God and Science

[pyramid33]

Not a fan of huge post's either.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not a fan of huge post's either.

I noticed you only post short sentences most of the time.

 

[pyramid33]

I noticed you only post short sentences most of the time.

I suppose few words speak volumes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I suppose few words speak volumes.

Rather than using up volumes to speak a few words

 

[pyramid33]

Rather than using up volumes to speak a few words

Yes.

 

[Senator Cheese]

I didn't say that these area's don't exist. I said they are worthless. And they are.

Existential questions aren't interesting?
And yet you're on ChristianForums.com?
Are there no physics/biology boards that cater to atheism?

My guts is irrelevant. Homeopathy (among many other "alternative" meds) can't be shown to work. The only conclusion one can draw from the available data is that they don't work. Your personal guts are not interesting.

It actually isn't. Because it can't be shown to work. However, it can be shown to NOT work... by pointing at the thousands, millions of cases where it didn't work... Every test that fails to show it works removes credibility from the claim that it works and adds to the opposite.

I am not advocating homeopathy because it's foolish, but I am sure that many homeopathy advocates would provide anecdotal evidence saying that it has been "shown" that homeopathy works.
And again - the question is not does it always work but can you prove that it never works.

It's more rational to assume X doesn't work if repeated testing of X can't show that it works.

It's more rational, more practical but holds the risk of dismissing a positive hypothesis and therefore being less valid.
After all, before the discovery of radio waves, you would have said that it's just more rational to assume they don't exist. And yet, by doing that, you would have dismissed a correct hypothesis and therefore stepped further away from the truth.

No, it's not. I'll prove it to you with my trademark example.
Here's a claim: an undetectable 7-headed dragon is about to eat you somewhere in the coming weeks. I know this, because I saw it in a vision. The only way to protect yourself is by wrapping yourself in tin foil, and this for at least a month. Afterwards, the dragon will return to its own dimension and you will be safe again.
Now, will you be wrapping yourself in tin foil for a month? Off course, you won't. Yet, you can't disprove my claim and I can't prove it to you either. According to your own statements, you can't just dissmiss my claim since you can't disprove it. Yet, you don't wrap yourself. So you assume that the claim is false.

Very true, I assume it's false and therefore I'm not wrapping myself in tin foil.
You don't assume God exists, so you don't go to church - I won't beat you up for it.
Einstein opposed the uncertainty principle - I won't go back in time and slap him, either...
What's the problem?
I'm saying there's a realm beyond science, and that I have been blessed to have been shown a glimpse. If you've seen a glimpse of a seven-headed dragon, I'll be happy to listen to what you have to say, but whether or not I believe you is going to be another question.

My stance is that that which can't be researched / investigated / verified is pretty useless and not worth the effort to explore. Especially not if the claims are outlandish.

Yeah, and you're happy to believe that.
So, again, what brings you to a Christian forum if you believe that all belief beyond what our eyes can see is bonkers?
What motivates your interactions? Anything beyond of thought beyond hedonism? (Not meant as disrespect - just as a question)

I think I was clear enough in saying that I'm in the middle. The evidence isn't conclusive at this point. Neither is my opinion about it. A good case can be made for both sides. The important point here is that I'm leaving the door open for new evidence to convince me either way. I'm not being dogmatic about it, nore am I throwing around words like "certainty" or "impossible".

The evidence is not inconclusive. The evidence obviously points towards free will not existing. There is no scientific evidence for free will - from a purely "scientific" standpoint, it would be more probable to believe in an invisible God that doesn't intervene than it would be to believe in something that has been repeatedly shown not to exist.

I think that should be the case either way.
Consider this simplified case: you poison 2 people. One turns out to have a genetic resistance to the poison and instead of dying, he's just paralised in one hand. The other person dies.

Does that one person having a genetic resistance really change anything about the act you comitted? Is it suddenly "less bad"? I'ld say, no... absolutely not.

And yet our judicial system does make a distinction. But that's another point..

