270 replies to this topic

[jbg]

I do not, however, believe that your initial observation constitutes "proof" of God's existence.

A proof is a proof in Canada, is it not?

[dre]

You haven't given me a statistical argument, you've given a logical argument about the necessity of God's existence. What I'm asking for here is an actual statistical argument for or against God's existence.

This is the trap a lot of atheists and theists fall into, assuming that they can use mathematical or scientific notions to determine the non-existence or existence of God. It does not, nor can it ever work that way. God, as defined by most of his believers, is omnipotent, and thus really quite immune from any sort of statistical or empirical study. We can close the gaps where God's influence is needed, of course, and then invoke Occam's Razor to determine if we have a more parsimonious explanation, but that cannot in any absolute terms declare that God's influence isn't there.

My opinion is that God as an explanation isn't necessary, and that's where my atheism flows from. I do not pretend for one minute that you could ever actually use scientific or mathematical methodologies to declare that such a being does not exist, or pretend that you can make any meaningful statistical statements about the probabilities of such a being's existence. It's absurd and has about as much to do with science and mathematics as quackery has to do with medicine.

Not at all. Iv given you a method to reasonably estimate the probability of that claim or any other claim. You dont need to absolutely prove a negative to build a case for probability or improbability.
And the claim that a sentient being created the universe is no more immune to this than any other scientific hypothesis.

Theres a whole host of factors that when combined make this particular hypothesis more and more improbable.

1. The claimant (the human race) has provided absolutely no evidence of it.

This is the first point where we can start assigning probability. If a person tells you a complicated story complete with a specific construct and cant produce any evidence to support it, or explain why he believes it, right off the bat the probability that his claim is accurate goes down.

2. The claimant has a rich history of making up stories to explain stuff they dont understand, and literally hundreds of the objects and entities they have claimed were "gods" have now been proven by science not to be.

Right of the bat we have a claimant with dubious credibility. This is one of the things we use to estimate probability. If a guy on a witness stand has a history of lying through his teeth, then emperical minds are going to assign a lower probability that the testimony is accurate.

3. The claim violates the laws of physics.
We know that if a claim violates our laws of physics that it is improbable. Not impossible but improbable.

4. Many of the phenomenon attributed to God through history have been shown by science to be natural phenomenon that we now understand and can explain.


Science doesnt need rigid statistical analysis to assign probability to a hypothesis. In the case of the various magic-sky-god theories, there is enough evidence and logic for a reasonable mind to assign a VERY low probability of any of these claims being true. There is a whole bunch of evidence that would cause a person to doubt such a claim and no evidence to support it.

[ToadBrother]

Not at all. Iv given you a method to reasonably estimate the probability of that claim or any other claim. You dont need to absolutely prove a negative to build a case for probability or improbability.
And the claim that a sentient being created the universe is no more immune to this than any other scientific hypothesis.

If that sentient being is asserted to have properties that effectively remove it from any kind naturalistic methodological study, then yes, it's existence cannot be disproven scientifically. That's the reality. Declaring any supernatural phenomenon removes it from the realm of naturalistic study. You can declare that God is not necessary for any given number of phenomena, but that cannot mean you have actually disproved God's existence, or even demonstrated that God isn't behind the phenomena in question.

Attempting to use science to "prove" atheism is an illegitimate use of science. Even Dawkins admits it, when cornered. Science is, by its very nature, a-theistic (in other words it takes no position on the existence of God).

Theres a whole host of factors that when combined make this particular hypothesis more and more improbable.

1. The claimant (the human race) has provided absolutely no evidence of it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is the first point where we can start assigning probability. If a person tells you a complicated story complete with a specific construct and cant produce any evidence to support it, or explain why he believes it, right off the bat the probability that his claim is accurate goes down.

But you haven't assigned probability. You haven't given me an methodologically-derived numbers. You're abusing the notion of probability.

2. The claimant has a rich history of making up stories to explain stuff they dont understand, and literally hundreds of the objects and entities they have claimed were "gods" have now been proven by science not to be.

