The the God hypothesis a scientific hypothesis?

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by dafydd

My idea is that I need proof of the existence of a god. Not that your fantasies are not fascinating. This thread is a non-starter. How can there be a scientific proof of an imaginary being?

Or an unknown being, yes I agree.

Its Dawkins who is suggesting there can be a god hypothesis. I am open to the possibility and am interested in exploring it.

Is that ok?

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

This is interesting. Could you point me to the religion or belief system that defines God as something that imperceptibly alters the probabilities of a coin toss in order to influence reality?

And are we sure its coin tosses and not dice rolls?

Whats religion got to do with it? They are human inventions.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Whats religion got to do with it? They are human inventions.

As are God hypotheses.

Since religions are the ones who make these God hypotheses (the ones people believe in anyway) then its those hypotheses we should look to test.

Why would we want to test hypotheses of things that noone believes in?

[dafydd]

The god (which god?) hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis. Are we done?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

As are God hypotheses.

Since religions are the ones who make these God hypotheses (the ones people believe in anyway) then its those hypotheses we should look to test.

Why would we want to test hypotheses of things that noone believes in?

Punshhh is trying to separate mysticism from religion. They are the same thing.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by punshhh

I'm imagining an elephant walking around, therefore imagined elephants can only exist in the imagination. Real elephants are very different from imaginary elephants.

Which seems to put your argument squarely into the category of completely irrelevant, on top of other issues. It is most definitely very possible that there is a cosmic teapot floating around, say, Alpha Centauri. That one can imagine it has no bearing on its existence. It is quite possible that pink unicorns exist in our universe. Assuming that what you've seemingly changed what you're saying to is in agreement with this, then we proceed to the next bit.

You arbitrarily said that God is not in the category of things that humans can imagine. This is actually a remarkable claim, given the adaptability and diversity of human imagination. Even if someone or something introduced a concept that was previously not within the purview of a humanity's current imagination, it would be exceedingly unlikely to be able to distinguished from the many ideas that humans would have come up with, anyways. One caveat - unless there was excellent reason to believe that it came from elsewhere. An advanced knowledge and description of DNA, as well as how it works and how to detect it at a time of understanding like that found in 2000 BC, for example, would be an excellent example.

There is, however, no reason to believe that this is the case, at all, based on current evidence.

Originally Posted by punshhh

Again imaginary gods are not the same as real gods, just like with the elephant.

I was simply pointing out human limitations in that we may not have the capacity to understand or comprehend god. Resulting in any attempt to describe god seem little more than a fiction or make believe.

And you proceeded to attempt to argue based on the premise that humans both do not have the ability to comprehend god and that god did not compensate for that in any interaction, which you neither actually established, nor was included or able to be extrapolated from the stated assumptions about god that you had listed. Your may, now, is a backstep from there.

I'd make this longer, but work calls. Enjoy your night!

[dafydd]

Real gods?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Aridas

You arbitrarily said that God is not in the category of things that humans can imagine. !

Punshhh seems to have no problem with imagining gods.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dafydd

My idea is that I need proof of the existence of a god. Not that your fantasies are not fascinating. This thread is a non-starter. How can there be a scientific proof of an imaginary being?

That asks the wrong question as do most people when posing god hypotheses or claiming such a question is outside the realm of science. It puts the conclusion out there first (gods exist or they don't) and seeks evidence second.

I started with the evidence (people believe in gods) and it led to the question, what best explains god beliefs? Real gods are not where the evidence leads one. The evidence supports the hypothesis that gods are mythical/fictional beings humans invented. And we have overwhelming evidence to support this conclusion (science doesn't seek 'proofs' except in math).

[Stomatopoda]

Originally Posted by Aridas

It is quite possible that pink unicorns exist in our universe.

I know it's usually said in jest, but it needs emphasis that pink unicorns are far, far, far more likely than gods. We know horses exist, therefore horse-like animals could exist on another planet. We know single-horned animals exist and animals with pink pigmentation exist, and none of these traits are necessarily exclusive, so there could definitely be pink, horse-like animal with single horns somewhere out there in the real universe.

