no bearing on a god belief I am evaluating?

Sorry, I'm not tossing all the evidence that supports the hypothesis, all god beliefs are myths, because someone claims their god belief is the special belief that is not a myth. I am going to apply the evidence. That is science.


Further, your assumption that "god = supernatural" specifically excludes the possibility that the belief could be about a real thing- because if it isn't a "real thing"- i.e. isn't supernatural- it's not god. That's not sound logic.This is silly. I am saying god beliefs are based on real events. There were no magical beings the Cargo cults based their god beliefs on.

If you want to test the hypothesis gods are real, go for it. Just don't tell us that because you can describe an untestable god, we should therefore not apply all the evidence we know about god myths to god beliefs.

No, "god" is not testable because the definition of god is subjective, and subjective things are not testable. So science has nothing to say about Thor, Pele, Mars, Zeus, Venus, Aphrodite, and science has nothing to say about the human trait of developing god myths?


Actually, yours is much closer to assuming god exists, because your assumption seems to be that there is only one god to test for. Sure, you name drop "Zeus Pele Thor" what have you, but as fictional characters to be compared to and equated with "god"- the "real god"- not as part of the set "gods".So god myths and supposed 'real' gods are totally unrelated? You know the one true god and all the rest of the god beliefs are myths. :rolleyes:


What you mean to say is that no scientific evidence exists, but it can't, because subjectively defined entities are not scientifically testible themselves.God myths, we can safely call myths. You know the one true god and all the rest of the god beliefs are myths?

Subjective evidence is available for gods, just the same as subjective evidence is available to show something is beautiful. But these are not science.If I define criteria for beauty, I can use the scientific process to investigate beauty. The criteria for what is beautiful evolved and did not enter the human brain by magic. God beliefs also did not enter the human brain by magic. We can look at the evidence for both of these, subjective judgment of beauty and god beliefs, and we can determine how these human judgments/beliefs developed. And low and behold, nature and nurture explain the origin of both. No gods, no unique human qualities magically bestowed upon us are needed.


We have evidence some god beliefs are beliefs in mythical beings. There's some evidence our earliest ancestors worshipped animals- both the ones that fed them, and the ones that fed on them. Are they "mythical" too? Or are they not gods, because they are "real"?So, do you have any evidence real gods account for any god beliefs?


Given that "god" is undefined in that sentence, it is nonsense. You yourself brought up the cargo cults, wherein their god is something very real, even if the beliefs surrounding the god are not factual.


I have not been arguing on that basis.


Of course not, because you assume that "god = supernatural". Why?If god beliefs are the result of natural events, what are you arguing for? We are on the same page.

[BillyJoe]

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

But science already supposedly has nothing to say about a Deist god. And I'm saying the pattern of god myths applies to all gods including a deist god. Your scenario did not make a difference in my logic structure of this problem.

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?

BJ

[BillyJoe]

Okay, I think that is what I was getting at. We would find the idea of causelessness unsatisfactory and would therefore make up a cause (i.e. the deist god).

Before giving it a name, couldn't we just say that we have one final puzzle for which there can be no natural explanation, all natural explanations having being exhausted?

I will admit that I cannot imagine, even 10,000 years from now, how science/naturalism would consider that a satisfactory solution given that it simply raises far more questions than it answers, but it is certainly consistent with human nature.

I was not saying 10,000 years from now, I was saying that the scenario where one final puzzle remained unexplained had obtained (lasted) for 10,000 years. Maybe it does raise more questions than it answers but, if natural explanations have been exhausted, there is nowhere to go but non-natural explanations.
(And since when does science not raise more questions than it answers :D)

My next question is, would that god have anything to do with the gods we have now, considering that none of the information that would give us the idea about that god is currently available to us?

No. That was not my intention. I was developing a scenario where science can have something to say even about the non-interventionist deist god.

But as far as we can tell, we don't have something - that is, a particle has one value or the other, but there is no cause as to which it is. The value (e.g. spin direction) comes from nothing.

But, there is something that existed before the thing that exists next and, if I understand correctly, the probabilities of what exists next is based on the something that existed before.
On the other hand, for the question: how something came from nothing, there is nothing that exsited before. Not quantum physics, not probability, not possibility. Nothing.

Broken symmetry. One property that Nothing has is symmetry.

I'm not sure how Nothing - non-existence - can have any property.

I admit that it makes no sense to me that when we encounter "I don't know", inserting an entity with magical powers will be considered justifiably preferable to just leaving it be.


I agree - unless all natural explanations have been exhausted. Then, of necessity, we would have to accept that there must be a non-natural explanation.