I know of no god that has ever been proven not to exist. We have demonstrated more parsimonious explanations for many phenomena previously ascribed to supernatural causes (gods or otherwise), but as I continually say, proving thunder and lightning can be formed naturally cannot in and of itself disprove that Thor isn't making them, it merely removes the necessity for the explanation. It's not an issue of probabilities at all, it's an issue of science always seeking out the most parsimonious explanation.

Right of the bat we have a claimant with dubious credibility. This is one of the things we use to estimate probability. If a guy on a witness stand has a history of lying through his teeth, then emperical minds are going to assign a lower probability that the testimony is accurate.

I find this claim that someone must be lying because something may be false to be pretty dubious, not to mention highly prejudicial. I have little doubt that the Ancient Greeks believed in the Olympian gods, or that the Ancient Hebrews believed that Yahweh created the world in seven days. That those beliefs are wrong (or may be wrong) doesn't mean those people are liars. This is precisely the kind of obnoxious uber-atheism I find so intolerable.

3. The claim violates the laws of physics.
We know that if a claim violates our laws of physics that it is improbable. Not impossible but improbable.

Some claims violate the laws of physics. Mind you, the laws of physics are not some comprehensive absolute set of rules. They are the best explanation we have. Beyond that, the physics, no more than any other science, can falsify supernatural claims.

4. Many of the phenomenon attributed to God through history have been shown by science to be natural phenomenon that we now understand and can explain.

As I said, science seeks out the most parsimonious explanation, which generally eliminates supernatural forces. It cannot disprove supernatural forces simply because science, being an application of methodological naturalism cannot deal with the supernatural. The most parsimonious view is that the supernatural does not exist, but making absolute declarations, or trying to apply statistical tools (I'm 95.3% sure ghosts don't exist) is absurd.

Science doesnt need rigid statistical analysis to assign probability to a hypothesis.

But that's what probability is. What science doesn't actually do is talk about god at all (save, perhaps, in psychology and evolutionary psychology, where things like belief in gods, religious experiences are treated as measurable, predictable phenomena, but not the existence of gods themselves, you'll note)

In the case of the various magic-sky-god theories, there is enough evidence and logic for a reasonable mind to assign a VERY low probability of any of these claims being true. There is a whole bunch of evidence that would cause a person to doubt such a claim and no evidence to support it.

None of the god "theories" as such are scientific theories. You're attempting to assert that they are something they are not. They are not methodologically-derived theories. You're doing, in bizarro fashion, what Creationists and other anti-science types do, intentionally misusing the various definitions of the word "theory" to some rhetorical end. These myths weren't formulated as rigorous naturalistic explanations.

Here's a challenge for you. Find a single scientific paper published in peer-reviewed or primary literature that attempts to prove or disprove god. It will be a useful lesson for you that actual scientists don't play that game. It's pointless. Since there is no way to falsify the existence of an omnipotent being, there's no way to scientifically evaluate such a being's existence. Believe me, it irritates theists as much as militant atheists such as yourself. Both sides would love to have science be able to establish their viewpoint as the Truth, but it can't. I'm afraid atheism is every bit as much beyond the realm of scientific pursuit as is the non-existence of God.

I look at it this way. I feel my atheism is rational. I will never pretend that it is scientific.

[eyeball]

I believe that the fact that the universe, in particular the earth, has form or pattern and is not consigned to endless entropy is proof that G-d exists.

I think rust has got to be the strongest argument there is against any intelligent design behind the universe. As near as I can tell rust is only good for barked knuckles. That said, if they want to pay me overtime for chipping away at it, who am I to argue?

[dre]

If that sentient being is asserted to have properties that effectively remove it from any kind naturalistic methodological study, then yes, it's existence cannot be disproven scientifically. That's the reality. Declaring any supernatural phenomenon removes it from the realm of naturalistic study. You can declare that God is not necessary for any given number of phenomena, but that cannot mean you have actually disproved God's existence, or even demonstrated that God isn't behind the phenomena in question.