For a better comparison to gods, we should toss in some traits that aren't known to exist and have no evidence to support the existence of... like, say... pink unicorns that can survive in outer space, vomit rainbow-colored molten heavy metals without burning themselves and without ever needing an energy source, can communicate telepathically with humans, over a million lightyears away, in their own languages, with 0 latency, and poop four-sided triangles of love.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That asks the wrong question as do most people when posing god hypotheses or claiming such a question is outside the realm of science. It puts the conclusion out there first (gods exist or they don't) and seeks evidence second.

I started with the evidence (people believe in gods) and it led to the question, what best explains god beliefs? Real gods are not where the evidence leads one. The evidence supports the hypothesis that gods are mythical/fictional beings humans invented. And we have overwhelming evidence to support this conclusion (science doesn't seek 'proofs' except in math).

So this thread is about the psychology of the believer.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Real gods?

As real as the human imagination.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by tsig

As real as the human imagination.

As real as ''unknown unknowns''?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

I know it's usually said in jest, but it needs emphasis that pink unicorns are far, far, far more likely than gods. We know horses exist, therefore horse-like animals could exist on another planet. We know single-horned animals exist and animals with pink pigmentation exist, and none of these traits are necessarily exclusive, so there could definitely be pink, horse-like animal with single horns somewhere out there in the real universe.

For a better comparison to gods, we should toss in some traits that aren't known to exist and have no evidence to support the existence of... like, say... pink unicorns that can survive in outer space, vomit rainbow-colored molten heavy metals without burning themselves and without ever needing an energy source, can communicate telepathically with humans, over a million lightyears away, in their own languages, with 0 latency, and poop four-sided triangles of love.

And thus we arrive at the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Well I have not compiled a definitive list of the mechanisms and effects, as I don't normally (before I joined the forum) get involved in such details.

Off the top of my head though a few examples would be;

Chance events on a small scale such as influencing the tossing of a coin, which could result in massive changes if the butterfly effect is factored in.

Coincidence, such as a chance meeting, or the prevention of a chance meeting by small apparently random events.

Influencing human thought in subtle ways which could play into any of the other scenarios.

Influencing the health of people with important consequences, both pathologically and psychologically.

Blatantly violating the laws of physics briefly and rarely, only when necessary.

Setting a deterministic course of events during the big bang event, with a predetermined outcome.

Okay... there's a big problem here.

Answering my question about prospective "god interactions and mechanisms" by citing a plethora of contradictions:

*random/chance/coincidental events are evidence of a "god interaction"
*the coincidental cause of (or prevention of, an anti-cause?) a chance meeting (wtf is that?)
*deterministic and pre-determined events are ALSO evidence of a "god interaction"
*violations of the laws of physics are ALSO evidence (never mind that, in the past, when such "violations" are seen we simply revise our understanding of physics); thus, any kind of progress in physics is now evidence

It almost seems like you're saying everything is evidence of a "god interaction/mechanism", which is essentially meaningless. Because, if that's the case, how can you perform any test if everything validates your hypothesis; it's essentially unfalsifiable.

Good grief, this is like trying to nail Jello to a wall

Quote:

Our entire existence is almost entirely illusory and is in fact very different behind the scenes. In which god is carefully maintaining and guiding every atom to create the effect of a stable relative universe. He could then make changes when no one was looking.

My oh my... so this god is now a trickster who screws with us "when we're not looking", so if we're looking it's evidence for god, and if we're NOT looking, it's also evidence for god? What the hell?!

I was wrong, this is worse than I said before. It's not like trying to nail Jello to a wall; it's like trying to nail Jello to a wisp of cloud

Quote:

Existence as we know it is essentially a shadow, a pale reflection extrapolated in time and space of a more real existence going on behind the scenes in an eternal moment and place. Resulting in us perceiving gods interaction as normal everyday activity.

etc etc...

You know, all of this does nothing to address my questions. You just keep running in circles, again and again, getting nowhere.

This is all one big argument from word salad

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by punshhh

This is quite a problem as we only have the world we find ourselves in and our minds to work with, which may be pale reflections of what we are trying to address.

Also we have to make assumptions regarding the clarity of our thought and logic to reassure ourselves that what notions we come up with are in any way correct.