I can...
- Evolution (the evolution of homo sapiens or any other species can't be reproduce, but can certainly be validated through DNA analysis and the fossil record).
- formation of the solar system (can't be repeated, but can certainly be validated with all sorts of techniques and by watching other solar systems in the galaxy)
- Pangea: the ancient super-continent
- asteroid impact that killed of the dino's
- past eruptions of super volcano's
- etc

All of the notions you have listed are theories. That means, they are the combination of verifiable, reproducable hypotheses.

There's plenty of things that can't be repeated, but that can be validated through circumstantial evidence coupled with testable predictions.

Again, only so long as the hypotheses are reproducable. I don't see the testable prediction when it comes to what creationists refer to as "macroevolution", by the way. Would that reduce this theory only to "circumstantial evidence"?

You didn't demonstrate any complex scenario at all. What you speak of fits perfectly in a well understood trait of human psychology. It is far more likely that this is just a manifestation of that well understood trait as opposed to an unsupported deity (which unsurprisingly happens to be the deity you believe in and not any of the other thousands of claimed deities) making this stuff happen.
This is the core of the issue: we have a perfectly reasonable natural explanation for such phenomena and experiences. I see no reason to pull unevidenced supernatural things into this.

I'll go further and state that even if we would have NO reasonable explanation.... Pulling in unsupported things never results in a reasonable explanation. If you have no reasonable explanation, then the only propper answer is that we don't know.

He'ld have extreme bad luck.
I'ld still see no need to pull in unsupported supernatural deities.

As long as we are dealing with things that are possible - no matter how improbable, I would have no reason to think otherwise.

Coming from someone who calls himself a man of science, that's a pretty ignorant approach: you're claiming that all hypotheses for which no evidence can be brought forth are wrong.

An agnostic would be closer to the truth than an atheist: he would say: "I don't know if radiowaves exist. Could be." - whereas the atheist dismisses the claim, fully claiming it's wrong?

Why would you say "god" and not "undetectable 7-headed dragon"?
Can you answer me that? Try to provide a sensible reason for choosing the word "god" over "undetectable 7-headed dragon".

The undetectable 7-headed dragon is very intelligent. After all, he has 7 massive brains. ;-)

I used the word God to describe an entity that, from this particular observation alone, fills following criteria:

• reveals itself to those who seek, albeit in interesting ways
• knows my thoughts
• is otherwise invisible, at least as of yet

It could have seven heads, twelve testicles and two penises. If it has the latter, it might spray you with its buttermilk if you don't behave. It's just that I haven't seen it do that yet..

No. At least not in the objective - "grand scheme of things" - cosmic sense.
Not in the sense that homo sapiens was intended to exist.
In the contextual sense, sure... our purpose is to survive and reproduce, just like all living things.
In the subjective sense (from an individual's perspective) I'ld say we form our own purpose. Some people make it their purpose to help others, some make it their purpose to conquer the world, some to build a big company, some to raise a great family and just be happy.

Well, interesting take. I can't even say I can't understand you, seeing as how I shared that belief for quite some time. Although I can't say I'd want to go back to it now.

The universe doesn't reveal any purpose. So why would we assume there is one?

Because there is more to the truth than meets the eye.
It took us a while to figure out that radio waves exist the way they do.
At least I can be certain that we'll know what happens after we die in less than 120 years.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Existential questions aren't interesting?
And yet you're on ChristianForums.com?
Are there no physics/biology boards that cater to atheism?

I'm not here to defend christianity.

I am not advocating homeopathy because it's foolish

I'm not claiming you do. It's just a good analogy to claims that aren't supported by any evidence.

, but I am sure that many homeopathy advocates would provide anecdotal evidence

Yes. Which is why it's a great analogy to religion. Anecdotal evidence is bad evidence.

the question is not does it always work but can you prove that it never works.

Which is a shifting of the burden of proof. Which is a fallacy. It's not upto us to provide any kind of evidence, pro or contra, for homeopathy. It's upto its proponents to come with evidence to support their claims.