[Cainkane1]

My experience with Diests is this. They believe God created our solar system and then went elsewhere. They believe prayers a waste of time and there is no life after death. Of course there is no way to test for this god. Professor Anthony Flew came to believe that the complexity of DNA was proof that a creator exists and that after creating these self replicating molecules he left the creatures to develope on their own. However there has been much rebuttle in the scientific community against his idea.

[Beth]

You are missing the important part of the point. Say you've determined it is extremely rare that the Universe has occurred the way ours has. Now you have to compare that to something else, in this case, the frequency of god created universes. Only then would you see that the god created universes occur more often than one would expect by chance.

In other words it isn't how rare or not rare something is, it is how the thing you want to test COMPARES to the baseline. All you have is the proposed baseline.

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.

[Ryan O'Dine]

ETA: Naturalistic doesn't just mean 'material', though. It also refers to the process of forming ideas by reference to material events. A universal intelligence isn't really an idea that comes from reference to natural events (i.e. observations that make the explanation useful, necessary, and sufficient), but is rather the product of wishful thinking that isn't necessarily excluded by observation...yet.

Linda

I guess I have a slightly different view of science from you and, I suspect, skeptigirl. Useful, necessary and sufficient is good, but it leaves out a legitimate interest in the merely possible.

When Dirac proposed the positron, it wasn't answering any question or resolving any observation. It wasn't even useful (at that point). It was simply allowed by a certain equation. Physicists were pleasantly surprised when the thing was actually discovered. Much the same can be said of de Broglie's matter waves.

And that's the spirit in which I offer the God of the Self-Aware Universe. Purely hypothetical does not mean unscientific. Unfortunately for me, we need to take measurements in extragalactic space to prove the theory; but maybe the Nobel committee will change its rules and award the prize to my great, great, great, great grandkids.

The economy being what it is, they may need the cash.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Same reply as above. I don't get your point. If the supposed god is natural, then how is it untestable?

I'm proposing a testable God. It's just not testable with today's technology (see above).

[fls]

What I said was that science requires certainty in it's conclusions. This is different than saying that science has concluded something to a point of certainty.

They are related. If you wish to claim that science requires certainty, it implies that science makes some sort of distinction based on whether or not something is certain - i.e. it treats those things that are uncertain differently. How do you think science treats uncertainty given that almost all of what falls under the process of 'scientific inquiry' would probably be considered uncertain?

But since you asked, I would say that whole Earth revolving around the sun thing seems pretty certain.

So how would a scientist treat the discovery that that conclusion is contradicted by observation?

Linda

[fls]

No, "god" is not testable because the definition of god is subjective, and subjective things are not testable.

Where does this idea come from? We test all sorts of things that are subjective - health, intelligence, beauty, etc.

Linda

[ThatSoundAgain]

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.

I don't agree, since that's assuming that an itelligent designer would be more likely to be interested in creating life than not.

[fls]

How does that follow?

And I'd be wary to consider a document that was plainly written as political polemic as outlining a point of theology.

I agree. You obviously have some idea of a god that you think Jefferson followed, and I will probably be unable to guess what is in your mind. Why don't you simply describe that god for me.

Okay... another person can inspire. How is "insipring people" proof of supernaturality?

I don't think inspiring people is the element that is supernatural. It is that god inspires in a way that is like a person, except that god is not an ordinary person like your next-door-neighbour. It is an entity that doesn't depend upon a material form.

I'm not asking you to agree to something that you don't want to agree to. You don't need to agree that specific labels can be attached to gods. I'm simply looking at what it is that people actually say about gods, what it is that they do for people, and considering whether or not those characteristics are amenable to scientific inquiry. People claim that anything that is supernatural is not amenable to scientific inquiry. I'm pointing out that what people actually mean, when they make reference to the supernatural nature of gods, are things that are amenable to scientific inquiry. And for those gods which do not have supernatural characteristics, their ability to be a useful explanatory/organizing force is also amenable to scientific inquiry (since much of what science is about is looking for useful explanatory/organizing forces).

In the case of the creation of the universe, as of now we have relatively little evidence of how the creation of the universe happened, and only hypotheses to explain it. And, in fact, I specifically said that Jefferson would most likely accept whatever scientific evidence was available. The point of that was that his belief that god was the creator was likely based on the absence of evidence- or the means to gather it- in his own time of any scientific notion of the origin of the universe.

That does seem to be a common sort of god - it serves as a placeholder until science elucidates a cause, at which point it gets knocked out of place. Again, that sort of god is affected by or subject to scientific inquiry.

Morality, on the other hand is entirely subjective. Some people and cultures value security over liberty, some the opposite. Some people and cultures value rights to property over rights to life, others do not. Some people value virginity and sexual abstinence, some do not. How does one determine scientifically what everyone values, when no one values the same things?

One can measure the utility of various outcomes, values can be surveyed and described, the effects of natural selection on moral/ethics can be studied...

The issues that you describe apply to other areas of inquiry (such as health) that are unquestionably valid science. Subjectivity/objectivity does not represent a means of making the distinction between amenable to science and not.

Linda

[fls]

Before giving it a name, couldn't we just say that we have one final puzzle for which there can be no natural explanation, all natural explanations having being exhausted?

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 was not saying 10,000 years from now, I was saying that the scenario where one final puzzle remained unexplained had obtained (lasted) for 10,000 years. Maybe it does raise more questions than it answers but, if natural explanations have been exhausted, there is nowhere to go but non-natural explanations.

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.

No. That was not my intention. I was developing a scenario where science can have something to say even about the non-interventionist deist god.

Okay. And that is my intent as well.

But, there is something that existed before the thing that exists next and, if I understand correctly, the probabilities of what exists next is based on the something that existed before.

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.

On the other hand, for the question: how something came from nothing, there is nothing that exsited before. Not quantum physics, not probability, not possibility. Nothing.

I'm not sure how Nothing - non-existence - can have any property.

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 agree - unless all natural explanations have been exhausted. Then, of necessity, we would have to accept that there must be a non-natural explanation.

I think that what your approach represents is the attempt to prove a universal negative - the entire universe has been searched and no additional non-gods have been found. My approach has been from the other direction, where 'gods' are found and discovered to be non-gods without concern as to whether the search has been exhaustive. And I think that is one of the points under discussion - 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 conclusions.

Linda

[Beth]

I don't agree, since that's assuming that an itelligent designer would be more likely to be interested in creating life than not.

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.

[Piscivore]

I agree. You obviously have some idea of a god that you think Jefferson followed, and I will probably be unable to guess what is in your mind. Why don't you simply describe that god for me.
I did.

I don't think inspiring people is the element that is supernatural.
Then why mention it?

It is that god inspires in a way that is like a person, except that god is not an ordinary person like your next-door-neighbour.
Unquestionably.

It is an entity that doesn't depend upon a material form.
Why do you make that assumption?

I'm not asking you to agree to something that you don't want to agree to. You don't need to agree that specific labels can be attached to gods. I'm simply looking at what it is that people actually say about gods, what it is that they do for people, and considering whether or not those characteristics are amenable to scientific inquiry.
That's fine.

People claim that anything that is supernatural is not amenable to scientific inquiry. I'm pointing out that what people actually mean, when they make reference to the supernatural nature of gods, are things that are amenable to scientific inquiry.
Agreed.

And for those gods which do not have supernatural characteristics, their ability to be a useful explanatory/organizing force is also amenable to scientific inquiry (since much of what science is about is looking for useful explanatory/organizing forces).
Right, each on their own, according to the claims made. But not generally.

That does seem to be a common sort of god - it serves as a placeholder until science elucidates a cause, at which point it gets knocked out of place. Again, that sort of god is affected by or subject to scientific inquiry.
Agreed.

One can measure the utility of various outcomes,
But that only tells you how well the outcome aligns with the subjective value, not whether the value itself is "better" or "worse" than another.

If you think that safety is of greater value than individual liberty, then the utility of mandatory seatbelt laws and product safety laws aligns with that value. If you favour "caveat emptor" and less government intrusion, they do not.

values can be surveyed and described,
But this tells you nothing about which value is objectively "better"- just what the differences are.

You can explain in great detail why one person finds a Pollack or a Donatello beautiful, but that's not going to have any bearing on if another berson finds them beautiful or not.

the effects of natural selection on moral/ethics can be studied...
That just means that there is (or was) an environmental pressure affecting a behaviour that impacted reproduction and survivability. Were that pressure to change, natural selection could very well move behaviour in the opposite direction. Unless you are claiming that natural selection is goal based to a certain objective end?

Is the mating dance of the honeybee "better" or "worse" than the firefly's light show?

The issues that you describe apply to other areas of inquiry (such as health) that are unquestionably valid science.
Really? In health, your body is working properly, or it is not. There's only one way in which it can function that's "best". All humans are essentially the same, even if not identical- a doctor can look at any human anywhere and evaluate their health based on the same training and tests he uses for any other human. That's objective.

