Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Chalnoth]

Good or bad, it is still based on evidence and that is what this discussion is about as I understand the discussion, you keep taking us into the good and bad of the conclusion, I thought the discussion was about the existance of evidence.

The discussion was about the existence of evidence for a god. In order to count any evidence to be for or against anything, you have to logically show how it must be evidence for or against that thing. You have not, nor has anybody else, shown logically how complexity means god. That evidence exists, of course, but it is not evidence for a god until you logically show that complexity means god.

The answer is well defined, it is either god/God/gods exist or they do not. No middle ground, exist or not exist. Now you could get into a bit of gray area in finding out which exists (provided we discover existance) but as to the question of existance, I don't see any way it could be more defined.

That doesn't answer the question. Consider this: nobody has ever seen an electron. An electron can not be picked up, tasted, or smelled. An electron is, instead, a theoretical model to describe the behavior of some 'thing' which makes up matter. If we want to get at whether or not an electron exists, we need to ask the question, "What sort of effects does this theoretical model of an electron have that I can observe? What observations can I make that would provide me with the properties of this object?"

Similarly, you haven't answered the question as to what would be different if a god existed or didn't exist. God cannot be seen, touched, tasted, or physically felt. If you want to scientifically ask the question as to whether a god exists, you need to ask the question, "What physical observations can I make that would be affected by the existence or non-existence of this god?" And to answer that question, you need to precisely define the god. Defintions that defy definition like, "He cannot be confined," do not help.

Secondly, I must disagree that it has no place in science. Anything that will affect the logical conclusions we draw is sugnificant to the process and thus the discipline. Therefore it is a question with much to do with science.

But you haven't explained how the existence or non-existence of a god will affect the logical conclusions.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Yeah, we started out talking about God and not God, but as we progressed in our discussion, god and gods became included. The consistency you are questioning is in looking at what is possible not in limiting the discussion to only what you and I believe. Thus consistancy does prevail. The consistancy of looking at all the possibles, on occasion limiting the discussion to make it more managable. This is a common communication method, condensing and expanding as the discussion warrants.

When is it warranted? When you want the rhetorical freedom to specify your God while at the same time maintaining a facade of inclusiveness?

That is your belief, but you have not presented any evidence to support your position, how about giving it a go?

That is rather beyond the scope of this thread. In any case, science has a clear position on matters supernatural.

Again, we draw conclusions based on premises, your premis is that the emprical world is the empirical world, mine is that the empirical world exists so that we can exist and therefore is more than simply an empirical world but also a life giving world. Thus our conclusions will be different using the exact same evidence. This is why I suggest that you have a problem with the premis and not the evidence as you keep asserting.

Your conclusion is easily the less parsimonious. The physical world alone is not evidence of anything metaphysical. How can it be?

As tom suggested, agnostisim allows for all possibles as to the existance, or non existance of god/God/gods, thus an unbiased approach. It is those who do not attempt the unbiased approach that cause arguements with the "believers" in every religion. Or at least the staunch arguements.

Scientific agnosticism allows for empirical effects that have empirical causes. I can count on zero hands the possible gods that are wholly empirical.

 

[Aron-Ra]

As a scientific minded individual, you must deal with the what if's in life and that includes but is not limited to God existing.

If so, then you have to deal with Krsna existing too, and not only him, and all the other gods and goddesses too, but unicorns, leprechauns, sasquatch, Nessie, E.T., ghosts, vampires, fairie elves, Kirin, a posthumous Elvis, and Santa Clause.

Of course, as a scientific minded individual, I am limited to those things which have evidence of a positive nature to indicate them. So I don't have to "deal with" unicorns, leprechauns, sasquatch, Nessie, E.T., ghosts, vampires, fairie elves, Kirin, a posthumous Elvis, Santa Clause or gods, including whichever one happens to be your favorite.

Again, at the moment we are only dealing with the what if He does exist. The what if nots come later as my post clearly indicates. But on the what if side of your arguement, the point is, the evidence is the same evidence, the conclusion is based on the premises and thus the logical outcome of the same evidnce can be different.So when you ask for evidence of God's existance, it is the same evidence you use to say God doesn't exist. See the problem with logic, is that the outcome is not always consistant.