Attempting to use science to "prove" atheism is an illegitimate use of science. Even Dawkins admits it, when cornered. Science is, by its very nature, a-theistic (in other words it takes no position on the existence of God).



Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



But you haven't assigned probability. You haven't given me an methodologically-derived numbers. You're abusing the notion of probability.



I know of no god that has ever been proven not to exist. We have demonstrated more parsimonious explanations for many phenomena previously ascribed to supernatural causes (gods or otherwise), but as I continually say, proving thunder and lightning can be formed naturally cannot in and of itself disprove that Thor isn't making them, it merely removes the necessity for the explanation. It's not an issue of probabilities at all, it's an issue of science always seeking out the most parsimonious explanation.



I find this claim that someone must be lying because something may be false to be pretty dubious, not to mention highly prejudicial. I have little doubt that the Ancient Greeks believed in the Olympian gods, or that the Ancient Hebrews believed that Yahweh created the world in seven days. That those beliefs are wrong (or may be wrong) doesn't mean those people are liars. This is precisely the kind of obnoxious uber-atheism I find so intolerable.



Some claims violate the laws of physics. Mind you, the laws of physics are not some comprehensive absolute set of rules. They are the best explanation we have. Beyond that, the physics, no more than any other science, can falsify supernatural claims.



As I said, science seeks out the most parsimonious explanation, which generally eliminates supernatural forces. It cannot disprove supernatural forces simply because science, being an application of methodological naturalism cannot deal with the supernatural. The most parsimonious view is that the supernatural does not exist, but making absolute declarations, or trying to apply statistical tools (I'm 95.3% sure ghosts don't exist) is absurd.



But that's what probability is. What science doesn't actually do is talk about god at all (save, perhaps, in psychology and evolutionary psychology, where things like belief in gods, religious experiences are treated as measurable, predictable phenomena, but not the existence of gods themselves, you'll note)



None of the god "theories" as such are scientific theories. You're attempting to assert that they are something they are not. They are not methodologically-derived theories. You're doing, in bizarro fashion, what Creationists and other anti-science types do, intentionally misusing the various definitions of the word "theory" to some rhetorical end. These myths weren't formulated as rigorous naturalistic explanations.

Here's a challenge for you. Find a single scientific paper published in peer-reviewed or primary literature that attempts to prove or disprove god. It will be a useful lesson for you that actual scientists don't play that game. It's pointless. Since there is no way to falsify the existence of an omnipotent being, there's no way to scientifically evaluate such a being's existence. Believe me, it irritates theists as much as militant atheists such as yourself. Both sides would love to have science be able to establish their viewpoint as the Truth, but it can't. I'm afraid atheism is every bit as much beyond the realm of scientific pursuit as is the non-existence of God.

I look at it this way. I feel my atheism is rational. I will never pretend that it is scientific.

If that sentient being is asserted to have properties that effectively remove it from any kind naturalistic methodological study, then yes, it's existence cannot be disproven scientifically.

Im not talking about disproving something scientifically. Im talking about a reasonable assessment of probability based on evidence and reason.

Attempting to use science to "prove" atheism is an illegitimate use of science. Even Dawkins admits it, when cornered. Science is, by its very nature, a-theistic (in other words it takes no position on the existence of God).

Actually Dawkins makes the exact same argument that I have, almost verbatim. He admits that theres no scientific proof god doesnt exist, but he explains thats not how science works. Scientists dont need to absolutely disprove every crackpot claim that comes out. The owness is on the claimant. He also makes the exact same arguments that I have regarding the probability that a reasonable mind will assign to such claims.

You're doing, in bizarro fashion, what Creationists and other anti-science types do, intentionally misusing the various definitions of the word "theory" to some rhetorical end. These myths weren't formulated as rigorous naturalistic explanations.

That doesnt matter. When someone makes a claim that violates what we believe are natural laws, without showing any evidence of it, or even being able to explain a real reason why they believe it a reasonable mind is going to find it IMPROBABLE.

I look at it this way. I feel my atheism is rational. I will never pretend that it is scientific.

