The the God hypothesis a scientific hypothesis?

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Twiler

Oh yes; My refusal to admit error has led me to pomposity. As I leave behind my self-serving delusions of grandeur, I see that embracing reality is the best path for me.

It's not a "refusal to admit error", it's a refusal to explain.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Limbo

You don't. You become a mystic yourself and meet God yourself and then decide about God for yourself. Rather than sitting there deferring to scientific or religious authorities like a bunch of brain-dead soulless cowards. Why? Because science can't do it for you, lazy asses. Neither can organized religion.

But hey, lets just make it all about pride and pissing contests.

How do I know it's really "God" and not just something fabricated in my own brain?

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

The logic behind claiming that the god hypothesis is a scientific one is extremely simple: if any deity has any impact on reality, it will be measurable and therefore testable (remember, not all tests are done in labs--finding fossils in an outcrop or looking at stars through a telescope is just as much a test as anything a physicist does). If the deity does NOT interact with reality, and has not interacted with it, it's indistinguishable from the deity not existing and parsimony demands we reject the god hypothesis (and please don't trot out the tired old "God works in mysterious ways" line--doing so is by definition claiming to know something which is unknowable).

"Altered states of conciousness" amount to nothing more than controled insanity--they are a rejection of the real world, and therefore cannot inform us about the external world (the INTERNAL one, in the same way that crash-testing a car can inform us about the internal structure of the car, but just because you experience something doesn't make it real). Even drug adicts acknowledge this. Look at any website discussing how to use sylvia (chosen because it's a legal hallucinogen in my state--I AM NOT advocating drug use), and they'll recommend that you have someone watching you while you're high on it because you'll see things that aren't there and not see things that are.

You've seriously misunderstood the arguments against religion. No one denies that religion includes some profound thinkers--Eurasmus, Abulard, Aquinus, Augustus, the Benedicts, etc. stand as shining examples of the human intellect, for example. The issue is that many of us believe that theists make a fundamental error. Extremely complex systems can be built upon erronious foundations. The science of ancient Greece stands as a monument to what happens when you think really, really hard on a system that's based on a faulty premise. The difference is that we know the error in the theistic system, and strive to correct it. It's not saying that religion is the domain of simpletons; even great thinkers can commit basic errors. It's saying okay, we've found the flaw; now let's recognize that it IS flawed, and move on.

What is this flaw?

[Stomatopoda]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Or look at my avatar, is there the resemblance of a face, or just a twig and a bit of moss?

Looks more like a horse mounting a rhinoceros in front of an acacia tree.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

Looks more like a horse mounting a rhinoceros in front of an acacia tree.

I wonder if it could be tested scientifically, Whether it resembles your interpretation or mine more.

Or more appropriately for the OP, whether it resembles something as yet unknown, like a God. And that because it doesn't resemble an unknown thing, that that unknown thing therefore does not exist.

[devnull]

Its really quite simple - either your god affects the reality we live in, and is therefore subject to scientific enquiry, or it doesnt (ie unfalsifiable) in which case it is not worth even talking about.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Limbo

Of course you can't make God a scientific hypothesis. If one is defining "God" in a way that makes empirically testable claims, then one is defining God in exoteric terms. That is how spiritual children define God. That is how fundamentalists define God.

There are two ways to define God. Exoteric and esoteric. The exoteric layer of religion is to the believer as a milk bottle is to a baby.

"I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready." 1 Corinthians 3:2

The exoteric layer is an oversimplification of God and religion that leads to the illusion that science can test it. It's a kindergarteners understanding of God for the uninitiated man-on-the-street.

The esoteric layer of religion is like solid food, and it is where the true definition of God is found. If a scientist were to try to understand the esoteric in order to test it, he would find that science isn't up to the task.

Or...God is assigned odd properties like being infinitely capable of hiding, and having the desire to do so, a relatively new historical concept, because even pre-modern societies had started shoving him into that corner for lack of making actual appearances, and rather than giving up on the concept, turned it into a chimera indistinguishable logically (AKA scientifically) from non-existence.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Or...God is assigned odd properties like being infinitely capable of hiding, and having the desire to do so, a relatively new historical concept, because even pre-modern societies had started shoving him into that corner for lack of making actual appearances, and rather than giving up on the concept, turned it into a chimera indistinguishable logically (AKA scientifically) from non-existence.

This is only in respect of notions of God.

Mysticism is an attempt to address a god which might actually exist(AG). Such a god is unlikely to fit the description given in any organized religion, except perhaps Hinduism.

There exist esoteric schools and writings addressing AG if you are inclined to investigate. It is not a new phenomena, it certainly predates any religions we know of today.

[Cainkane1]

Theres a book out that explains how gigantic a god would have to be to create the entire universe. Even if there were lots of gods they would be so large that a small telescope would be able to see them shuffling around. I'll have to find the name of the book and its author.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by punshhh

An object is a thing and a subject is a notion.

A thing is what we can determine exists in the world around us.

A notion is an idea about a thing or group of things. For example is there the appearance of a man in the moon, or is it the human mind seeing the appearance of a face, where there is no distinct pattern resembling a face.


Or look at my avatar, is there the resemblance of a face, or just a twig and a bit of moss?

So science can deal with a rock, which is an object, but not with the Principle of Superposition, which is a notion. That's stupid on the face of it.

Quote:

What is this flaw?

I provided the answer in the first paragraph. Either gods impact reality in some measureable way, or there is no proof of them. It's either/or--either they have a measureable effect, or there's nothing upon which to base any conclusions about a god. Speculation about what a god that doesn't effect reality could be like is fun, but it's of no more value than debating whether the Millenium Falcon or the Starship Enterprise would win in a fight. To say "it's esoteric" is nothing more than an attempt to exempt yourself from the necessity of being able to support what you say on the topic with actual evidence--in other words, an attempt to disguise faith. Don't say it's not; if there's evidence for a conclusion you don't need faith and if there's no evidence for a conclusion that conclusion can rest on nothing BUT faith.

Honesty is in part admitting that when you don't have enough data to support a conclusion you simply don't know it--you can suspect it, want it to be true, feel it's true, etc., but you do not know it. Any attempt to get around this rule is dishonest, no matter what specific word you choose to use to hide that fact from yourself.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by punshhh

It is not possible to get past the 50/50 position on the existence or not of God* with rational thought or scientific study.

I doubt Dawkins would disagree with me given what could be agreed on as scientific definitions of God. As science is a study of objects, rather than subjects.

I agree that God can be scientifically investigated in principle, but we would never know if we had answered the question or not.

* the God of the bible or other mythology being subjective is beyond the remit of science, which can only test for a material God.

Good thing that you and I don't believe in the god of the bible then! Besides, the god of the bible has been described as having physical properties which therefore can be tested. They have been tested and we can conclude the the god of the bible is fiction.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

There exist esoteric schools and writings addressing AG if you are inclined to investigate. It is not a new phenomena, it certainly predates any religions we know of today.

If you have investigated then no doubt you will be able to provide poof of that statement. Or does the proof lie forever behind the event horizon of the formless?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Good thing that you and I don't believe in the god of the bible then! Besides, the god of the bible has been described as having physical properties which therefore can be tested. They have been tested and we can conclude the the god of the bible is fiction.

Perhaps punshhh can point us toward a god who is not fictional.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Perhaps punshhh can point us toward a god who is not fictional.

It all depends on how he defines 'god'.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

What is this flaw?

Gods are all human inventions. Believing that one of them exists is a serious flaw.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

It all depends on how he defines 'god'.

Yes. He does have a Humpty Dumpty approach to language. Do you remember him expounding on infinity?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So whatever happened to Limbo?

The bar got too low.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by tsig

The bar got too low.

Nominated.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by devnull

Its really quite simple - either your god affects the reality we live in, and is therefore subject to scientific enquiry, or it doesnt (ie unfalsifiable) in which case it is not worth even talking about.

You're making a broad assumption about the capability of scientific enquiry here. Clearly ants are capable of enquiring as to the purpose of a DVD box set of the Borgias. They are also totally unable to comprehend it in any way. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the interactions of a being of sufficiently large capabilities (we don't even need to assume omnipotence) would be remotely comprehensible.

The assumption seems to be that human being's comprehension of the universe is just about total, give or take a few little quirks, and that nothing goes on of which we aren't aware. We have no justification for supposing this.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by westprog

You're making a broad assumption about the capability of scientific enquiry here. Clearly ants are capable of enquiring as to the purpose of a DVD box set of the Borgias. They are also totally unable to comprehend it in any way. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the interactions of a being of sufficiently large capabilities (we don't even need to assume omnipotence) would be remotely comprehensible.

The assumption seems to be that human being's comprehension of the universe is just about total, give or take a few little quirks, and that nothing goes on of which we aren't aware. We have no justification for supposing this.

If we are unaware of something, it means it has no impact on us. If it has no impact on us, um, well, yeah...

[annnnoid]

Originally Posted by westprog

You're making a broad assumption about the capability of scientific enquiry here. Clearly ants are capable of enquiring as to the purpose of a DVD box set of the Borgias. They are also totally unable to comprehend it in any way. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the interactions of a being of sufficiently large capabilities (we don't even need to assume omnipotence) would be remotely comprehensible.

The assumption seems to be that human being's comprehension of the universe is just about total, give or take a few little quirks, and that nothing goes on of which we aren't aware. We have no justification for supposing this.

Yes we do…it’s called stupidity.

Originally Posted by Hokulele

If we are unaware of something, it means it has no impact on us. If it has no impact on us, um, well, yeah...

Here’s a trick question Hokulele….does science have the capacity to adjudicate human subjective awareness? Human subjective awareness is precisely where human beings encounter their understanding of the meaning of the word ‘God’. Prove that science has any ability to falsify this experience.

….this idiocy that ‘science’ has the ability to adjudicate all is nothing but a convenient skeptic delusion. As Noam Chomsky quite accurately pointed out…our understanding of human nature is ‘ thin and likely to remain so’. If someone says ‘I experienced God today’ neither you nor anyone on this planet has the slightest ability to prove them wrong (got that Devnull!).

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Yes we do…it’s called stupidity.




Here’s a trick question Hokulele….does science have the capacity to adjudicate human subjective awareness? Human subjective awareness is precisely where human beings encounter their understanding of the meaning of the word ‘God’. Prove that science has any ability to falsify this experience.

….this idiocy that ‘science’ has the ability to adjudicate all is nothing but a convenient skeptic delusion. As Noam Chomsky quite accurately pointed out…our understanding of human nature is ‘ thin and likely to remain so’. If someone says ‘I experienced God today’ neither you nor anyone on this planet has the slightest ability to prove them wrong (got that Devnull!).

And you could not prove that you were right. Got that? Your anecdote would be dismissed as a hallucination, and quite rightly too.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Here’s a trick question Hokulele….does science have the capacity to adjudicate human subjective awareness?

Yes.

Quote:

Human subjective awareness is precisely where human beings encounter their understanding of the meaning of the word ‘God’. Prove that science has any ability to falsify this experience.

Easy. People have to be taught to label all sorts of subjective experiences. Whether you call those "happy", "sad", or "God" is irrelevant. If it were not falsifiable, you would have no idea whether you were encountering "God" or "minestrone soup".

Quote:

….this idiocy that ‘science’ has the ability to adjudicate all is nothing but a convenient skeptic delusion. As Noam Chomsky quite accurately pointed out…our understanding of human nature is ‘ thin and likely to remain so’. If someone says ‘I experienced God today’ neither you nor anyone on this planet has the slightest ability to prove them wrong (got that Devnull!).

lol

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by westprog

The assumption seems to be that human being's comprehension of the universe is just about total, give or take a few little quirks, and that nothing goes on of which we aren't aware. We have no justification for supposing this.

No, we're simply refusing to speculate about things for which we have, and CANNOT BY DEFINITION have, data on. All kinds of things can happen that have no impact on humanity, and it would be stupid to deny it. A planet orbiting a star in the middle of a global cluster on the other side of the Andromeda Gallaxy may wobble a bit, for example. Devistating for any life on that planet, but because the light is so diluted by the time it reaches us (global cluster+galactic core means there's too much glare to see it) we cannot say anything about it due to insufficient data.

What you and punshhh and other theists of your ilk are trying to do is to get us to suspend the basic requirement of knowledge: that we be able to support what we say with verifiable data. There are things that occur that humanity cannot know given our current level of technology, and the only rational conclusion to be drawn about those things is that discussions of them do not rise to the level of being right or wrong. Discussions on such topics are purely speculative and incapable of providing any information about the systems in question because no information is possible. This includes gods. In other words, unless your gods impact reality in such a way as to be noticible by humans--which would make them amenible to scientific testing--NEITHER of us knows ANYTHING about them and honesty demands that we simply reject the idea outright without further consideration.

[annnnoid]

Originally Posted by dafydd

And you could not prove that you were right. Got that? Your anecdote would be dismissed as a hallucination, and quite rightly too.

And whence did you acquire the god-like ability to definitively adjudicate the intimate subjective experience of another human being?

….you’re the ones who keep saying…shall I quote Devnull…” God affects the reality we live in and is thus subject to scientific enquiry.” I’ve just provided you with a clear and indisputable instance where science has not the slightest ability to enquire. Call it whatever you want…hallucination…delusion…codswallop…peanut butter, it’s nothing but an opinion. Shall I spell it out for you….O P I N I O N! So where’s the science?????? There does not exist…even remotely…anywhere on this planet a science that has the ability to get inside someone’s head and determine what they are experiencing or aware of (fMRI…not even close!). Got that!

[annnnoid]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Yes.

Easy. People have to be taught to label all sorts of subjective experiences. Whether you call those "happy", "sad", or "God" is irrelevant. If it were not falsifiable, you would have no idea whether you were encountering "God" or "minestrone soup".

lol

So basically you're saying that human subjective experience is falsifiable. Perhaps you should ask some of your fellow skeptics for some lessons in basic science cause I'm certainly not going to waste my time educating you.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

And whence did you acquire the god-like ability to definitively adjudicate the intimate subjective experience of another human being?

….you’re the ones who keep saying…shall I quote Devnull…” God affects the reality we live in and is thus subject to scientific enquiry.” I’ve just provided you with a clear and indisputable instance where science has not the slightest ability to enquire. Call it whatever you want…hallucination…delusion…codswallop…peanut butter, it’s nothing but an opinion. Shall I spell it out for you….O P I N I O N! So where’s the science?????? There does not exist…even remotely…anywhere on this planet a science that has the ability to get inside someone’s head and determine what they are experiencing or aware of (fMRI…not even close!). Got that!

I have just had an intimate subjective experience. Lord Krishna appeared to me and spoke words of wisdom, which I cannot reveal here. How do you adjudicate my claim? In the absence of any proof of the existence of any god that mankind has invented I will go on asserting that there are no gods. I will change my mind if I ever see any evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence. Do you believe everyone who claims to have seen a god?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

And whence did you acquire the god-like ability to definitively adjudicate the intimate subjective experience of another human being?

I claim no god-like ability. It's just a matter of choosing the likeliest explanation. If somebody claims to have met a god then I have two choices. Either at least one god exists or the person is lying or deluded. In the absence of any evidence for the existence of super beings, I will always go for the lying or deluded. Do you always get so aerated when people disagree with you?

[annnnoid]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I have just had an intimate subjective experience. Lord Krishna appeared to me and spoke words of wisdom, which I cannot reveal here. How do you adjudicate my claim? In the absence of any proof of the existence of any god that mankind has invented I will go on asserting that there are no gods. I will change my mind if I ever see any evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence. Do you believe everyone who claims to have seen a god?

So I’ll take that as an admission that science cannot, in fact, adjudicate either everything or God. Feel entirely free to provide an argument whenever you actually discover the ability to come up with one.

…and then we have the interminable absurdity….” Anecdotes are not evidence.” Oh yay…more skeptic clichés. What’s with you guys…does it come in your weetabix or something?

Evidence is whatever supports a conclusion. In case you hadn’t noticed, there does not exist a stone tablet anywhere upon which it is written: “evidence is that and only that which is falsifiable and / or supports a falsifiable conclusion”

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

So I’ll take that as an admission that science cannot, in fact, adjudicate either everything or God. Feel entirely free to provide an argument whenever you actually discover the ability to come up with one.

Science may as well try and adjudicate about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. A complete waste of time. No need for me to come up with anything.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Evidence is whatever supports a conclusion. In case you hadn’t noticed, there does not exist a stone tablet anywhere upon which it is written: “evidence is that and only that which is falsifiable and / or supports a falsifiable conclusion”

Why do you people always try to redefine words? Punshhh does it too. Evidence is what leads you to the correct conclusion. Why do you need a god to exist? Isn't the universe wonderful enough without bringing fairy tales into it?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

And whence did you acquire the god-like ability to definitively adjudicate the intimate subjective experience of another human being?

So if somebody tells you that their intimate subjective experience is of the existence of a god you give then credence, but if I tell you that my subjective experience is that all gods are fictions, you dismiss my words? If you go on subjectivity alone then that leads to the conclusion that gods exist and do not exist at the same time.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

So basically you're saying that human subjective experience is falsifiable.

Absolutely. Can you please give me an example of a subjective experience you believe is not falsifiable?

Quote:

Perhaps you should ask some of your fellow skeptics for some lessons in basic science cause I'm certainly not going to waste my time educating you.

lol

[dafydd]

annnnoid, I'm not really talking about scientific proof, although that is important. Why doesn't god appear in the sky all over the world or appear on every TV and computer screen? He would put all us miserable skeptics out of our misery. Why does he confine himself to giving some people inner subjective experiences? He must have a warped sense of humour.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Yes we do…it’s called stupidity.

What you are doing here is something I think of privately as the Postmodernist Two-Step. It's an argument that goes like this:

1. We can never really know anything because we are prisoners of fallible senses, subjective sense data, social conditioning, limited understanding and all sorts of other things.
2. Since we can never really know anything, I can assert that I know anything I like and you can't contradict me!

You're like an ant on that DVD collection of The Borgias proclaiming that they have intuited through mystical means that the box is a sacred object created by a transcendental super-ant as a means by which lesser ants can attain cosmic consciousness, and also that the box wants everyone to be nice to each other.

Quote:

Here’s a trick question Hokulele….does science have the capacity to adjudicate human subjective awareness? Human subjective awareness is precisely where human beings encounter their understanding of the meaning of the word ‘God’. Prove that science has any ability to falsify this experience.

Well, to begin with science says that you have no evidence that "human beings encounter their understanding of the meaning of the word ‘God’", whatever that word salad means to you, as opposed to "human beings abuse their brains until they wig out and have subjectively weird experiences".

I've had dreams where I was someone else but also me at the same time, and was convinced of all sorts of weird things. Brains do weird things.

Quote:

….this idiocy that ‘science’ has the ability to adjudicate all is nothing but a convenient skeptic delusion. As Noam Chomsky quite accurately pointed out…our understanding of human nature is ‘ thin and likely to remain so’. If someone says ‘I experienced God today’ neither you nor anyone on this planet has the slightest ability to prove them wrong (got that Devnull!).

The problem is that you have not the slightest ability to prove yourself right, either.

More importantly, if you being right mattered in even the slightest way then there would be some testable consequence of you being right. If the world is a better place in any way because of your "experiencing God", if you had learned anything at all from this that made the slightest difference to anything, we could test it.

I think what you'll find in testable reality is that theistic, "esoteric" mysticism is effectively indistinguishable from non-theistic meditation with no supernatural nonsense bundled up with it.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

2. Since we can never really know anything, I can assert that I know anything I like and you can't contradict me!

We are free to believe whatever we like. Whether our beliefs have anything to do with reality is a matter of evidence.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

If we are unaware of something, it means it has no impact on us. If it has no impact on us, um, well, yeah...

Something might have enormous impact on us and we'd never know why.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

No, we're simply refusing to speculate about things for which we have, and CANNOT BY DEFINITION have, data on.

A refusal to speculate about such things is entirely different from an objective insistence that such things cannot exist. In fact, it's the direct opposite.

A scientific approach is always to avoid making categoric statements about things for which there is insufficient information. This should always preclude metaphysical speculation.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

So I’ll take that as an admission that science cannot, in fact, adjudicate either everything or God. Feel entirely free to provide an argument whenever you actually discover the ability to come up with one.

…and then we have the interminable absurdity….” Anecdotes are not evidence.” Oh yay…more skeptic clichés. What’s with you guys…does it come in your weetabix or something?

Evidence is whatever supports a conclusion. In case you hadn’t noticed, there does not exist a stone tablet anywhere upon which it is written: “evidence is that and only that which is falsifiable and / or supports a falsifiable conclusion”

Do you often do science by reading stone tablets?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by westprog

Something might have enormous impact on us and we'd never know why.

We'd notice the impact.