Yes, I've noticed that about you. But there are several other problems here too. (1) You're saying, "what if", not me. I could say "what if genies were really real and granted wishes", and if I did, we'd still be talking about the same thing. But that's not what I'm saying. As a scientific minded person, I know that a lack of positive evidence isn't the same thing as a presence of negative evidence, though I have plenty of that too, and no, we are not talking about the same thing! So anything that isn't positively supported can't be considered disproved. It remains possible, however improbable, and can only be classified as "unsupported". This applies to all those fanciful things I listed for you above.

Wow so many issues and so little time. I am guessing that the heart of your problem here is that religious beliefs are not based on empirical evidence but on spiritual evidence.

No, it is the fact that "spiritual evidence" isn't evidence at all. For every "truth" you claim, there are millions of other people claiming a "spiritual revelation" which provides them a "truth" to contradict yours. There's no way to verify the accuracy of any single tenet of a faith-based belief, and no way to be sure that they all weren't just made up out nothing, and they all defy logic at every level. So there's no reason to seriously consider them.

The problem however, is that as demonstrated above, yours, that is that there is no god, is based on the very same lack of empirical evidence. We can look at the empirical evidence and question it, and study it and come to a logical conclusion but in the end, it still comes down to what you believe, whether that be what you have been taught, indoctrinated to believe, or rebellious or some other all together, one's religious belief no matter what it is, comes from the heart or soul/spirit if you will and not some science book or experiment.

Wrong. If your god were real, there would be some way you could indicate that to me, and it wouldn't be something that would have to wait until I wasn't thinking clearly. If your god, -or any god- were real, there would be some way to determine that which would force me to concede my position even if I didn't want to or didn't want to believe it. Anything scientific can do that.

Some, as I personally have done, look at empirical evidence and draw a conclusion based on a logical progression of evaluation.

You haven't done that, and I know that from first-hand experience.

I am guessing you have done the same though I am not sure as I see no logical progession of your ideas being put forth. The point is, one belief is equal to another scientifically speaking,

Beliefs are equal, yes, if they lack any evidence at all. But if we're talking about beliefs based on empiracle evidence, and you were, then beliefs are not equal anymore.

so in order to find truth in religious matters, we cannot attack it scientifically.

Agreed.

I'm snipping the rest of your ramble because its all based on the faulty premises above coupled with the anti-logic of insisting that whatever facts you discover could be claimed as evidence of your god hypothesis; whether its order or chaos, or indeterminable, or anything, or everything, you will say its all evidence of your god. As you've just demonstrated, even if you never find anything at all, you'll even claim that as evidence of your god. So there's no point in discussing this with you any further.

When you've got something that is verifiably accurate and objectively measurable which counts as a positive indication that gods, ghosts or goblins exist, rather than equally supporting the position that they don't, then you can summon me to the table to discuss it. Until then, -and I mean this sincerely- your arguments are a waste of my time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, we draw conclusions based on premises, your premis is that the emprical world is the empirical world, mine is that the empirical world exists so that we can exist and therefore is more than simply an empirical world but also a life giving world.

That is known as the Weak Anthropic Principle. It is no different than a puddle saying that a depression in the ground was made so that puddles could exist. Your premise, that the universe was made so that we would exist and keep existing, is wholly unsupported. It is no more likely that the world exists for humans than it does for bacteria or a rock on the surface of the moon.

Thus our conclusions will be different using the exact same evidence.

The evidence is that we exist and that the universe exists. How do we get from there to "the universe was made for humans"?

 

[Tomk80]

Nope, I don't realize it.

Whether something is empirical evidence and whether this evidence is empirically valid are two different things.

Seems like a closed group.

It isn't. Anyone can join, as long as they take the time to educate themselves in the matter and search out a position, either in the sciences themselves or in closely related parts.

Sure, you first need the education and credentials. But I don't see how this is a bad thing. The issues are usually not easily understood unless studied.

 

[Tomk80]

all I am suggesting is that science cannot dismiss the possibility of god/God/gods without evidence to do so because doing such would leave "holes" in our scientific explorations that leave it biased when we strive to be unbiased.

It doesn't. But untill there is some solid testable way of researching it, it won't conclude it either.

