The stumbling block for atheists.

[Radrook]

Really?

So what about all those people who "attach" God to what they claim to "detect"... and it is just their imagination? Are they blind to your point? Are you blind to their point?

Nah, I don't think that my "blindness" is the point. Your inability to even imagine a method to overcome this "blindness"... that is the point. Your inability to even correctly determine "blindness"... that is the point.

I don't approve of claims based on mere imagination as fact nor am I personally responsible for anyone who is religious doing do. Neither do I blindly accept such claims simply because the word "god" is attached to them just as I don't accept claims just because the word "science "is attached to them. Each concept stands or falls on its own merits. So your accusation that I am blind to religious quackery is baseless.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Strange since such an assumption goes completely contrary to what they themselves admit-that there are many things in existence which cannot be detected by the senses and must be assumed or conjectured to exist based on mathematical equations which indicate the probability or the possibility of their existence.

The problem is that God is not a good hypothesis or theory, from a scientific point of view (i.e. it has no useful explanatory or predictive power).

Sean Carroll explains:

 

[Radrook]

The problem is that God is not a good hypothesis or theory, from a scientific point of view (i.e. it has no useful explanatory or predictive power).

Sean Carroll explains:

I am not proposing belief in God as a hypothesis or a theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am not proposing belief in God as a hypothesis or a theory.

I was referring to the science-minded atheists under discussion, not you.

 

[Michael]

The problem is that God is not a good hypothesis or theory, from a scientific point of view (i.e. it has no useful explanatory or predictive power).

Well that's just pure unadulterated nonsense. For starters, it "predicts" and "explains" why humans throughout human history have reported a relationship with something they call "God" since the dawn of recorded civilization. Any variation of Pantheism or Panentheism makes more useful, and entirely *empirical* predictions than LCDM.

 

[Freodin]

I don't approve of claims based on mere imagination as fact...

That would mean that you do need a method to distinguish between "imagination" and "detection".

... nor am I personally responsible for anyone who is religious doing do.

Nor am I. But neither do I accuse people who don't believe what I believe of being "blind".

Neither do I blindly accept such claims simply because the word "god" is attached to them just as I don't accept claims just because the word "science "is attached to them. Each concept stands or falls on its own merits.

Merits? What merits? I tried to make the point that you have to evaluate your "detections"... and instead you accused me of being "blind" because I do not simply accept every claim that has "god" attached to it.

So your accusation that I am blind to religious quackery is baseless.

I never made this accusation. If I were to make it, I would make it very clear that you are only blind to your own personal version of religious quackery.

 

[Freodin]

Well that's just pure unadulterated nonsense. For starters, it "predicts" and "explains" why humans throughout human history have reported a relationship with something they call "God" since the dawn of recorded civilization.

I would disagree on the "predicts"... first of all, not all humans, not all civilizations, not even all religions "report" such a relationship. Second, there is no other "prediction" beyond "we will find religions in other cultures".
As for the "explanation"... I guess you are aware that not every explanation is a good explanation. Basically, every explanation that can be used to "explain" all observations, even contradicting ones, is useless. Theism is a perfect example for that.

Any variation of Pantheism or Panentheism makes more useful, and entirely *empirical* predictions than LCDM.

I would like to return the compliment from the start of this quote: this is pure unadulterated nonsense. But perhaps you could go ahead and present some of these useful and empirical predictions?

 

[Radrook]

That would mean that you do need a method to distinguish between "imagination" and "detection".


Nor am I. But neither do I accuse people who don't believe what I believe of being "blind".


Merits? What merits? I tried to make the point that you have to evaluate your "detections"... and instead you accused me of being "blind" because I do not simply accept every claim that has "god" attached to it.

I never made this accusation. If I were to make it, I would make it very clear that you are only blind to your own personal version of religious quackery.

Remark:

That would mean that you do need a method to distinguish between "imagination" and "detection".

Response:

I would need what? Well, please note that such a mention can only be recommended to another person by a person who isn’t claiming to be virtually blind every single time that his mind’s eye is briefly exposed to a ray of logic. The term “Physician heal thyself!” comes to mind in this case. It’s similar to a person with a mouth chock-full of festering dental caries and gums stricken with a chronic case of gingivitis vehemently suggesting or fervently teaching oral hygiene.



Remark:

Nor am I. But neither do I accuse people who don't believe what I believe of being "blind".

Response:

Uh that is absolutely not so bon ami. Please note that there are plenty of people in the scientific community whom I consider admirable and praiseworthy and whom I would never consider describing as either blind or accuse of spreading quack ideas even though we might drastically disagree on critical issues in relation to the social and natural sciences.

Why? Simple! Because they don’t overstep the boundary from the scientific into the merely imaginary and virtually impossible and try to convince others that quackery falls under the category of science nor do they suddenly stumble around as if struck by bolt of sizzling blindness from the blue vociferously announcing total incomprehension whenever they are exposed to cogent reasoning.


BTW
I beg to disagree with the claim that you never strongly insinuate and thus propagate the idea that all those who believe in a creator suffer from intellectual ignorance tantamount to an inability to see.

Remark

Merits? What merits? I tried to make the point that you have to evaluate your "detections"... and instead you accused me of being "blind" because I do not simply accept every claim that has "god" attached to it.

Response:

It isn’t the rejection of the claims of a deity that I categorize as being blind. It is the way that the logical reasoning is dismissed as illogical that I categorize as blind. I would categorize such a reaction as blindness even if it involved how many turds a certain cow named Carla deposited on her pasture during her morning constitutional. So it definitely isn’t restricted to rejection of God.

Remark:

I never made this accusation. If I were to make it, I would make it very clear that you are only blind to your own personal version of religious quackery.

Response:

Say! Thanks!
Very generous of you to make it clear that you consider me blind only to my own religious beliefs because you consider them quackery!

 

[Radrook]

I see we have different definitions of "non-detectable".

He who controls the definition controls reality. That seems to be their motto!

 

[Michael]

I would disagree on the "predicts"... first of all, not all humans, not all civilizations, not even all religions "report" such a relationship. Second, there is no other "prediction" beyond "we will find religions in other cultures".
As for the "explanation"... I guess you are aware that not every explanation is a good explanation. Basically, every explanation that can be used to "explain" all observations, even contradicting ones, is useless.

I'd obviously agree with you to this point, but....

Theism is a perfect example for that.

Not so much on that point. IMO theism makes sense, and one's belief in God doesn't necessarily have to come into conflict with empirical physics. If and when that happens, I tend to chose physics over faith.

I really don't see theism as anymore than an acceptance of the fact that human beings have been experiencing and writing about something they call "God" since the dawn of human history. They could all be wrong on some point of religious dogma (in fact they cannot all be right), but they may just be right about his existence. The existence of God would go long way to explaining the historical record, as well as the deep emotional attachment to one's religious beliefs.

I would like to return the compliment from the start of this quote: this is pure unadulterated nonsense. But perhaps you could go ahead and present some of these useful and empirical predictions?

Well, for starters the existence of God does "explain" why humans report having a relationship with a real living entity. There may be other ways to explain those reports of course, but there is an obvious one too.

As a theory, it certainly seems to have more practical value and real life application than something like holding faith in exotic forms of matter and/or energy.

 

[Freodin]

I'd obviously agree with you to this point, but....



Not so much on that point. IMO theism makes sense, and one's belief in God doesn't necessarily have to come into conflict with empirical physics. If and when that happens, I tend to chose physics over faith.

Huh? I never mentioned any conflict with "empirical physics". I know that this is some pet peeve of yours, but you are barking up the wrong tree here. "Contradicting observations" here mean contradicting observations within your system of theism.

Something happens? God is the explanation! Something doesn't happen? God is the explanation! You see something? God! You see nothing? God!

Theism explains everything... and thus explains nothing at all.

I really don't see theism as anymore than an acceptance of the fact that human beings have been experiencing and writing about something they call "God" since the dawn of human history.

This is a massive generalization... usually "The Divine" or "The Spiritual" is used in this context to distinguish it from the - how did you call it? - "a real living entity", especially the singular monotheistic one. But ok... let's call it "God".

The problem here is that theism is "anymore" than people experiencing "something" and writing about it... it is the claim that these experiences point to a factual existence of a very special "something"... which everyone could be wrong about, but no one can "empirically" test.