This is why as I see it we can only address god through reducing our definition to the essential requirements and then comparing it with observations of nature. While at the same time taking care not to limit god by our preconceived ideas about what is possible or not.

For example,

could god operate outside time and space?

If so does god only operate outside time and space in our local universe, but not another greater universe.

Likewise for the laws of physics.

*Head-desk*

What assumptions?!!!

You've lost me, punshhh, completely and utterly. I'm asking you to address some simple questions, in an attempt to actually further the conversation, and you insist upon racing off into the clouds.

Have fun with that. I'm done playing.

Quote:

Also I think we should hold notions like omnipresent/scient/benevolent and infinity at arms length. As these are figments of the human imagination and may not have any relevance to god. These can of course be discussed separately, but result in quite different considerations.

Of course, because then you might have to actually try defining something to progress the discussion.

Instead, you opt for this garbled stuff you call argumentation, never staying in one place long enough to even answer a simple question.

Have fun, folks, I'm done here (at least with punshhh)

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by punshhh

I am undecided on the issue as I have stated before, I am agnostic. However on balance my personal opinion is that the existence of gods is more likely than not.

I call myself agnostic, too. My personal opinion is that there's no real reason to believe in the existence of gods, especially when what distinct subset of "gods" is being dealt with remains undefined or very poorly defined. I'm certainly open to the possibility that various types of gods could be real, but have no intention of letting the generally both unfounded and absolutely terrible arguments that I've seen in favor of any particular subset of "gods" sway me.

Originally Posted by punshhh

I must point out that for the purposes of this discussion my or anyone else's personal opinion is irrelevant. We are discussing the issues around some kind of scientific god hypotheses. Which is a discussion of ideas nothing more.

That's a fine line you're treading, there, given that your speculations, in general, have been very much unscientific.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

What assumptions?!!!

The ones like... Existence exists?

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Good grief, this is like trying to nail Jello to a wall

Yes! With a GOD HAMMER!!
</thunder_and_lightning>

Quote:

I was wrong, this is worse than I said before. It's not like trying to nail Jello to a wall; it's like trying to nail Jello to a wisp of cloud

Yes! With a GOD HAMMER!!
</thunder_and_lightning>

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dafydd

So this thread is about the psychology of the believer.

I don't know about the thread but my post was about the evidence.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That asks the wrong question as do most people when posing god hypotheses or claiming such a question is outside the realm of science. It puts the conclusion out there first (gods exist or they don't) and seeks evidence second.

I started with the evidence (people believe in gods) and it led to the question, what best explains god beliefs? Real gods are not where the evidence leads one. The evidence supports the hypothesis that gods are mythical/fictional beings humans invented. And we have overwhelming evidence to support this conclusion (science doesn't seek 'proofs' except in math).

Thank you, you have explained the God hypothesis. I can see no other route down which current science can go. As I agreed with MattusMaximus earlier in the thread, the mythological god/s can be and are adequately explained by science.

However this has not addressed the possibility of any real gods existing and never can. How can science prove something unknown* doesn't exist?

*there are people who claim to have personal experience of God, to these people God is not unknown (if God exists, which has not been established ).

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Okay... there's a big problem here.

Answering my question about prospective "god interactions and mechanisms" by citing a plethora of contradictions:

*random/chance/coincidental events are evidence of a "god interaction"
*the coincidental cause of (or prevention of, an anti-cause?) a chance meeting (wtf is that?)
*deterministic and pre-determined events are ALSO evidence of a "god interaction"
*violations of the laws of physics are ALSO evidence (never mind that, in the past, when such "violations" are seen we simply revise our understanding of physics); thus, any kind of progress in physics is now evidence

It almost seems like you're saying everything is evidence of a "god interaction/mechanism", which is essentially meaningless. Because, if that's the case, how can you perform any test if everything validates your hypothesis; it's essentially unfalsifiable.

Good grief, this is like trying to nail Jello to a wall



My oh my... so this god is now a trickster who screws with us "when we're not looking", so if we're looking it's evidence for god, and if we're NOT looking, it's also evidence for god? What the hell?!

I was wrong, this is worse than I said before. It's not like trying to nail Jello to a wall; it's like trying to nail Jello to a wisp of cloud



You know, all of this does nothing to address my questions. You just keep running in circles, again and again, getting nowhere.