 

[razzelflabben]

The discussion was about the existence of evidence for a god. In order to count any evidence to be for or against anything, you have to logically show how it must be evidence for or against that thing. You have not, nor has anybody else, shown logically how complexity means god. That evidence exists, of course, but it is not evidence for a god until you logically show that complexity means god.

As talked about and shown, depending on the premis one is basing their conclusion on, complexity just like the existance of the universe, chaos, and miracles, can all evidence god/gods/God. The problem is when the premis changes, so does the logical conclusion.

Look at it this way, I have and can again show a logical conclusion that God exists (for the moment we are limiting it to God to make it more managable) To which you will poke all kinds of holes in the conclusion not because it lacks logic, but because your premis is different therefore your logical conclusion is different. I will do the same for your conclusion because once again, I have a different premis, it is why the evidence is not scientifically conclusive but individually can be. (the same can be true for god or gods but again, we try to make broad subjects more managable and to do so we often limit the scope of discussion for a brief time before broadening it again.)

That doesn't answer the question. Consider this: nobody has ever seen an electron. An electron can not be picked up, tasted, or smelled. An electron is, instead, a theoretical model to describe the behavior of some 'thing' which makes up matter. If we want to get at whether or not an electron exists, we need to ask the question, "What sort of effects does this theoretical model of an electron have that I can observe? What observations can I make that would provide me with the properties of this object?"

Exactly, which is why I asked someone to explain why some theoretical things like.....electrons are considered science and others like the existance of god/gods/God are not. For example, we can ask "What sort of effects does this theoretical being/beings have that I can observe?" One answer can and for many people is that order is found in the midst of chaos and that miracles (that being things that we don't expect to find) still occur. (just and example) We can also ask "What observations can I make that would provide me with the properties of this being?" Again, we can study things like how things work and if there is order or chaos, we can observe this, we can also observe things like miracles (the things that defy logic) etc. So based on definitions, you know the perciseness in science, I see nothing that would remove god/gods/God from scientific study but include electrons and other such explorations. Thus my question, what makes one scientific and the other not?

Similarly, you haven't answered the question as to what would be different if a god existed or didn't exist. God cannot be seen, touched, tasted, or physically felt. If you want to scientifically ask the question as to whether a god exists, you need to ask the question, "What physical observations can I make that would be affected by the existence or non-existence of this god?" And to answer that question, you need to precisely define the god. Defintions that defy definition like, "He cannot be confined," do not help.

I think I have sufficinetly covered some of this already in this post, if you still have questions please ask for more clarity in the mean time, the things I don't think I have covered yet would be.....(again, limiting our discussion for the moment to God)Many believe and have the experince of knowing God intimately, that being physical observations like hearing and seeing and biblically touching God. The commonly held belief or experience is one of feeling, that being emotionally and spiritually, but one very important element missing in your arguement is the idea of how the world and individuals would react to His presence. For example, your above about electrons, much of our observations are how things react to electrons, not the observations of the electrons themselves. So you still aren't explaining how one differs from the other as far as scientific exploration is concerned.....We have already talked about definitions and to evidence my point, you are not able to percising define the difference and yet, it is an accepted scientific explaination, so your arguement that we need to be able to percisely define god/gods/God is a flawed arguement from the start, science deals with much that can not percisely be defined and as the oppertunity arises, definitions are refined, it's a science things.

But you haven't explained how the existence or non-existence of a god will affect the logical conclusions.

It affects the conclusion because our premis changes. I'm working on an example, let me see, okay, let's talk about a touching issue for a moment, please keep in mind this is only a possible example and not a scientific analysed example. Genetic similarities between man and apes. If my premise is that god/gods/God does not exist, then I might conclude all kinds of things, including but not limited to relatedness. If on the other hand I use the premise that gods exist, I might come to the conclusion that the similarities are due to a copy and attempt at a better creation, kind of like a contest of the gods to see who could make the best creation. If my premis is that God exists my conclusion might be along the lines of shared characteristics that make the organism thrive. Point being (before you tear apart the individual not meant to be actual logical conclusions but rather an attempt to show with clarity how premis could change conclusions) our premis of the being/beings of god/gods/God can and would change our conclusions, but again before tearing it apart understand that I am not saying these conclusions would be necessarily drawn or that the premises could not lead to the same conclusions, only that different conclusions could be drawn and in some instances would.

 

[razzelflabben]

When is it warranted? When you want the rhetorical freedom to specify your God while at the same time maintaining a facade of inclusiveness?

Your post hints of antagonism, why? Anyway, I freely admit that I know more about God than gods/god because I have observed the evidence, and concluded God to be real. Thus, I have spent much more time studying and testing for the existance of God than for god/gods. That doesn't for one second mean that I have not considered the possiblity of god/gods, only that my conclusions have lead me to God, thus a topic much easier for me to discuss. Just as you would have an easier time talking about evolution than creation because you know more about evolution because you have studied it in greater detail, this is not to say that you know nothing about creation or that you have not considered it, (I don't know if you have) but that you talk more about evolution because you are more familiar with it. When I studied the evidence with the question what is real or truth, I came to the conclusion that God is real or truth, that doesn't mean I don't consider that I might be wrong, or that I cannot consider other possibles. I have and I do. Please exercise caution when accusing me of otherwise. It is on the verge of .....curtious behavior.

That is rather beyond the scope of this thread. In any case, science has a clear position on matters supernatural.

What I am suggesting is that the same evidence that speaks of god/gods/God is used to suggest no god/gods/God and therefore to dismiss the evidence you must provide additional evidence to support your claim not simply say it exists and we are to take your word for it.

Your conclusion is easily the less parsimonious. The physical world alone is not evidence of anything metaphysical. How can it be?

The conclusion is logical based on the premis, what you are argueing in effect is the soundness of the premis. But premises change, and are individual which is exactly why evidence can be interpreted differently and still be logical.

Scientific agnosticism allows for empirical effects that have empirical causes. I can count on zero hands the possible gods that are wholly empirical.

Agnostic definition as was defined by T.H. Huxley, the man who coined the term that means one should not profess to a belief in something that cannot be proven.

In short this means that god/gods/God are all three possibles that must be considered in an unbiased approach to the empiracal world.

 

[razzelflabben]

HOw discussions take tangents and then we accuse others of being the cause is interesting don't you think. Discussions flow and change and it isn't really anyones fault, they just naturally evolve into other topics.

If so, then you have to deal with Krsna existing too, and not only him, and all the other gods and goddesses too, but unicorns, leprechauns, sasquatch, Nessie, E.T., ghosts, vampires, fairie elves, Kirin, a posthumous Elvis, and Santa Clause.

Some of which we can "disprove" evidence wide and others we cannot so therefore the "disproven" ones are dismissed, the others remain possibles. Not problem on my end, the problem with this seems to be on your end and so I am confused by why you present them as if you are lancing my arguement?!

Of course, as a scientific minded individual, I am limited to those things which have evidence of a positive nature to indicate them. So I don't have to "deal with" unicorns, leprechauns, sasquatch, Nessie, E.T., ghosts, vampires, fairie elves, Kirin, a posthumous Elvis, Santa Clause or gods, including whichever one happens to be your favorite.

Some of the above do have some positive evidence, the problem is that it is not conclusive evidence and therefore, remains a mystery, you know, the thing that is the heart and soul of science, the unknown. The what is possible aspect of our world, the mysteries.

Yes, I've noticed that about you. But there are several other problems here too. (1) You're saying, "what if", not me. I could say "what if genies were really real and granted wishes", and if I did, we'd still be talking about the same thing.

But it would be a different discussion wouldn't it? The discussion came about because the question was asked (by someone other than me) what evidence there was for the existance of God, that lead to my question about how conclusions would change if the premis was that God did exist, from there we evolved into the possible existance of god/gods/God, if we want to discuss genies, I would think it best to end the current discussion and start a new thread. This one has already gotten off the OP idea I am afraid.

But that's not what I'm saying. As a scientific minded person, I know that a lack of positive evidence isn't the same thing as a presence of negative evidence, though I have plenty of that too, and no, we are not talking about the same thing! So anything that isn't positively supported can't be considered disproved. It remains possible, however improbable, and can only be classified as "unsupported". This applies to all those fanciful things I listed for you above.

Right, but I see no evidence to the neg. of god/gods/God existing, but then I have asked for such and gotten no response which is a pretty good indicator that it doesn't really exist. I encouraged you to provide such.

No, it is the fact that "spiritual evidence" isn't evidence at all.

Consider this (not true for every spiritual being but true for the understanding of God so we limit our discussion again for the moment, some other spiritual beings would also apply) If God is real, He is tangible and according to the bible, has made himself not only human but empirical in nature. Therefore, would fit the realm of empirical in nature and not just spiritual. So again, you have not answered the question. YOu still have not defined percisely why one theoretical is science and the other is not. Time to go back to the general.

For every "truth" you claim, there are millions of other people claiming a "spiritual revelation" which provides them a "truth" to contradict yours. There's no way to verify the accuracy of any single tenet of a faith-based belief, and no way to be sure that they all weren't just made up out nothing, and they all defy logic at every level. So there's no reason to seriously consider them.

Wow a minute, what "truth" am I claiming. The only truth I am claiming is that we don't know, that god/gods/God are all from a scientific point of view possibles until such time as science can falsify their existance. That means that I am accepting the possibility that Buddism, Toaism, Hinduism, etc. all could know truth.

The only part of my arguement you seem to understand is that I on a personal level (not part of the discussion or arguement, have tested and concluded that God is real, but no where am I purposing or suggesting or concluding that I have the truth in a bag, in fact, I am claiming just the opposite, that just because I have a knowledge of what I deem truth doesn't mean that scientifically I have truth.

It seems that you are trying to twist my claims into an arguement for belief in my God, even to take it a step further, into believing in Christianity of which I have some very personal and troubling problems with myself. What I am suggesting to you is that my God is as possible from the evidence as your no god, or some of the other gods, I would have a few exceptions, but otherwise that doesn't apply to the majority of modern religious beliefs and gods.

Wrong. If your god were real, there would be some way you could indicate that to me, and it wouldn't be something that would have to wait until I wasn't thinking clearly.

Huh? I dont' even know what this means or what your problem is. I freely admit that the evidence for my God is not scientifically conclusive and yet you go off about, I don't even know what you are going off on. It seems clear from this that you have absolutely no idea what my position is and that you are twisting my words to create a strawman you can dismiss readily thus sounding "wise". Maybe you should try explaining it in a way that makes sense to my arguement, I would rather go that way than assume you don't understand any of my position yet.

If your god, -or any god- were real, there would be some way to determine that which would force me to concede my position even if I didn't want to or didn't want to believe it. Anything scientific can do that.

Huh? There are many theories in science that have yet to be conclusively evidenced, it's what science is all about. But it doesn't apply here why? It can apply to dark energy but not god/gods/God. This thinking just sounds messed up, sorry, you need to either explain it so it makes sense or I must respectfully disagree and say double standards don't wash with me and move on.

You haven't done that, and I know that from first-hand experience.
Beliefs are equal, yes, if they lack any evidence at all. But if we're talking about beliefs based on empiracle evidence, and you were, then beliefs are not equal anymore.
Agreed.

If the evidence is there for, and the evidence against is lacking, both are possible until such time as the evidence shifts our balance of understanding. Science can't just look at something and say I want it to say this so it does. Science looks at something and reviews the evidence until such time as a conclusion can be drawn. That is all I am suggesting we do on the topic of god/gods/God, we look at the evidence and consider the possiblities until such time as the evidence is sufficient to draw an unbiased conclusion. Thus allowing the possibles to create an unbiased approach to our empirical world.

I'm snipping the rest of your ramble because its all based on the faulty premises above coupled with the anti-logic of insisting that whatever facts you discover could be claimed as evidence of your god hypothesis; whether its order or chaos, or indeterminable, or anything, or everything, you will say its all evidence of your god. As you've just demonstrated, even if you never find anything at all, you'll even claim that as evidence of your god. So there's no point in discussing this with you any further.

I am not purposing at all the God of the gaps theory you are suggesting here. I am suggesting (looking at only one aspect of the evidence for the moment, thus once again limiting our discussion before broadening it again)that when we look at the evidence, it speaks of an order amongst the chaos. Just as our daughters hope chest looks like chaos it is in fact very ordered, very structured, this then sounds identical to something that was created. Things that are created even things that appear random or chaotic have some order to them. Thus a logical conclusion to this evidence would be that order in what w deem chaos is evidence for a creator. Thus, all god/gods/God that are attributed with creating our empirical world have just been given the evidence award. Now, if we change the premis, we might come to a different conclusion, but the evidence we are viewing is creative processes, with are observed daily, order found in the midst of chaos (such as electrons) and chaos (what in our world appears on the surface as having little or no order). Shall we look at other evidence or can we move on into the heart of the discussion, that evidence does exist?

When you've got something that is verifiably accurate and objectively measurable which counts as a positive indication that gods, ghosts or goblins exist, rather than equally supporting the position that they don't, then you can summon me to the table to discuss it. Until then, -and I mean this sincerely- your arguments are a waste of my time.

Well, ghosts or goblins have only entered this discussion by your "wasting" my time in not even dealing with the claims I am making, but that is okay, I'm used to that. If you are seriously interested in looking at the evidence objectively, I suggest we start a thread dedicated to such so that this thread can get back to topic. What say ye?

 

[razzelflabben]

That is known as the Weak Anthropic Principle. It is no different than a puddle saying that a depression in the ground was made so that puddles could exist. Your premise, that the universe was made so that we would exist and keep existing, is wholly unsupported. It is no more likely that the world exists for humans than it does for bacteria or a rock on the surface of the moon.

You are correct, I misstated my premise, my premise is that the universe exists thus life exists. My appologies.

The evidence is that we exist and that the universe exists. How do we get from there to "the universe was made for humans"?

Again I appologize for misstating, things get crazy around here sometimes. I am a multitasker and sometimes that comes back and bites me in the butt.

 

[razzelflabben]

It doesn't. But untill there is some solid testable way of researching it, it won't conclude it either.

Glad someone is finally comprehending what I am suggesting. Thanks

 

[Chalnoth]

As talked about and shown, depending on the premis one is basing their conclusion on, complexity just like the existance of the universe, chaos, and miracles, can all evidence god/gods/God. The problem is when the premis changes, so does the logical conclusion.

While this is all true, there is a huge problem with your logical argument. It is simply this: the only logical agument that concludes that god exists also assumes that god exists. This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question. You cannot have a conclusion as a premise and still claim that it is a logical argument: you are merely stating an opinion.

Exactly, which is why I asked someone to explain why some theoretical things like.....electrons are considered science and others like the existance of god/gods/God are not. For example, we can ask "What sort of effects does this theoretical being/beings have that I can observe?" One answer can and for many people is that order is found in the midst of chaos and that miracles (that being things that we don't expect to find) still occur.

Miracles aren't just things we don't expect to find. We expect that we don't know all physical laws, so just finding something unexpected doesn't make it a miracle in the least. It has to be shown that there is no natural explanation for something to be a miracle, and there have been no cases that have been so shown.

Now, that said, let's take the other part: that order is found in the midst of chaos. So, imagine, for a moment, that this is what the existence of a god logically predicts (I don't see why it would). We then have two competing explanations for the existence of a snowflake: god exists, or the laws of quantum mechanics exist. The explanation that god is the cause of the snowflake explains how a snowflake might be complex. The laws of quantum mechanics combined with the makeup of the snowflake (water) explains the exact pattern that the snowflake takes. Therefore, the laws of quantum mechanics are a better explanation and we conclude that god does is not a direct cause of snowflakes.

You could do the exact same thing with basically everything that we see, from life to planets to stars to galaxies and beyond. The only place remaining where a god is still a reasonable explanation is back at the start of cosmic inflation. But that's only because we are ignorant of what happened before then, and such a perspective may end up looking just like the snowflake example above once we examine the evidence more closely.

But perhaps more importantly is this: if there is no evidence that can be against a god (a god might not choose to make complexity, for instance, so nothingness would not be evidence against a god either), then no evidence can be considered to be for a god.

 

[razzelflabben]

While this is all true, there is a huge problem with your logical argument. It is simply this: the only logical agument that concludes that god exists also assumes that god exists. This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question. You cannot have a conclusion as a premise and still claim that it is a logical argument: you are merely stating an opinion.