It's more rational, more practical but holds the risk of dismissing a positive hypothesis

No. Because if actual evidence surfaces, we can accept the hypothesis or re-evaluate it. The alternative is to accept it by default until a disproval comes along. Good luck with wrapping yourself in tin foil to avoid being eaten by the undetectable 7-headed dragon if you wish to go down that road.

Don't remember the exact quote and also don't remember who said it, but it goes like this: "assuming things without evidence is irrational and dishonest, no matter if afterwards it turns out to be a lucky good guess".

and therefore being less valid.

The validity of claims is defined by their current support and immediate merrit. Not by their potential merrit just in case it happens to be correct in some kind of what if situation.

[quote^]
After all, before the discovery of radio waves, you would have said that it's just more rational to assume they don't exist.[/quote]

That would depend on the amount of indirect evidence that suggested their existence.

Assuming no such indirect evidence existed that warrented more research and that the claim would be indistinguishable from claiming that undetectable dragons exist, then yes... it would have been more rational to assume such waves do not exist. That, however, all changes once evidence of said waves is discovered.

And yet, by doing that, you would have dismissed a correct hypothesis and therefore stepped further away from the truth.

Again, a lucky guess doesn't make your guess a rational standpoint.
Even if what I claim turns out to be correct in the future, if NOW there is zero (and I do mean ZERO) evidence to suppor the claim, then accepting the claim is not rational.

Very true, I assume it's false and therefore I'm not wrapping myself in tin foil.
You don't assume God exists, so you don't go to church - I won't beat you up for it.
Einstein opposed the uncertainty principle - I won't go back in time and slap him, either...
What's the problem?

There is no problem. It just seems that you selectively apply this principle. You indeed do reject all claims which have no supportive evidence. You do this every second you are awake. But you do make an exception for the unsupported claims of your religion of choice. You must be, why else would you have "faith" - which literally means to believe something without evidence (at least, it does in context of religion).

Yeah, and you're happy to believe that.

I don't see how I could believe otherwise. To me, it's the only thing that stands between rational and irrational beliefs.

So, again, what brings you to a Christian forum if you believe that all belief beyond what our eyes can see is bonkers?

I did not say that at all. Seeing is not believing. Our senses are very prone to error and illusion. Here's where that independent verifiability comes into play...


Having said that: the entertainment, the clash of idea's, the discussion,...

The evidence is not inconclusive. The evidence obviously points towards free will not existing.

This is not correct. From a low level (neurology), there is evidence against free will. From a higher level (psychology), there is evidence for free will.

It's not clear at all if the psychology-level is illusionary. And I don't really know how it could be tested. It's not really a subject I'm all that interested in either, so I don't know a lot about it though.

it would be more probable to believe in an invisible God that doesn't intervene

Something with 0 evidence is never probable.

than it would be to believe in something that has been repeatedly shown not to exist.

It's not been shown to not exist. I don't think anything can be shown to "not exist". You can only prove existence imo, not non-existence.

All of the notions you have listed are theories. That means, they are the combination of verifiable, reproducable hypotheses.

How do you reproduce the evolution of Homo Sapiens? Or the eruption of a specific super-volcano? Or the impact of an asteroid 65 million years ago? Or the break-up of a continent that will never exist again?

I don't see the testable prediction when it comes to what creationists refer to as "macroevolution", by the way

Here's just one:
- humans should share most ERV's with chimps
- Humans should share a lot of ERV's with gorilla's, but not as many as with chimps
- humans should share a lot of ERV's with oerang oetangs, but not as many was with chimps.

I can go on for hours with such predictions. Each and every one of them, if tested successfully, adds support to humans having common ancestry with other primates. Every one of the predictions is based on the hypothesis that mutation + selection results in speciation and on our knowledge of inheritable DNA and the properties of endogenous viruses.

Would that reduce this theory only to "circumstantial evidence"?

When it comes to the big picture of "macro-"evolution , common ancestry of all life, etc... then circumstantial evidence is all we have to go on.

Just like in a murder scene without witnesses, video tapes of photographes... All we have to go on is the circumstantial evidence: footprints, DNA samples, cell Phone records, fingerprints, bloodstains, etc etc etc. We reconstruct a model of the event based on the tracks it left behind.

you're claiming that all hypotheses for which no evidence can be brought forth are wrong.

1. an idea that has no evidence in support for it is not worthy of the name "hypothesis". A hypothesis DOES have data to support it and it DOES make testable predictions. Without these things, it's not a hypothesis but rather just an unsupportable claim.

2. not wrong, just not acceptable. Which, in most cases, is indistinguishable from "wrong" - but only insofar as we living our life AS IF it is wrong for all practical intents and purposes. you know... just like you did by not wrapping yourself in tin foil.

An agnostic would be closer to the truth than an atheist

Need to stop you right there... agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. They are different answers to different questions. When is about knowledge and the other about belief.

: he would say: "I don't know if radiowaves exist. Could be." - whereas the atheist dismisses the claim, fully claiming it's wrong?

Don't strawman my position.
You are an "agnostic atheist" when it comes to my pet dragon: you don't know that he doesn't exist, but you just don't believe it. So you don't wrap yourself in tin foil.

Belief is not the same as knowledge.

I used the word God to describe an entity that, from this particular observation alone, fills following criteria:

• reveals itself to those who seek, albeit in interesting ways
• knows my thoughts
• is otherwise invisible, at least as of yet

Something fits this description rather well...
Your own thoughts!

YOU know what you are thinking.
YOU know how to impress yourself.
YOU are unable to see your own imaginary friends.

Well, interesting take. I can't even say I can't understand you, seeing as how I shared that belief for quite some time. Although I can't say I'd want to go back to it now.

What I find interesting is your choice of words here. "wanting to go back".
As if what you want matters.

It took us a while to figure out that radio waves exist the way they do.

Yes. And what convinced us was evidence. Not some feeling, vision or empty claim.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Yes. Which is why it's a great analogy to religion. Anecdotal evidence is bad evidence.

It's bad evidence, yes.
Still, a hypothesis without evidence doesn't have to be false.
If I accuse you and say you just killed your cat by shoving it in the toaster, then that hypothesis might have no evidence, but it might still be true.

Which is a shifting of the burden of proof. Which is a fallacy. It's not upto us to provide any kind of evidence, pro or contra, for homeopathy. It's upto its proponents to come with evidence to support their claims.

It's only a fallacy if I'm making an absolute claim.
I'm not trying to indoctrinate you that there is a God - I'm just trying to make you realize that the absence of evidence does not mean that there 100% can't be a God. (Insert "divine intervention", "5-headed-dragon" or "homeopathy" for God).

No. Because if actual evidence surfaces, we can accept the hypothesis or re-evaluate it. The alternative is to accept it by default until a disproval comes along. Good luck with wrapping yourself in tin foil to avoid being eaten by the undetectable 7-headed dragon if you wish to go down that road.

Actual evidence doesn't always fall in your lap.
This might be uninteresting, because I have no evidence to back this up: without seeking God, you might not find God.

The validity of claims is defined by their current support and immediate merrit. Not by their potential merrit just in case it happens to be correct in some kind of what if situation.

If we couldn't look at the far side of the moon, then all hypotheses would be of equal merit (there would be no evidence as to what is on the far side of the moon). That merit would have the value zero (= "wild speculation"), but all hypotheses would be of equal merit.

Again, a lucky guess doesn't make your guess a rational standpoint.
Even if what I claim turns out to be correct in the future, if NOW there is zero (and I do mean ZERO) evidence to suppor the claim, then accepting the claim is not rational.

I don't think faith is rational.
But I believe that believing in God and being sure he doesn't exist requires equal amounts of faith. And that's the point where atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin.

There is no problem. It just seems that you selectively apply this principle. You indeed do reject all claims which have no supportive evidence. You do this every second you are awake. But you do make an exception for the unsupported claims of your religion of choice. You must be, why else would you have "faith" - which literally means to believe something without evidence (at least, it does in context of religion).