They could all be wrong on some point of religious dogma (in fact they cannot all be right), but they may just be right about his existence. The existence of God would go long way to explaining the historical record, as well as the deep emotional attachment to one's religious beliefs.

As I said, the existence of "God" can be used to explain everything. That doesn't make it a good or valid explanation... it makes it a bad one.

In another recent thread, a poster tried to present "proof" for the existence of (the Christian) God. He used "history" as one of these "proofs"... that the Spanish Armada failed to invade England was "proof" that God wanted England to be protestant.

Now consider, if the Armada had successfully invaded and restored Catholicism to England, we would now hear of the "proof" that God wanted Phillip of Spain to succeed, because he wanted England to be catholic.

Well, for starters the existence of God does "explain" why humans report having a relationship with a real living entity. There may be other ways to explain those reports of course, but there is an obvious one too.

That is not a testable prediction. You should know that. A "report" of somthing is not an observation of something. The question remains: "Do people who report to have X really do have X?"... and here the predictive power of your idea fails completely.

But you are right... there is a very obvious explanation: humans really do have a relationship with a real living entity. This entity is called "a human".

As a theory, it certainly seems to have more practical value and real life application than something like holding faith in exotic forms of matter and/or energy.

Really?
The "theory" is "There is a God/Spiritual/Divine". All the rest is stuff that, as you called it "cannot all be right"... and you have no way at all to find out which is right and which is wrong. How is that going to have practical value and real life application?

 

[Radrook]

Weird how they ignore all the Christian scientists who established the foundation of present science and upon whose shoulders they stand. If these Christians had been as irrational as atheists describe Christians, then we wouldn't have science as it exists today.

 

[quatona]

Weird how they ignore all the Christian scientists who established the foundation of present science and upon whose shoulders they stand.

They don´t ignore their scientific findings. Their metaphyiscal beliefs have never been the foundations of science.

If these Christians had been as irrational as atheists describe Christians, then we wouldn't have science as it exists today.

Yeah, fortunately they had more to offer than merely their irrational religious beliefs.

 

[Freodin]

Weird how they ignore all the Christian scientists who established the foundation of present science and upon whose shoulders they stand. If these Christians had been as irrational as atheists describe Christians, then we wouldn't have science as it exists today.

What - and whom - do you think "they" are ignoring?

 

[Freodin]

They don´t ignore their scientific findings. Their metaphyiscal beliefs have never been the foundations of science.

Yeah, fortunately they had more to offer than merely their irrational religious beliefs.

Prime example: Sir Isaac Newton. His works in mathematics and natural science are extremly important. His works in alchemy, mysticism, eschatology and chronology are... interesting, but scientifically irrelevant and, well, wrong. His theological views are going contrary to established Christian doctrine... and are also not based on scientific research.

 

[Michael]

Huh? I never mentioned any conflict with "empirical physics". I know that this is some pet peeve of yours, but you are barking up the wrong tree here. "Contradicting observations" here mean contradicting observations within your system of theism.

My system of theism, or your strawman version of it?

Something happens? God is the explanation!

What sort of "something" might we be talking about? I don't run around all day assuming that everything that happens is "explained by God". Most stuff has a much more mundane explanation in my experience.

Something doesn't happen? God is the explanation! You see something? God! You see nothing? God!

I don't think this is actually "my" system of theism.

Theism explains everything... and thus explains nothing at all.

Well, maybe not your strawman version of theism, but it really depends on how one defines "God", and how they ultimately practice their theism. I don't seem to make the same assumptions that you do.

This is a massive generalization... usually "The Divine" or "The Spiritual" is used in this context to distinguish it from the - how did you call it? - "a real living entity", especially the singular monotheistic one. But ok... let's call it "God".

Ok.

The problem here is that theism is "anymore" than people experiencing "something" and writing about it... it is the claim that these experiences point to a factual existence of a very special "something"... which everyone could be wrong about, but no one can "empirically" test.

How do you figure that big and little physics theories tend to work? How do I falsify QM's definition of a graviton at the small scale, or cosmology theories in general at the largest ones? There's not necessarily an obvious empirical way to test a lot of ideas in science, particularly if you're being a stickler and want real control mechanisms and such.