Allowing the mind to accept that god/gods/God are possible is not the same thing as argueing that they do exist. The premis is that it is possible, the question is if it is so, when how would that look, what form would it take. The logical conclusion comes from this question, the question based on the possibility not the assumption that it is so. We can go even further back in the whole logical process and look at other evidence the same way, what if, then how would it look.

Now, let's look at the what if not aspect of order in chaos. If god/gods/God does not exist what would chaos look like? If seems to be your assetion so I will let you start us off since you whould be the most studied on the topic.

Miracles aren't just things we don't expect to find. We expect that we don't know all physical laws, so just finding something unexpected doesn't make it a miracle in the least. It has to be shown that there is no natural explanation for something to be a miracle, and there have been no cases that have been so shown.

Right in the stricter sense of the word miracle. I suggested we use the broader definition, but I can work with either because we do see things all around us that defy explaination. Take for example the young woman who fell from a plane, her shoot didn't open and she not only survived the fall, but her fetus did as well. Miracle, defies physical laws of survival. Some of these type miracles are larger than others of course and some we can explain as just a fluke, much as the god of the gaps theology does for the existance of God, but to deny they exist is false. So how then would the possiblity of god/gods/God address these "miracles". Well, if god/gods/God don't exist, they are flukes, oddities, unexplained happenings, something to explore, If god/gods/God exists, then we would expect to see such things as a demonstration of the power of a being greater than ourselves. kInd of like an "I'm here" sign. To how much power would be a question to ask the believers of the individual dieties.

Now, that said, let's take the other part: that order is found in the midst of chaos. So, imagine, for a moment, that this is what the existence of a god logically predicts (I don't see why it would). We then have two competing explanations for the existence of a snowflake: god exists, or the laws of quantum mechanics exist. The explanation that god is the cause of the snowflake explains how a snowflake might be complex. The laws of quantum mechanics combined with the makeup of the snowflake (water) explains the exact pattern that the snowflake takes. Therefore, the laws of quantum mechanics are a better explanation and we conclude that god does is not a direct cause of snowflakes.

Right, a we don't know senario, just as I suggested, but, what we cannot forget is that if a god/gods/God created, some creations are made to "run" themselves. For example, I can type instructions into my computer and it will preform without me sitting here. It is possible that a creator (god/gods/God, provided the being discussed, is the creator) created the process for snowflakes to exist and then watches it work. In fact, given the vastness of the universe, I would suggest to you that we could predict that there would be things in our universe that just work, because of the way they are designed. If I turn on the television, I don't have to sit there cranking a knob or acting, in order for it to function. It is created to function apart from my interaction with it. Logically speaking, knowing that is how the creative process works, why would I expect the same from a creatied universe? Therefore we once again are at 0 for concluding the truth conclusively and must if attempting to be unbiased assume either option to b equally valid.

You could do the exact same thing with basically everything that we see, from life to planets to stars to galaxies and beyond. The only place remaining where a god is still a reasonable explanation is back at the start of cosmic inflation. But that's only because we are ignorant of what happened before then, and such a perspective may end up looking just like the snowflake example above once we examine the evidence more closely.

But even your snowflake can evidence god/gods/God if the premise is right. In this case, the premis is that if god/gods/God exists, he/she/they are the creators of our universe. Any god/gods/God not being the creator would thus not be evidenced with the above., that is not to say they would be falsified by the above, but rather that they would not be able to use the above as evidecne for existance.[/quote]

But perhaps more importantly is this: if there is no evidence that can be against a god (a god might not choose to make complexity, for instance, so nothingness would not be evidence against a god either), then no evidence can be considered to be for a god.[/quote]Not following you here.

Why couldn't there be evidence against the existance of god/gods/God? For eample if god/gods/God are nt creators then I would expect to not see evidence for a created world. How do we determine such, as in the theory of evolution, we predict what we would expect to see and then test that prediction. If the test evidences the prediction then we predict and test again, over time, we become convinced that our theory is right. So if our theory is that god/gods/God might exist, and every prediction we make is evidenced, we eventually come to the conclusion that god/gods/God do exist. However, if we do the same for their non existance, and the same is true, we have a delima of what to believe. This then is where personal experience and teaching comes into play. When science comes up with both possibles, then either you don't know, or your personal emotions, teachings, experiences kick in and wala you have a belief system. The problem is in taking that belief system into the "lab" and creating a "false" set of conclusions based on personal beliefs and not on the evidence at hand. We do this through the use of premises. Which is why the scientist must always accept the possibles, as Tom puts it agnostics.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Why couldn't there be evidence against the existance of god/gods/God?