This is all one big argument from word salad

Well, thanks for sticking with it this far at least.

This is not a word salad, it is basic metaphysics. Such branches of philosophy are looking at what we don't know as much as what we do know. Which develops an appreciation of what aspects of our known existence are entirely unknown to us.

If one, or the discipline of science, is to seriously address the existence of God/god with a hypothesis. It will first have to straddle metaphysics and accommodate each and every unknown. Before it can make any meaningful deduction or inference.


I will happily examine in greater depth any of my suggested scenarios in my post you are replying to. If any one is interested.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

*Head-desk*

What assumptions?!!!

The assumption that our ideas and logic are an accurate abstraction of reality.
Science has provided an excellent means of clarifying and correcting our ideas about reality and has come up with some truths and laws (of physics) which are fundamental and can be relied on to be an accurate abstraction of reality. Which have been proved accurate on application.

However when we look at areas of existence beyond what can be examined with the scientific process, we cannot apply our theories and have to rely on assumptions.

For example we may come up with an excellent logical refutation of the existence of God. But however truthful and accurate it may appear to be to the human mind. The reality of existence might be quite different and we would never know that we were wrong.

Quote:

Of course, because then you might have to actually try defining something to progress the discussion.

Instead, you opt for this garbled stuff you call argumentation, never staying in one place long enough to even answer a simple question.

Have fun, folks, I'm done here (at least with punshhh)

I am quite happy to discuss the omni's and infinity if you like. But they have little to do with a scientific God hypothesis, as they are human inventions.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by punshhh

If one, or the discipline of science, is to seriously address the existence of God/god with a hypothesis. It will first have to straddle metaphysics and accommodate each and every unknown. Before it can make any meaningful deduction or inference.

In short, science would have to deal in areas that would automatically disqualify it from being science.

Originally Posted by punshhh

For example we may come up with an excellent logical refutation of the existence of God. But however truthful and accurate it may appear to be to the human mind. The reality of existence might be quite different and we would never know that we were wrong.

Sure, assuming that the problems inherent with such a statement are dealt with, at least.

That said, that strikes me to be an argument on the level of "reality might not exist!" Naturally, this could be the case, however, all the accessible evidence is against it and there's no reason logically to either accept it or base anything at all on that possibility.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Thank you, you have explained the God hypothesis. I can see no other route down which current science can go. As I agreed with MattusMaximus earlier in the thread, the mythological god/s can be and are adequately explained by science.

However this has not addressed the possibility of any real gods existing and never can. How can science prove something unknown* doesn't exist?

*there are people who claim to have personal experience of God, to these people God is not unknown (if God exists, which has not been established ).

Um..if mythological Gods are all explained then what are we left with? Gods nobody believes in? We're just playing with the definition of God now to mean 'something unknown' which is pointless and meaningless

As for your last point 'claiming to have experience' is not the same as actually having it and therefore God can be just as unknown to these people as to anyone else. Even if gods exist, which they don't.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by punshhh

. But they have little to do with a scientific God hypothesis, as they are human inventions.

All god hypotheses scientific or otherwise are also human inventions. Are you looking for a hypotheses that humans didn't come up with? Try asking the ants or the fish but I don't expect you'll get much response.

[dafydd]

Round the mulberry bush we go again.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Aridas

In short, science would have to deal in areas that would automatically disqualify it from being science.

If you want to put it that way.

Quote:

That said, that strikes me to be an argument on the level of "reality might not exist!" Naturally, this could be the case, however, all the accessible evidence is against it and there's no reason logically to either accept it or base anything at all on that possibility.

No that is quite different, I know as a fact that something exists and can prove it.

There are two things we can know with 100% certainty.

1, that something exists.

2, That we know something exists.

Anything else can has to be worked out and conceived of through experience and is in the form of an intellectual abstraction (imagination).

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Round the mulberry bush we go again.

Last night I watched a documentary about Richard Dawkins on BBC4. A brilliant biologist. But once he began to talk about ideas beyond his area of expertise, his reasoning was rather naive.

For example he said (in my words) that existence is a wonderful amazing thing to behold and science can explain it.

There was no acknowledgement that science hasn't got a clue what existence is, how it is sustained and what its origin is.


Edit:

This is the transcript, "The true understanding, the scientific understanding of the nature of existence is so utterly fascinating. How could you not want people to share it?
Carl Sagan, I think, said, "when your in love you want to tell the world", and who, an understanding of scientific reality would not as it were fall in love and want to tell the world".

This is from minute 57 of the film.

There is a clear claim here that science has a true understanding of the nature of reality along with an admission of a love, or should I say belief in this assertion.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

If you want to put it that way.



No that is quite different, I know as a fact that something exists and can prove it.

There are two things we can know with 100% certainty.

1, that something exists.

2, That we know something exists.

Anything else can has to be worked out and conceived of through experience and is in the form of an intellectual abstraction (imagination).

Quite right. Gods exist only in the human imagination.

3 That we know that we know that something exists
4 That we know that we know that we know that something exists

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

There was no acknowledgement that science hasn't got a clue what existence is, how it is sustained and what its origin is.

Neither does religion or mysticism.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Neither does religion or mysticism.

Yes I can't argue with that.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Round the mulberry bush we go again.

It's just one long argument from ignorance.


ETA:What we need is a baseball bat and every time someone says we don't understand reality we should give them a rap of reality.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Last night I watched a documentary about Richard Dawkins on BBC4. A brilliant biologist. But once he began to talk about ideas beyond his area of expertise, his reasoning was rather naive.

For example he said (in my words) that existence is a wonderful amazing thing to behold and science can explain it.

There was no acknowledgement that science hasn't got a clue what existence is, how it is sustained and what its origin is.


Edit:

This is the transcript, "The true understanding, the scientific understanding of the nature of existence is so utterly fascinating. How could you not want people to share it?
Carl Sagan, I think, said, "when your in love you want to tell the world", and who, an understanding of scientific reality would not as it were fall in love and want to tell the world".

This is from minute 57 of the film.

There is a clear claim here that science has a true understanding of the nature of reality along with an admission of a love, or should I say belief in this assertion.

Ever hear if the big bang?


What do you think is the nature of reality?

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by punshhh

There was no acknowledgement that science hasn't got a clue what existence is

Why would he acknowledge something that clearly isn't true. It may not be explained to your satisfaction or in a way you like but clearly science 'has a clue' about this topic.

Moreso its the only tool we have to learn anything more about it. Unless you have another alternative?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by punshhh

There was no acknowledgement that science hasn't got a clue what existence is, how it is sustained and what its origin is.

Hasn't got a clue? Hmmm. Is it perhaps the clues it has do not match your particular wish beliefs? And then you fill in the gaps with whatever stuff that does match?

Nice work if you can get it.

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Last night I watched a documentary about Richard Dawkins on BBC4. A brilliant biologist. But once he began to talk about ideas beyond his area of expertise, his reasoning was rather naive.
...
There was no acknowledgement that science hasn't got a clue what existence is, how it is sustained and what its origin is.

"The true understanding, the scientific understanding of the nature of existence is so utterly fascinating...

There is a clear claim here that science has a true understanding of the nature of reality...

You seem to have introduced an absolutist bias into your interpretation - but what he was saying should be quite clear to most people - i.e. the understanding science has of the nature of existence is true and utterly fascinating. Any fule no that science doesn't know everything, one shouldn't have to explicitly qualify every statement with that; Dawkins is saying that what science does know has been verified and is, to him, fascinating.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Yes I can't argue with that.

Then what are you rabbiting on about?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by tsig

Ever hear if the big bang?


What do you think is the nature of reality?

Perhaps punshhh has never heard of cosmic background radiation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by punshhh

....
However this has not addressed the possibility of any real gods existing and never can. How can science prove something unknown* doesn't exist?

*there are people who claim to have personal experience of God, to these people God is not unknown (if God exists, which has not been established ).

"Personal experience" is explicable. That is not evidence of gods, it is evidence of an "experience".


As for how can we addressed the possibility of any real gods existing, why do we need to? The idea science cannot investigate invisible unicorns or garage dragons is merely an intellectual exercise, not a true scientific endeavor.