You're very correct in your observation.
All hypotheses are of equal merit, so you can basically choose which hypothesis to invest in.
Whether that be "Faith in non-existence", "Faith in God" or "Faith in 5-headed dragon" is up to you. I won't thump you with a Bible for it. But to say that the Atheist choice is better? Meh, I wouldn't lean myself out the window too far.

This is not correct. From a low level (neurology), there is evidence against free will. From a higher level (psychology), there is evidence for free will.

It's not clear at all if the psychology-level is illusionary. And I don't really know how it could be tested. It's not really a subject I'm all that interested in either, so I don't know a lot about it though.

Free will is defined by the possibility to alter the future.
As the universe is deterministic, the future cannot be altered. No neuron in your brain fires "randomly" and as such, every thought you are experiencing is determined millions of years before you are born.

Unless you believe in dualism of conscience and organism - in which case you've got the burden of proof. ^^

How do you reproduce the evolution of Homo Sapiens? Or the eruption of a specific super-volcano? Or the impact of an asteroid 65 million years ago? Or the break-up of a continent that will never exist again?

I will pick out evolution on this one, because I have more knowledge than on geology or astronomy: You can't prove the evolution of Homo Sapiens.
We can prove that evolution works on quickly-replicating organisms.
We can then extrapolate those observations to make predictions on what we would expect to find when looking at the evolution of our species.
We can then try to look for findings to support those claims.
Bear in mind that this "house of cards" only works so long as we have the hypothesis of natural selection reproducably observed.

Here's just one:
- humans should share most ERV's with chimps
- Humans should share a lot of ERV's with gorilla's, but not as many as with chimps
- humans should share a lot of ERV's with oerang oetangs, but not as many was with chimps.

I can go on for hours with such predictions. Each and every one of them, if tested successfully, adds support to humans having common ancestry with other primates. Every one of the predictions is based on the hypothesis that mutation + selection results in speciation and on our knowledge of inheritable DNA and the properties of endogenous viruses.

Exactly, a hypothesis that has been proven by repeated observation.

But, yeah, I think we both get the point..

When it comes to the big picture of "macro-"evolution , common ancestry of all life, etc... then circumstantial evidence is all we have to go on.

Just like in a murder scene without witnesses, video tapes of photographes... All we have to go on is the circumstantial evidence: footprints, DNA samples, cell Phone records, fingerprints, bloodstains, etc etc etc. We reconstruct a model of the event based on the tracks it left behind.

Exactly. The hypothesis that can be reobserved is, for example, "Well, if suspect puts his finger on a gun, it will leave this trace (fingerpringt)". Without this reproducable hypothesis, the rest is moot.

So, yeah, again - I think we both get the picture.

1. an idea that has no evidence in support for it is not worthy of the name "hypothesis". A hypothesis DOES have data to support it and it DOES make testable predictions. Without these things, it's not a hypothesis but rather just an unsupportable claim.

A hypothesis is the name given to any claim that is testable. So, yes, you're right again - "God exists" is not a hypothesis because it is not testable.

2. not wrong, just not acceptable. Which, in most cases, is indistinguishable from "wrong" - but only insofar as we living our life AS IF it is wrong for all practical intents and purposes. you know... just like you did by not wrapping yourself in tin foil.

Okay. I think this is the point where we agree.
And practically the point where I wanted to go with this discussion:
It is "not wrong" to say God exists - just "not acceptable" for all practical intents and purposes. That's solid reasoning for secularism, and I would support that all the way.

Need to stop you right there... agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. They are different answers to different questions. When is about knowledge and the other about belief.

Sorry, I thought atheism means "being sure there is no God" and agnosticism means "being unsure as to whether or not God exists"

What I find interesting is your choice of words here. "wanting to go back".
As if what you want matters.

You've got a point there. I don't think you can want to believe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

...

I'm moving it to PM, because we are hijacking this thread.

 

[Senator Cheese]

'

Alrighty!
Sorry Sarah! Carry on..