Because god-proponents have historically shown a willingness either to shove their deities into empirical gaps or to evolve them into vague generalities consistent with every observation and bit of philosophy.

 

[Chalnoth]

Allowing the mind to accept that god/gods/God are possible is not the same thing as argueing that they do exist. The premis is that it is possible, the question is if it is so, when how would that look, what form would it take. The logical conclusion comes from this question, the question based on the possibility not the assumption that it is so. We can go even further back in the whole logical process and look at other evidence the same way, what if, then how would it look.

I don't think I've ever said that a god is not possible. But I don't think that the evidence suggests that a god exists. I think that the evidence, in fact, suggests that no god exists.

Anyway, I'll recast part of my argument in another way:
One cannot use complexity as an argument for god because intelligent beings could only arise out of a complex environment. For example, we don't expect to find intelligent beings in the interior of a star, because the interior of a star is a uniform heat bath where no complexity can emerge. We don't expect to find intelligent beings in the space between galaxies because there is nothing of which to make them. We do expect to find intelligent beings on a planet of just the right temperature and environment to produce intelligent beings through a long and involved process (Darwinian evolution).

One can say the same thing about our universe: we observe the universe to be complex and interesting because intelligent beings could emerge in no other situation.

Now, if you had a god doing things, on the other hand, you wouldn't need to have a complex and interesting universe at all. You could have special creation, greatly disconnected phenomena, no evidence of deep history, and so on. The existence of a god doesn't predict the absurd mathematical consistency of our universe, because the existence of a god allows us to exist in a universe that is not nearly so patterned and complex.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Um, telescopes.

And how do you know what you're actually seeing beyond postulating at a hundred trillion miles away?

 

[VinceBlaze]

My point is that you assume all religious leaders need the Bible.

You assume that I assume.

There are other religious texts, you know.

If I know, then why are you telling me? I own these other religious texts myself. We were talking in the context of Christian churches, so I naturally mentioned the bible. Somehow this upset you.

You compared peer reviewed scientific journals, with Bible reading. I fail to see the parallel.

I am referring to religious text research among religious seminarians. I had not referenced bible study groups.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Whether something is empirical evidence and whether this evidence is empirically valid are two different things.

What's the difference?

It isn't. Anyone can join, as long as they take the time to educate themselves in the matter and search out a position, either in the sciences themselves or in closely related parts.

So anyone can join if they spend $50,000 for the education and quit their previous career.

Sure, you first need the education and credentials. But I don't see how this is a bad thing. The issues are usually not easily understood unless studied.

Seems like a closed group. Not much different from the religious elites.

 

[Chalnoth]

And how do you know what you're actually seeing beyond postulating at a hundred trillion miles away?

Correlate with independent measures of distance that make use of different assumptions, such that together there is very little uncertainty in the different measurements.

 

[Chalnoth]

So anyone can join if they spend $50,000 for the education and quit their previous career.

But it's only hard to get into because science itself is hard. Science is hard because the easy stuff has already been done. There's just a tremendous amount of buildup that has occurred in all science disciplines today that you just need to do a lot of studying to contribute further.

And once prospective scientists do make it to graduate school, their way is typically paid, through TA positions and through research positions (though how good the pay is, and how likely you are to be supported through your entire time in graduate school will vary widely from school to school). There are also a number of people that make it into graduate school in a field unrelated to the field they studied for as an undergraduate. It's not easy to do, but it is possible. Therefore, learning to contribute to the scientific community is mostly an investment of time, not money.

Technically, you could just teach yourself all of this stuff, but that is a very hard thing to do. The mentorship that you get in graduate school is absolutely invaluable. You just can't get any idea by working in a vacuum as to quite how careful and skeptical, with respect to your own work, that you have to be to be a respectable scientist.