Lot's of humans write about sunsets too, and I wouldn't simply assume that their experience wasn't "real".

As I said, the existence of "God" can be used to explain everything.

But it doesn't *have* to be used that way. Granted, it's possible to do so, but it need not work that way for every single individual. I tend to want to understand the empirical underpinnings of most events in my life, don't you? Even if 'God did it', I'd still want to understand *how* God did it.

That doesn't make it a good or valid explanation... it makes it a bad one.

I'm trying really hard not to point out that science is full of placeholder terms that ultimately lack a full explanation. Whether something is a "good" or "bad' explanation will often depend on the individual, even in science. Science cannot guarantee that any explanation is right or wrong either.

In another recent thread, a poster tried to present "proof" for the existence of (the Christian) God. He used "history" as one of these "proofs"... that the Spanish Armada failed to invade England was "proof" that God wanted England to be protestant.

Now consider, if the Armada had successfully invaded and restored Catholicism to England, we would now hear of the "proof" that God wanted Phillip of Spain to succeed, because he wanted England to be catholic.

Be that as it may, I'm not personally responsible for another 'theists' belief systems.

That is not a testable prediction. You should know that. A "report" of somthing is not an observation of something. The question remains: "Do people who report to have X really do have X?"... and here the predictive power of your idea fails completely.

I guess that depends on what precisely someone is trying to predict. I might predict that humans *will always* have such experiences of something the associate with God because of the existence of God. There *could be another reason* of course, but in science at least, a prediction is still a prediction, and not all predictions are empirically "testable" in a laboratory.

But you are right... there is a very obvious explanation: humans really do have a relationship with a real living entity. This entity is called "a human".

You're simply "interpreting" the same observations in an entirely "different" way, but again that happens all the time in science. You seem to be trying to impose a greater standard of evidence, or a greater standard of "prediction" than is required in "science".

Really?
The "theory" is "There is a God/Spiritual/Divine". All the rest is stuff that, as you called it "cannot all be right"... and you have no way at all to find out which is right and which is wrong. How is that going to have practical value and real life application?

Well, for starters, by definition of God and the predictions made by Panentheism have a practical value in astronomy. I might "predict" a universe filled with circuity, just because living things have ample amounts of circuity on Earth. I guess it depends on what you're calling 'practical value'. SUSY theory hasn't had much "practical value" at LHC in terms of making any useful predictions.

 

[Michael]

Any variation of Pantheism or Panentheism makes more useful, and entirely *empirical* predictions than LCDM.

I would like to return the compliment from the start of this quote: this is pure unadulterated nonsense. But perhaps you could go ahead and present some of these useful and empirical predictions?

You know...

FYI, I made a number of predictions about the universe based on Panentheism a number of years ago now.

An Empirical Theory Of God
An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

LCDM doesn't necessarily "predict" anything about humans and their relationship with "God", whereas a Panentheistic definition of God/The Universe might make such a prediction, and it might indeed by the real explanation for those reports throughout human history.

As you noted their *may* be another reason of course, but it's still a valid prediction of a cosmology theory based on Panentheism vs other types of cosmology theories. It's just *one* prediction of course, and it probably has the least practical value as it relates to astronomy. Then again those two thread are full of other predictions that do have a practical application to astronomy and physics.

 

[Michael]

They don´t ignore their scientific findings. Their metaphyiscal beliefs have never been the foundations of science.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The big bang theory was put forth by a Catholic Priest who I'm sure believed in the statement "Let their be light" that is recorded in the Bible, and his theory has been the foundation of cosmology for over 60 years..

Yeah, fortunately they had more to offer than merely their irrational religious beliefs.

Or not.

 

[quatona]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The big bang theory was put forth by a Catholic Priest who I'm sure believed in the statement "Let their be light" that is recorded in the Bible, and his theory has been the foundation of cosmology for over 60 years..

Yes, exactly: his theory has been the foundation.
Not sure what your point is in mentioning his non-scientific beliefs.

Or not.

Well, if you think all they offered were their irrational religious beliefs...ok.

 

[Radrook]

Maybe the stumbling block for atheists is certain people claiming to be Christians going around describing the God they expect atheists to believe in as sending people to be roasted alive forever. That would rightfully cause any human who is familiar with ethics to recoil in horror.