That's not the case with morality. A person can be "not functioning properly"- behaving outside the accepted parameters of the society he is in at the time- in one culture, but the same behaviour may be the norm in another. That's subjective.

Subjectivity/objectivity does not represent a means of making the distinction between amenable to science and not.
Yeah, it does.

[BjornTheCyborg]

They are related. If you wish to claim that science requires certainty, it implies that science makes some sort of distinction based on whether or not something is certain - i.e. it treats those things that are uncertain differently. How do you think science treats uncertainty given that almost all of what falls under the process of 'scientific inquiry' would probably be considered uncertain?

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.


So how would a scientist treat the discovery that that conclusion is contradicted by observation?
Linda

Yeah............you tell me.

[BjornTheCyborg]

Nope, but that is nice and pedantic as well.

I meant that both the sun and earth co-orbit their common center of mass. Neither object is fixed at the center of anything.

Did I say that anything about an object being fixed?

Fine, you win. The Earth does not orbit the Sun.

[fls]

Then why mention it?

It's an example of ways in which properties of material beings are transferred to a being that's immaterial.

Why do you make that assumption?

Because that is one of reasons given for why science does not find gods - that they do not have a material form and are therefore not expected to be detectable.

But that only tells you how well the outcome aligns with the subjective value, not whether the value itself is "better" or "worse" than another.

Many properties can only be described in relation to something else. There isn't an absolute standard against which motion can be measured, for example.

But this tells you nothing about which value is objectively "better"- just what the differences are.

Right, but this is a feature of much of science, including the hard sciences.

You can explain in great detail why one person finds a Pollack or a Donatello beautiful, but that's not going to have any bearing on if another berson finds them beautiful or not.

Sure it can. Interesting studies have been made of specific features like symmetries. Or if you analyze the complexity of the fractal patterns in paintings, like those of Pollack's, and compare it to patterns in nature and mathematically generated patterns, you discover that humans have a preference for complexity which falls within a specific range.

That just means that there is (or was) an environmental pressure affecting a behaviour that impacted reproduction and survivability. Were that pressure to change, natural selection could very well move behaviour in the opposite direction. Unless you are claiming that natural selection is goal based to a certain objective end?

I thought that was my point...that 'objective' is not necessary. :)

Is the mating dance of the honeybee "better" or "worse" than the firefly's light show?

That all depends upon how you define 'better' or 'worse', which is how science operates. For example, one could define 'better' as 'efficient use of resources' and measure how much expenditure of energy is involved per mating incident. Or one could measure the success rate (proportion of insects that mate or the number of incidents). Or 'worse' could be the number of insects that do not survive the mating ritual - perhaps by attracting the attention of predators or by exhaustion.

Really? In health, your body is working properly, or it is not. There's only one way in which it can function that's "best". All humans are essentially the same, even if not identical- a doctor can look at any human anywhere and evaluate their health based on the same training and tests he uses for any other human. That's objective.

That is simply not the case. Outcomes in health are my area of research, and if this were true, it would certainly make my life easier, but 'how' and 'what' to measure is a complex issue. It ranges from fairly simple measures, like dead or alive, to issues like 'well-being'. And while the presence or absence of disease can reasonably be determined, sorta, quantifying or even identifying disability or discomfort is difficult.

The same process by which we identify outcomes of interest and measures as to how closely someone conforms to that outcome, can be applied to moral questions. Interestingly, 'health' is often used as an outcome by which to determine whether something is moral.

That's not the case with morality. A person can be "not functioning properly"- behaving outside the accepted parameters of the society he is in at the time- in one culture, but the same behaviour may be the norm in another. That's subjective.

That's okay. Because the same thing applies to health. For example, sexual satisfaction may be a sign of well-being in one culture and unimportant to well-being in another. Or a quite different range of BMI may be associated with Quality Adjusted Life Years in one society compared to a different society.

Linda

[Piscivore]

I am talking only about the scientific evidence here. I make no assumptions.
Yes, you are. Here are all the unstated premises (assumptions) that need to ALL be true for your hypothesis to work:

1) There are thousands of gods the evidence supports are myths.
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-

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.

2) There are no gods with clear evidence they exist.
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.

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.

Assumption #4: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is the Negative Proof fallacy, a form of argument from ignorance.

3) We have observed natural events that developed into god myths.
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.

Sorry, I'm not tossing all the evidence that supports the hypothesis, all god beliefs are myths, because someone claims their god belief is the special belief that is not a myth.
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.


This is silly. I am saying god beliefs are based on real events. There were no magical beings the Cargo cults based their god beliefs on.
Why does a god need to be a "magical being"?

If you want to test the hypothesis gods are real, go for it. Just don't tell us that because you can describe an untestable god, we should therefore not apply all the evidence we know about god myths to god beliefs.
Do so, but don't do it riddled with fallacy and error.

So science has nothing to say about Thor, Pele, Mars, Zeus, Venus, Aphrodite,
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.

and science has nothing to say about the human trait of developing god myths?
God myths are not gods.

So god myths and supposed 'real' gods are totally unrelated?
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".

You know the one true god and all the rest of the god beliefs are myths. :rolleyes:
Um, I'm the one saying all gods are different, you know. Do pay attention.

God myths, we can safely call myths.
But that says nothing about the existence of gods.

If I define criteria for beauty, I can use the scientific process to investigate beauty.
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".

So, do you have any evidence real gods account for any god beliefs?
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.

If god beliefs are the result of natural events, what are you arguing for? We are on the same page.
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.

[fls]

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.

But if we do not have a way to proceed in the face of uncertainty, how can we get to the point where we are certain about anything?

Yeah............you tell me.

You're the one who claimed something that didn't make sense in a fairly adamant manner. I was asking for you to explain why it wasn't nonsense.

Linda

[BjornTheCyborg]

But if we do not have a way to proceed in the face of uncertainty, how can we get to the point where we are certain about anything?


Alright fine, I'll bite.

We invoke the laws of probability/statistics; all of which are mathematically proven to a point of certainty.


You're the one who claimed something that didn't make sense in a fairly adamant manner. I was asking for you to explain why it wasn't nonsense.


I see.....so I was claiming that something didn't make sense and now you want me to explain why it "wasn't nonsense". Do you see my problem?

[fls]

Alright fine, I'll bite.

We invoke the laws of probability/statistics; all of which are mathematically proven to a point of certainty.

I see.....so I was claiming that something didn't make sense and now you want me to explain why it "wasn't nonsense". Do you see my problem?

You claimed that science always requires certainty in its conclusions. This doesn't make sense to me, since it seems that science simply deals with relative certainty instead. And if science deals with relative certainty, then Skeptigirl's statement to that effect did not deserve your ire.

I'm simply trying to understand what you think science does differently in the face of absolute certainty rather than relative certainty.

Linda

[BjornTheCyborg]

You claimed that science always requires certainty in its conclusions. This doesn't make sense to me, since it seems that science simply deals with relative certainty instead. And if science deals with relative certainty, then Skeptigirl's statement to that effect did not deserve your ire.

I'm simply trying to understand what you think science does differently in the face of absolute certainty rather than relative certainty.

Linda

Nothing. There does that answer your question?

Skeptigirl Said: "Science does not require certainty to draw conclusions, and in fact, certainty is almost never known in scientific conclusions."


So any fact learned about reality,through science, is not certain?

How useful do you think science would be if Skeptigirl's statement were true?

[paximperium]

So any fact learned about reality,through science, is not certain?
Yes. Nothing in science is ever 100% certain.


How useful do you think science would be if Skeptigirl's statement were true?Very very very useful since science is self-correcting and always liable to change and correction as new things are learnt and discovered.

[fls]

Nothing. There does that answer your question?

Skeptigirl Said: "Science does not require certainty to draw conclusions, and in fact, certainty is almost never known in scientific conclusions."


So any fact learned about reality,through science, is not certain?

Pretty much. It's always subject to revision. First the earth revolved around the sun, then they both revolved around a common center of mass, and now they both are moving in a curved space-time.

How useful do you think science would be if Skeptigirl's statement were true?

Exquisitely useful.

Linda

[BillyJoe]

Professor Anthony Flew came to believe that the complexity of DNA was proof that a creator exists and that after creating these self replicating molecules he left the creatures to develope on their own .

This idea seemed to coincide with the onset of his dementia.
(Antony flew over the cuckoos nest)

[BjornTheCyborg]

Yes. Nothing in science is ever 100% certain.

Very very very useful since science is self-correcting and always liable to change and correction as new things are learnt and discovered.

Pretty much. It's always subject to revision. First the earth revolved around the sun, then they both revolved around a common center of mass, and now they both are moving in a curved space-time.

Exquisitely useful.

Linda

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.

[Beth]

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

[fls]

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.

Linda

[Malerin]

Pretty much. It's always subject to revision. First the earth revolved around the sun, then they both revolved around a common center of mass, and now they both are moving in a curved space-time.



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