Yup thats all Im saying. A rational mind will assign low probability to this claim based on knownledge, evidence, the lack of evidence, and the history of the claimant getting it wrong.

I know of no god that has ever been proven not to exist.

I know of lots. Read about Cargo Cults of the Malanasian islands. They believed that western airplanes and pilots were gods. I would say that a reasonable mind would evaluate the claim that airplanes are gods as disproven. Why? Because theres no evidence that airplanes are omnipotent, sentient beings, and we have a totally natural explain of where they come from and how they come to be.

Edited by dre, 13 July 2010 - 12:14 AM.

[Bonam]

I look at it this way. I feel my atheism is rational. I will never pretend that it is scientific.

Agreed, people mix up reason and science quite a bit. They are not the same.

[Shwa]

Someone will have to explain to me how exactly you calculate the probability that God exists or not.

You'd have to ask MightyAC to whom the post was directed:

I'm not a statistician but I would assign very similar probabilities to the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, a god and the flying spaghetti monster. Sure the likelihood of their existence hovers near zero but we cannot completely rule out the possibility can we?

By definition agnosticism simply means the truth of a claim is unknowable. Since many ideas, religion included are unfalsifiable nobody can say for sure they do not exist.

However, for me, when something has such a low possibility of being true, the fence sitting, agnostic stance isn't enough. For example are you agnostic about the existence of unicorns? We can't fully disprove their existence but in all likelihood it is safe to be a-unicornists.

Edited by Shwa, 13 July 2010 - 05:45 AM.

[Oleg Bach]

A hallucination which is convincing enough to portray itself as reality to an individual for the span of their life may as well be reality.

GOD does exist and IT embodies It self within humanity - Intelligent life - or GOD is the same thing - to not understand that..that the holy spirit is PURE intelligence and resides in US who embrass entelligence...makes for a person that is stupified...and call intelligence a "hallucination" - in other words that the truth is a hallucination...and if that myth is perpetuated then people will doubt their own perceptions - and liars will rule the world though deception.

[August1991]

If it satisfies some need in you to imagine a Prime Mover kicking the ball into motion, then so be it. It certainly doesn't for me, because I keep falling back on the fundamental problem of requiring a Prime Mover. Namely, if the Universe is an entity that requires a Prime Mover to get it started, then either we enter an infinite set of Prime Movers each one starting the next one, go back infinitely, or we declare a Prime Mover who is an exception from the very logic used to invoke the Prime Mover. That being the case, I will invoke Occam's Razor, remove the unnecessary entity and declare that the Universe is the entity requiring no creator. My answer may not be any closer to to the truth, or may in fact be wrong, but at least it follows a consistent logic.

Occam's Razor? I think you have twisted yourself into Occam's Pretzel.

But your term "Prime Mover" is a curious euphemism, and even inexact.

It's not simply that the Universe started 15 billion years ago, but it's the way it started. It seems that our current dimensions (notably time) are shadows of higher dimensions existent briefly after the universe's creation. Once you understand the idea of a limit, relativity kind of makes sense (why can't anything travel faster than light?) but probability and randomness have a special place in the laws of physics. Why?

IOW, it's not merely the creation of the universe that is in question but also the universe's "laws" or rules.

----

In the case of evolution, I am willing to accept that it "just happened". But IMHO, the universe is another story. (And don't even get me talking about what we call "consciousness".)

To me, anyone who says that the universe "just happened" is taking a political position in early 21st century Western society. IOW, they are stating to others (for political reasons) that they are atheists.

[Bonam]

It's not simply that the Universe started 15 billion years ago, but it's the way it started. It seems that our current dimensions (notably time) are shadows of higher dimensions existent briefly after the universe's creation.

A hopelessly inexact statement. Meaningless given the context, which is theoretical physics and cosmology. What is its relevance?

Once you understand the idea of a limit, relativity kind of makes sense (why can't anything travel faster than light?) but probability and randomness have a special place in the laws of physics. Why?

What do you mean by a "special place"? Probability and randomness underlie quantum mechanics. