The the God hypothesis a scientific hypothesis?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Resume

You know this how?

The holey babble?

[Resurreccion]

Originally Posted by Resume

You know this how?

Well if people actually studied the bible and stopped reading what they see on those anti-biblical websites they would actually understand it.

Its like instead of reading a book, I go to an anti-xxxx(bookname) site to learn about the book's supposedly shortcomings.

The nature of God and his works and the difference is clearly evident

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

So even you now say your counter Argument was silly and illogical.

I admitted back in post #269 that my argument about the FSM was silly and illogical, as a way of pointing out just how silly and illogical it was for people (like you, apparently) to make the same argument except by invoking their God rather than the FSM. It was a parody of your argument from ignorance.

And you are still playing this kind of stupid "gotcha!" game, despite the fact that I already admitted the FSM argument was silly?

Yup, I think it's pretty obvious why you're here. And everyone here can see it for themselves.

I also have noticed how you refused to address my question even after I addressed your question. And everyone else here has noticed it as well.

Good luck convincing others of your viewpoint if that is your attitude.

[Resurreccion]

Originally Posted by dafydd

And what works would these be? Does giving children cancer count as a work?

This has nothing to do with the topic. Can you atleast stick to the topic?
I mean. Is this all you can contribute to the thread?

Completely Invalid and misinformed statements?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

Well if people actually studied the bible and stopped reading what they see on those anti-biblical websites they would actually understand it.

Its like instead of reading a book, I go to an anti-xxxx(bookname) site to learn about the book's supposedly shortcomings.

The nature of God and his works and the difference is clearly evident

Which one?

There are many different (sometimes conflicting) versions of the bible.

Besides: you're talking to a number of people who actually HAVE read the bible. I'm one of them. In fact, I've read the bible more AFTER I gave up religion than before.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

This has nothing to do with the topic. Can you atleast stick to the topic?
I mean. Is this all you can contribute to the thread?

Completely Invalid and misinformed statements?

Would you care to address my question?

Quote:

Resurreccion, would you care to make some specific empirical claims related to your God?

And, to go one step further, would you be willing to conclude if those empirical claims are found, through the tools of science, to be false that your God doesn't exist (or at least, it doesn't exist in the form you previously thought)?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

Well if people actually studied the bible and stopped reading what they see on those anti-biblical websites they would actually understand it.

Its like instead of reading a book, I go to an anti-xxxx(bookname) site to learn about the book's supposedly shortcomings.

The nature of God and his works and the difference is clearly evident

I had a number of years reading the bible as a believer and then again as a lit student and writer. I think I understand the bible well enough as a dis-jointed, highly edited amalgamation of regional mythology. Like other amalgamations such as the quran or bhagavad gita.

What make the bible special?

[Resurreccion]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

I admitted back in that my argument about the FSM was silly and illogical, as a way of pointing out just how silly and illogical it was for people (like you, apparently) to make the same argument except by invoking their God rather than the FSM.

And you are still playing this kind of stupid "gotcha!" game, despite the fact that I already admitted the FSM argument was silly?

Yup, I think it's pretty obvious why you're here. And everyone here can see it for themselves.

I also have noticed how you refused to address even after I addressed your question. And everyone else here has noticed it as well.

Good luck convincing others of your viewpoint if that is your attitude.

Except I didn't make the same argument. I'm not invoking anything.
Do you think the doctor that gives you tynenol is invoking anything that ISN'T apart of the situation?

IF then what do you make of the $1 million challenge? If someone came and won it in spectacular fashion? What will your response be? "All you are doing is invoking God. It could be FSM for all we know"

I don't like continuing to another discussion when one hasn't been finished.
We know talk about the other once we clear this one up. I don't think you see where I'm coming from on this one. Or you see it and ignore it.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

Except I didn't make the same argument. I'm not invoking anything.
Do you think the doctor that gives you tynenol is invoking anything that ISN'T apart of the situation?

Except that you keep talking about God, God's nature, God's works, and now the Bible as the word of God. Anyone reading back through the last page or two of the thread can see this fact.

Quote:

IF then what do you make of the $1 million challenge? If someone came and won it in spectacular fashion? What will your response be? "All you are doing is invoking God. It could be FSM for all we know"

Anyone taking the challenge would have to first define something (like what exactly they plan to test), which you refuse to do.

Quote:

I don't like continuing to another discussion when one hasn't been finished.
We know talk about the other once we clear this one up. I don't think you see where I'm coming from on this one. Or you see it and ignore it.

So you're not going to address my question, then. And this is your mealy mouthed excuse for not doing so. Fine.

Nice knowing you.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

This has nothing to do with the topic. Can you atleast stick to the topic?
I mean. Is this all you can contribute to the thread?

Completely Invalid and misinformed statements?

You brought up the subject of god and his works. It was a perfectly valid question which you do not seem to be able to answer.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So you're not going to address my question, then. And this is your mealy mouthed excuse for not doing so. Fine.

Nice knowing you.

All we are going to get is the usual waffle that believers serve up when you ask them awkward questions.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Resume

I had a number of years reading the bible as a believer and then again as a lit student and writer. I think I understand the bible well enough as a dis-jointed, highly edited amalgamation of regional mythology. Like other amalgamations such as the quran or bhagavad gita.

What make the bible special?

I've read the bible all the way through twice. It is a work of fiction.

[Resurreccion]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Except that you keep talking about God, God's nature, God's works, and now the Bible as the word of God. Anyone reading back through the last page or two of the thread can see this fact.

So now talking about God's nature and work is a thing to be looked down on?
Atheists do it all the time, talk about how EVIL God is. Should we look down on them because they made a reference towards God?

And when did I say the bible was the word of God? See how you keep making assumptions...

Quote:

Resurreccion, would you care to make some specific empirical claims related to your God?

And, to go one step further, would you be willing to conclude if those empirical claims are found, through the tools of science, to be false that your God doesn't exist (or at least, it doesn't exist in the form you previously thought)?

Yes, My empirical claims would be miracles or divine knowledge.

Finally, the reason I didn't want to address that yet is because it would bring us back to square one.


Yes if those empirical claims are found, through the tools of science, to be false that your God doesn't exist (or at least, it doesn't exist in the form you previously thought)

My question to you is if those empirical claims are found, through the tools of science, to be true that God does exist (or at least, it does exist in the form proposed)

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

Atheists do it all the time, talk about how EVIL God is.

Merely to prove a point. A non-existent being cannot be evil. Atheists do not believe in the existence of god. Do you believe that the Hindu pantheon of gods actually exist? If not, why not?

[Dinwar]

Let's go back to your Pill A and Pill B argument, Resurreccion.

Let's say you're sick, but you get better. I say someone gave you a pill while you weren't able to detect it. That pill is what made you better! I say that someone gave you Pill A. Is it reasonable to believe that Pill A actually cured your illness? No, of course not--I could be lying through my teeth. Or, I could have THOUGHT someone gave you a pill, but it was actually a Tic-Tac. Or I could have thought I heard someone say they gave you a pill, and never actually seen it. Etc.

In such a situation it's no more rational to say that Pill A cured you than it is to say that Pill B cured you. There's no evidence there WAS a pill in the first place, so ANY postulation of a pill is purely arbitrary and should be dismissed.

Similarly, if something happens it doesn't matter if we postulate that God did it, that the FSM did it, that Thor did it, or that Satan did it. All of these concepts are equally arbitrary and equally well-supported--which is to say, not at all (hearsay is not support).

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

Well if people actually studied the bible and stopped reading what they see on those anti-biblical websites they would actually understand it.

No, no they wouldn't. I was a devout Roman Catholic for most of my life. My father went to the seminary, my family was friends with multiple priests, and it wasn't uncommon for us to read Bible chapters (nothing formal; us kids were bookworms and the Bible is a book). The real issue is that the book assumes itself to be true without providing any actual evidence. Even if it did make sense, it's fiction--or at least that's the best we can call it, since there's nothing to prove otherwise. And the book is internally inconsistent to a shocking degree--and that's from reading the thing, not from the websites.

Besides, why do you assume the Bible is right? What about the Koran? What about the Jewish texts? Or the Hindu texts? Or the Buddhist texts? Or the Shinto? Or the oral traditions of the native peoples of Africa, Australia, and the Americas? What about the old European religions--the Celtic religions, the Picts, the Romans, the Greeks, the Germanic peoples? Why reject the Egyptian religions? Or that of Sumaria? Or Persia? The answer is simple: you grew up in a society that favors Christianity. And it's easily supported: most people in our society are the same religion as their parents--that is, the one they grew up in. Notice that this has nothing at all to do with the validity of the religion in question; it's fashion, not fact.

[Resurreccion]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Let's go back to your Pill A and Pill B argument, Resurreccion.

Let's say you're sick, but you get better. I say someone gave you a pill while you weren't able to detect it. That pill is what made you better! I say that someone gave you Pill A. Is it reasonable to believe that Pill A actually cured your illness? No, of course not--I could be lying through my teeth. Or, I could have THOUGHT someone gave you a pill, but it was actually a Tic-Tac. Or I could have thought I heard someone say they gave you a pill, and never actually seen it. Etc.

In such a situation it's no more rational to say that Pill A cured you than it is to say that Pill B cured you. There's no evidence there WAS a pill in the first place, so ANY postulation of a pill is purely arbitrary and should be dismissed.

Similarly, if something happens it doesn't matter if we postulate that God did it, that the FSM did it, that Thor did it, or that Satan did it. All of these concepts are equally arbitrary and equally well-supported--which is to say, not at all (hearsay is not support).

We are not talking about hear say aka "I say". We are talking about actual events that transpire. You going to the doctor and receiving Tylenol, taking it and getting better. You won't turn around and say it was the aspirin on the corner that made you well. Because Aspirin was not apart of the equation. You + taking Tynelol = Well. There is no aspirin.

Unless ofcourse you weren't given tynenol. But that has no relevance in this situation. The whole point of the example is that someone gave you Pill A, you took it got better, therefore you can't claim a Twizzler made you better because its not apart of the situation.

That's invoking outside subjects.

Its like doing the million dollar chnllenge, winning it in fashion and randi comes and says "I don't know what it is but its not what you claim it is. Its just impossible."

Well thats the point.

And I'm not just saying... "ITS XXX"

If you were born blind and your eyes were opened when someone claimed to be from God prayed for you, then surely Investigate and get down to the bottom line of what happened.

What I depise is when someone says. "Its anything but God." when an example like that is given.

Basically saying. Yeah we ask for proof but we will reject all proposed proofs at face value.

I bet if someone's eyes where opened after they were born blind their first thought wont be... "whatever... it could be the FSM for all I know"

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

If it is impossible for anyone to test whether or not you love your wife, how can your wife know that you do indeed love her?

That's part of the problem of being human. We can pretend that science is sufficient, but only by stretching science, or compressing what it is to be human.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

You going to the doctor and receiving Tylenol, taking it and getting better. You won't turn around and say it was the aspirin on the corner that made you well. Because Aspirin was not apart of the equation. You + taking Tynelol = Well. There is no aspirin.

Except that "Tylenol" in this analogy stands for "the God of the Christian religion" (since you're talking about the Bible), and while we have ample evidence for the existence of Tylenol the theists in this thread have repeatedly admitted that there's no valid evidence for gods.

It's not that I took Tylenol and got better. At best, it's you saying that a good friend of yours took Tylenol and got better, but you can't remember his name or what he was sick with or when he took it. And if you're going to use the Bible as evidence it gets worse--it's the equivalent of saying that someone thousands of years ago said that someone they'd never met (remember, the Old Testament was a collection of oral history and the New Testament is acknowledged to have been written well after Christ's alleged crucifixion) said that they'd taken Tylenol and got better. Oh, and then the story went through a number of committees (Council of Niccea for one, Vatican II for another) and translations (if you're using the King James Version you're necessarily wrong because we know he asked for it to sound pretty).

Quote:

That's invoking outside subjects.

No, it's improving the analogy such that it's actually analogous to the whole gods issue.

Quote:

If you were born blind and your eyes were opened when someone claimed to be from God prayed for you, then surely Investigate and get down to the bottom line of what happened.

What I depise is when someone says. "Its anything but God." when an example like that is given.

That's not what's happening. What's happening is that NOTHING happened, you say "Goddidit", and the rest of us are saying "What's this 'god' thing?" Until you can define your concept of a god you cannot use it as an explanation (see continental drift's early days for ample reasons why), and if your god concept is undetectable (which is the one thing everyone here can more or less agree on) you cannot define your god except as undetectable, and therefore cannot use that concept as an explanation. An undefined explanation isn't an explanation, it's an evasion.

Quote:

I bet if someone's eyes where opened after they were born blind their first thought wont be... "whatever... it could be the FSM for all I know"

Ironic that you should use eyesight. My left eye was one step up from clinically blind until I was about 12 years old. It's no longer that bad--in fact, it's good enough that if I lost my right eye I could still drive. The reason for that isn't gods, though; it's the optometrist and therapist and many, many hours of physical therapy I did.

And that's the reason why we reject the miraculous heallings--it's never JUST gods at work. A patient has cancer and it goes into remission. The priests all say "God saved her! Jesus be praised!" However, they ignore the doctors that worked with her, the doctors that developed the medicines and therapies, the nurses that helped the doctors, the technicians that built the MRIs, CT scanners, and surgical implements, etc. They're rejecting the entire immune system as well--which, by the way, is another reason for rejecting gods as an explanation in medical issues: there's usually a simpler explanation, such as "the immune system did its job".

In order to use gods--ANY gods--as an explanation for ANYTHING you first must define those gods, and then you must demonstrate their existence. Until you can do those two things, the concept isn't even a hypothesis--it's mere speculation is should properly be discarded without further consideration. There's nothing to it--the god hypothesis, without those two pieces of information (definition and proof) is scientifically and intellectually vacuous.

Originally Posted by westprog

That's part of the problem of being human. We can pretend that science is sufficient, but only by stretching science, or compressing what it is to be human.

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. When I say I love someone, I have a specific definition and have tested myself. If someone asks "Why?" or "How do you know?" I can answer, and I can prove it. Thus, I can honestly say I love them. Without that definition, and without evidence, westprog is correct--there's no way to know. Once you have those two pieces of information, it becomes a relatively simple matter.

[annnnoid]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. When I say I love someone, I have a specific definition and have tested myself. If someone asks "Why?" or "How do you know?" I can answer, and I can prove it. Thus, I can honestly say I love them. Without that definition, and without evidence, westprog is correct--there's no way to know. Once you have those two pieces of information, it becomes a relatively simple matter.

Dinwar…you have claimed that you are a ‘scientist’. Are you honestly insisting that you can ‘prove’ that you love your wife…or are you simply trying to say that you are certain in your conclusion and could persuade someone of this.

[Dinwar]

I should probably mention, annnnoid, that I've put you on my Ignore list for the time being. Not because of your tendency towards insults by innuendo, a tactic I detest; rather, you and I disagree fundamentally on what constitutes valid evidence. You consider hearsay to be valid, and I consider it to be worthless. Our entire disagreement is built on that foundation, and it's insurmountable. Neither of us will get any value from continued discussion, and we'll only get in trouble with the mods.

[Resurreccion]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Except that "Tylenol" in this analogy stands for "the God of the Christian religion" (since you're talking about the Bible), and while we have ample evidence for the existence of Tylenol the theists in this thread have repeatedly admitted that there's no valid evidence for gods.

It's not that I took Tylenol and got better. At best, it's you saying that a good friend of yours took Tylenol and got better, but you can't remember his name or what he was sick with or when he took it. And if you're going to use the Bible as evidence it gets worse--it's the equivalent of saying that someone thousands of years ago said that someone they'd never met (remember, the Old Testament was a collection of oral history and the New Testament is acknowledged to have been written well after Christ's alleged crucifixion) said that they'd taken Tylenol and got better. Oh, and then the story went through a number of committees (Council of Niccea for one, Vatican II for another) and translations (if you're using the King James Version you're necessarily wrong because we know he asked for it to sound pretty).

Your entire post is a big pile of assumptions and none of it are true.

Do every one here debate with assumptions?

Why don't you respond to my original post as it is with truth?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

Your entire post is a big pile of assumptions and none of it are true.

Do every one here debate with assumptions?

Why don't you respond to my original post as it is with truth?

Perhaps you might address these assumptions individually.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

Your entire post is a big pile of assumptions and none of it are true.

Actually, I'm calling you out on YOUR assumptions. You ASSUME that a god must exist. You ASSUME that that god most act. You must be assuming that, because you've offered no proof.

Quote:

Why don't you respond to my original post as it is with truth?

This type of phrasing always sets off alarm bells in my brain. No one uses such convoluted phrases when it would be much simpler to say "It's true". If you're that far gone, there's no point in talking to you--you're not going to budge an inch, and will offer no evidence for your positions.

[Resurreccion]

This is the original question played out in case anyone with an inquiry mind or would like to chime in.

You: Hello Doctor.
Doctor: Hey, How may I help you today?
You: I've been having fever.
Doctor: Are you coughing? Since how long?
You: No. For the past 3 days, its been getting worse.

(Doctor checks patient)

Doctor: Oh goodness gracious, you are burning up. let me prescribe you some tynenol.
You: Alright.
Doctor: Make sure to take one before you leave, you can use the water fountain.
You: Okay, thanks.

(4 hours laters)

You: Hey doctor, the fever is gone.
Doctor: Okay, let me check it.

(Doctor checks patient)

Doctor: Hmm. Your temperature is normal.
Me: Yeah. Its was the twizzlers, it cured me.
Doctor: What?
You: Twizzlers.
Doctor: Did you eat some twizzlers today?
You: No. Does it matter?
Doctor: ...Did you take the tynenol I prescribed you?
You: Yes, two.
Doctor: Okay then, its the drug its making you well.
You: No its the twizzlers.
Doctor: No its not.
You: Why not? Prove it!
Doctor:

...

Doctor: Sir.
You: Yeah?
Doctor: I'm going to write you a note, we have a ward here I want you to pay a visit.
Doctor: Ward 113
Me: What is it?
Doctor: The mental ward.

[Dinwar]

Okay. Let's play.

Quote:

You: Hello Doctor.
Doctor: Hey, How may I help you today?
You: I've been having fever.
Doctor: Are you coughing? Since how long?
You: No. For the past 3 days, its been getting worse.

This version is founded on a number of unsupported assumptions. Here's a fixed version:

You: Hello Doctor.
Doctor: ~no answer~
You: I've been having a fever.
Doctor: ~no answer~
You: Um...Doctor?
Doctor: ~no answer~
You: I'm going to say I took some Tylenol; that okay with you?
Doctor: ~no answer~

4 hours later

You: I feel much better!
Doctor: ~no answer~
You: You're the best doctor ever!!!!!
Doctor: ~no answer~
You: I'm going to come to you every time I have medical problems
Doctor: ~no answer~

Remember, the doctor here is analogous to gods--and until you present evidence for any gods, you cannot know that the doctor exists.

Here's the thing: you can detect Tylenol. Hospitals keep track of the stuff. You can see someone taking it on security tapes. If you're really desperate and are a psychopath you can cut open the guy's stomach and physically remove the pill. Miracles on the other hand are NOT detectable. You can't see them happening--none have ever been caught on tape, or recorded in any way other than eye-witness accounts. Recent legal issues have illustrated the problem with using eye-witness accounts as evidence. You don't even need to go that far--just wait until a minor but detectable earthquake happens and look at the people that call it in. You ALWAYS get people that rank it wildly high and wildly low. Miracles don't use physical matter so you can't use physical presence or absence of anything to prove it. And if you cut up the person miraculously healed all you'll find is bits and pieces of human.

The doctor analogy is entirely wrong. It presupposes that there's evidence for your god, and evidence for the things you say your god did. Provide that evidence, or the analogy is false.

Now, please note that I'm not saying the doctor in my story doesn't exist. I also don't say he didn't help you. But considering you've never interacted with him (remember, an interaction would be detectable and there'd be evidence), you can't conclude that he DID help you. You can only say that you got better. Similarly, science doesn't say that gods exist or not--it says that the concept isn't worth looking at, because there's no evidence to support its validity. It's not WRONG to postulate that gods are responsible for all healing that's ever occurred; it's simply irrational to consider it, for the exactly same reasons it's irrational to believe that gods are responsible for lightning, or the rain, or earthquakes, or that beans repel ghosts (all of which--yes, even the beans thing--were once believed). And the fact that one irrational concept has been held for a long time--which is the only thing Christianity has going for it that the FSM doesn't--is irrelevant when dealing with the rationality of the position. Formally, such logic is known as Appeal to Tradition.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

This is the original question played out in case anyone with an inquiry mind or would like to chime in.

You: Hello Doctor.
Doctor: Hey, How may I help you today?
You: I've been having fever.
Doctor: Are you coughing? Since how long?
You: No. For the past 3 days, its been getting worse.

(Doctor checks patient)

Doctor: Oh goodness gracious, you are burning up. let me prescribe you some tynenol.
You: Alright.
Doctor: Make sure to take one before you leave, you can use the water fountain.
You: Okay, thanks.

(4 hours laters)

You: Hey doctor, the fever is gone.
Doctor: Okay, let me check it.

(Doctor checks patient)

Doctor: Hmm. Your temperature is normal.
Me: Yeah. Its was the twizzlers, it cured me.
Doctor: What?
You: Twizzlers.
Doctor: Did you eat some twizzlers today?
You: No. Does it matter?
Doctor: ...Did you take the tynenol I prescribed you?
You: Yes, two.
Doctor: Okay then, its the drug its making you well.
You: No its the twizzlers.
Doctor: No its not.
You: Why not? Prove it!
Doctor:

...

Doctor: Sir.
You: Yeah?
Doctor: I'm going to write you a note, we have a ward here I want you to pay a visit.
Doctor: Ward 113
Me: What is it?
Doctor: The mental ward.

Hmmm... all of that and no definition of God, something which would actually further the discussion.

Meh

[Resurreccion]

Originally Posted by Resume

Perhaps you might address these assumptions individually.

Okay. Only because you asked me.
Personally I would not.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Except that "Tylenol" in this analogy stands for "the God of the Christian religion" (since you're talking about the Bible)

False Assumption.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

and while we have ample evidence for the existence of Tylenol the theists in this thread have repeatedly admitted that there's no valid evidence for gods.

Since the premise is a false assumption. The post continues under it.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

It's not that I took Tylenol and got better. At best, it's you saying that a good friend of yours took Tylenol and got better, but you can't remember his name or what he was sick with or when he took it.

Another false assumption. I made it clear already that this example like others were hypothetical.

Looks like you're looking for something that isn't there.
You are clearly debating with your emotions.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

And if you're going to use the Bible as evidence it gets worse--it's the equivalent of saying that someone thousands of years ago said that someone they'd never met (remember, the Old Testament was a collection of oral history and the New Testament is acknowledged to have been written well after Christ's alleged crucifixion) said that they'd taken Tylenol and got better. Oh, and then the story went through a number of committees (Council of Niccea for one, Vatican II for another) and translations (if you're using the King James Version you're necessarily wrong because we know he asked for it to sound pretty).

Another false assumption, never used Bible as evidence or even implied I was. I said clearly few posts ago of the empirical claims I was making.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

That's not what's happening. What's happening is that NOTHING happened, you say "Goddidit", and the rest of us are saying "What's this 'god' thing?"

Another false assumption. I never said that actually happened.
I made it clear when I brought it up that it was a hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Ironic that you should use eyesight. My left eye was one step up from clinically blind until I was about 12 years old. It's no longer that bad--in fact, it's good enough that if I lost my right eye I could still drive. The reason for that isn't gods, though; it's the optometrist and therapist and many, many hours of physical therapy I did.

I used a hypothetical of TOTAL blindness that can't be reversed by any means. "It's no longer that bad" meaning you could see.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

And that's the reason why we reject the miraculous heallings--it's never JUST gods at work. A patient has cancer and it goes into remission. The priests all say "God saved her! Jesus be praised!" However, they ignore the doctors that worked with her, the doctors that developed the medicines and therapies, the nurses that helped the doctors, the technicians that built the MRIs, CT scanners, and surgical implements, etc. They're rejecting the entire immune system as well--which, by the way, is another reason for rejecting gods as an explanation in medical issues: there's usually a simpler explanation, such as "the immune system did its job".

I'm not talking about gradual healing or do anyone discredit healing by the means of medicine.

What I am and most people you hear talk about is Instantaneous Healing.

If Randi lined up Medically Documented ill people. 10 people born blind. 10 terminal cancer patients, 10 terminal tumor patients, 10 leukemia patients, a few paralyzed patients and some amputee.

And they were all healed and the challenge was beat. You still won't believe it and conjure up some lame excuse as to why.

Oh it was spontaneous recuperation.
Doesn't matter it could be the flying spaghetti monster for all we care.

Originally Posted by Dinwar

In order to use gods--ANY gods--as an explanation for ANYTHING you first must define those gods, and then you must demonstrate their existence. Until you can do those two things, the concept isn't even a hypothesis--it's mere speculation is should properly be discarded without further consideration. There's nothing to it--the god hypothesis, without those two pieces of information (definition and proof) is scientifically and intellectually vacuous.

I have never been against proof from the beginning

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. When I say I love someone, I have a specific definition and have tested myself. If someone asks "Why?" or "How do you know?" I can answer, and I can prove it. Thus, I can honestly say I love them. Without that definition, and without evidence, westprog is correct--there's no way to know. Once you have those two pieces of information, it becomes a relatively simple matter.

Others can simply call your proof ********.
Because what's true to you isn't true to others.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

Because what's true to you isn't true to others.

<irony meter explodes>

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

Because what's true to you isn't true to others.

Ah. A subjectivist. There's no arguing with someone like that--the truth is whatever they want it to be, and standards don't apply. Subjectivism is a philosophy specifically constructed to provide maximum wiggle-room.

ETA: Even more so when it comes to love. I've actually had my definition put to the test--not an easy task, given my definition. And it's a matter of legal record, by the way; or at least, I think it is. I believe 911 calls are recorded. Either way, if someone doubts my evidence they've merely shown themselves to have no understanding evaluation of evidence, and their opinion no longer matters to me.

[Resurreccion]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Ah. A subjectivist. There's no arguing with someone like that--the truth is whatever they want it to be, and standards don't apply. Subjectivism is a philosophy specifically constructed to provide maximum wiggle-room.

ETA: Even more so when it comes to love. I've actually had my definition put to the test--not an easy task, given my definition. And it's a matter of legal record, by the way; or at least, I think it is. I believe 911 calls are recorded. Either way, if someone doubts my evidence they've merely shown themselves to have no understanding evaluation of evidence, and their opinion no longer matters to me.

No. What I meant was that what your evidence aka "truth" means to you, it doesn't mean the same to someone else.

While the 50 people hypothetical lined up by Randi who got supernatural miracles. What it would mean to them won't be what it means to you.

That's what I'm saying.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

I'm not talking about gradual healing or do anyone discredit healing by the means of medicine.

What I am and most people you hear talk about is Instantaneous Healing.

If Randi lined up Medically Documented ill people. 10 people born blind. 10 terminal cancer patients, 10 terminal tumor patients, 10 leukemia patients, a few paralyzed patients and some amputee.

And they were all healed and the challenge was beat. You still won't believe it and conjure up some lame excuse as to why.

Oh it was spontaneous recuperation.
Doesn't matter it could be the flying spaghetti monster for all we care.

Alright, I may as well interject, again, since multiple others haven't beat me to what I would say, this time.

"We" (blatant overgeneralization noted) still wouldn't believe... what? You've yet to actually make that clear, in any way, and the fault for that does not, and cannot lie on anyone but you. You've been prompted numerous times, no less, removing any chance that you might have of even trying to pass the blame.

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

Others can simply call your proof ********.
Because what's true to you isn't true to others.

Oh. The subjective truth thing. How old, flawed, and boring. Someone believes something, therefore it must be true.

Unless, of course, you were just wording things terribly and actually meant something else? If so, please clarify.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

No. What I meant was that what your evidence aka "truth" means to you, it doesn't mean the same to someone else.

Sure. Context matters to people. Doesn't mean that they're actually correct when they think something is the case.

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

While the 50 people hypothetical lined up by Randi who got supernatural miracles. What it would mean to them won't be what it means to you.

That's what I'm saying.

So, what you're saying is completely irrelevant? Gotcha.

That 50 miracles happened, assuming that it was actually miracles and not a setup, though, would certainly warrant further investigation, would likely win the challenge, draw a massive amount of attention, and be an excellent starting place for learning more about the reality that we live in.

[Resurreccion]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Alright, I may as well interject, again, since multiple others haven't beat me to what I would say, this time.

"We" (blatant overgeneralization noted) still wouldn't believe... what? You've yet to actually make that clear, in any way, and the fault for that does not, and cannot lie on anyone but you. You've been prompted numerous times, no less, removing any chance that you might have of even trying to pass the blame.

I didn't say you. I was simply talking to Dinwar. Skepticism is good. But there must be a balance. There are skeptics looking for the truth who are open minded. Then there are skeptics who are completely close minded.

That's all.

[Resurreccion]

Originally Posted by Aridas

That 50 miracles happened, assuming that it was actually miracles and not a setup, though, would certainly warrant further investigation, would likely win the challenge, draw a massive amount of attention, and be an excellent starting place for learning more about the reality that we live in.

That would entails that there are actually people who would like to learn and are searching for the truth.
I doubt anyone who wasn't interested in looking for the truth would have any more interest now if that hypothetical actually happened.
Yeah there would be attention. But it would quickly fade.

[epepke]

One idea that is at least somewhat less tedious is that god intervenes by changing the past, so that things will have become to had been. (As Douglas Adams points out, the real problem with time travel isn't paradox, but grammar.)

Of course, it could be argued that an undetectable god cannot be omnipotent, because he isn't ever detectable. This must be annoying for a deity.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

No. What I meant was that what your evidence aka "truth" means to you, it doesn't mean the same to someone else.

No. This is why courts, science, and every rational person dismisses hearsay. Actual evidence DOES NOT mean different things to different people. It's independently verifiable.

The Grand Canyon is a fascinating geological feature of the North American continent. It includes numerous unconformities, sedimentary deposits, and basal metamorphic deposits. We know, and can prove, that the Grand Canyon is ancient, far more ancient than Young Earth Creationists suppose. We can further prove that the rocks at the base of the Grand Canyon are billions of years old. This is done by careful gathering and recording of independently verifiable and independently verified evidence found within the rock record. That evidence can mean nothing other than that the Grand Canyon and the rocks within it are old beyond imagining--unless one is a subjectivist, in which case one merely needs to point out that God could have made them to look that way, or that what's true for my reality isn't true for yours merely because you wish it not to be, and the conversation is over.

Evolution can be proven in many ways. One of the more useful is virus adaptation and evolution. Using evolutionary algorithms medical scientists are able to predict with a great deal of success what strains of the cold and flue virus are going to be prevalent from year to year. Given the number of deaths caused by these viruses this is no trivial task, and is directly responsible for keeping human beings alive. This piece of data is independently verified over and over again, and serves as proof that evolution is true--unless one is a subjectivist and assumes that this is all just a computer program anyway and some programer is simply toying with us.

I've proven my love for my wife in numerous ways, many of which are matters of public, and in a few cases legal, record. These serve as proof of my actions. My wedding, including my vow in which I defined what I mean when I say I love someone, was recorded by multiple people (and yes, I started my wedding vow by defining my terms). Thus if required I could prove, in a court of law and beyond a reasonable doubt, that I love my wife as I understand the term--unless you're a subjectivist and insist that in your world love means something completely different and that we all must follow YOUR definition, except when you say we don't.

In each of these three cases the data is independently verifiable by anyone who wants to look at it and who knows where to look and how to analyze the data (prerequisites for any data analysis--you have to get the data and understand the data in order to interpret the data). The evidence is also proof, because unless you assume that reality has no stable nature--unless you assume that things as they are are necessarily things as they are not--the evidence is such that it leaves no room for doubt about the validity of the proposition the evidence supports. And again, all of this is independently verifiable.

Contrast this with your postulated scenario. We have a few dozen people, miraculously healed. This is a first in human history--no one has ever regenerated a missing limb (blindness is a favorite example of theists, bu there have been cases of blind people spontaneously regaining their eyesight for medically sound reasons--remember, blindness is not a single thing but rather a symptom of multiple pathologies and disorders). Your hypothesis is that God did it. Fine. You, and every theist in this thread, refuse to define God, so many of us rule it out as irrelevant--not because it's wrong, but because it's impossible to evaluate. Even those of us who accept that gods are a valid hypothesis now face a monumental task, however: We must prove that a being without definition did something specific. The only way to even begin such a task is to rule out natural causes. You've already stated, repeatedly, that you reject such an action as irrational dismissal of your hypothesis; however, that merely shows your ignorance of the way scientists think. What's actually happening is that we're testing two competing and mutually exclusive hypotheses: 1) God did it, or 2) the event has a naturalistic explanation. This doesn't cover all potential options--it could be that aliens did it, or Satan, or that there's some force we don't know of--but at the very least if we find a naturalistic explanation we can rule out gods. If we don't, we can move on to trying to establish that some god--some nameless, unproven, even undefined entity--caused this unprecedented event.

The fact that limbs regrew would be independently verifiable. However, given that there are multiple competing hypotheses and your only evidence consists of the fact that we can't say for certain immediately that the event had natural causes, I'm at a loss for how you can say that the evidence is anything more than fairly weak support of your hypothesis. It's certainly not proof. In fact, without a definition of the god in question proof is simply not possible--all we can do is line up competing explanations and rule them out one by one.

Quote:

Skepticism is good. But there must be a balance.

And you accuse ME of making unwarranted assumptions! I have never called myself a skeptic and have a number of fairly fundamental disagreements with the skeptical philosophy as I understand it. I am an Objectivist. ETA: One of the foundational principles of Objecitivist epistemology is a rejection of the open/closed mind dichotomy; as Rand put it "What's needed is not an open mind, but an active one."

Quote:

That would entails that there are actually people who would like to learn and are searching for the truth.

This is the type of implied insult that I find so annoying. The implication is that we are not interested in the truth. In reality, my only crime in this entire thread has been the crime of having standards by which I evaluate evidence, and sticking to them. And if you don't have standards for evaluating evidence I'm at a complete loss for how you can claim to be interested in the truth. If we assumed that God is involved in everything we can't explain we'd still be cowering in fear of the gods of the hunt--we would never have risen to the level at which we cower in fear of the gods of lightning, or the Sun, or the rest of the ancient pantheons.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by epepke

One idea that is at least somewhat less tedious is that god intervenes by changing the past, so that things will have become to had been. (As Douglas Adams points out, the real problem with time travel isn't paradox, but grammar.)

Of course, it could be argued that an undetectable god cannot be omnipotent, because he isn't ever detectable. This must be annoying for a deity.

This is for the very special case where a god cannot be detected, even when he wants to be. I'm not sure if anyone believes in that. There are people who believe in gods who are totally undetected because they want to be. There's no omnipotence problem there. There are people who believe in gods who are occasionally detected, but only when they want to be, and never otherwise. No paradox necessary.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by epepke

One idea that is at least somewhat less tedious is that god intervenes by changing the past, so that things will have become to had been. (As Douglas Adams points out, the real problem with time travel isn't paradox, but grammar.)

This sounds like a bit of a tongue twister. Combined with the butterfly effect, this could result in some interesting effects. There are many possibilities depending on the kind of God existence relationship you are considering.

Quote:

Of course, it could be argued that an undetectable god cannot be omnipotent, because he isn't ever detectable. This must be annoying for a deity.

I would point out a distinction here, it is more apt to rephrase "undetectable god", with undetected god. Because the former is suggesting that god is undetectable in any circumstances, whereas we are actually only considering a god which is currently undetected, by science.

Also omnipotent/present/scient etc are a hot potato along with infinity and should be considered as a separate issue. As they are a human invention and may be absurd in reality. Or if true in some sense, beyond our comprehension.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by westprog

That's part of the problem of being human. We can pretend that science is sufficient, but only by stretching science, or compressing what it is to be human.

But is it a problem with the science, or a problem with people not liking the answers science gives them? In the case of love, I would argue it is the latter.

[Resurreccion]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Contrast this with your postulated scenario. We have a few dozen people, miraculously healed. This is a first in human history--no one has ever regenerated a missing limb. Your hypothesis is that God did it. Fine. You, and every theist in this thread, refuse to define God, so many of us rule it out as irrelevant--not because it's wrong, but because it's impossible to evaluate. Even those of us who accept that gods are a valid hypothesis now face a monumental task, however: We must prove that a being without definition did something specific. The only way to even begin such a task is to rule out natural causes. You've already stated, repeatedly, that you reject such an action as irrational dismissal of your hypothesis; however, that merely shows your ignorance of the way scientists think. What's actually happening is that we're testing two competing and mutually exclusive hypotheses: 1) God did it, or 2) the event has a naturalistic explanation. This doesn't cover all potential options--it could be that aliens did it, or Satan, or that there's some force we don't know of--but at the very least if we find a naturalistic explanation we can rule out gods. If we don't, we can move on to trying to establish that some god--some nameless, unproven, even undefined entity--caused this unprecedented event.

So once you rule out one by one each and every naturalistic explanation and there is none left. What's next?

(I mean can you be a bit more specific in the area of how you would go about trying to establish which and what god caused this?)

[tsig]

Originally Posted by westprog

This is for the very special case where a god cannot be detected, even when he wants to be. I'm not sure if anyone believes in that. There are people who believe in gods who are totally undetected because they want to be. There's no omnipotence problem there. There are people who believe in gods who are occasionally detected, but only when they want to be, and never otherwise. No paradox necessary.

No paradox, just a god who likes to play hide and seek with humanity.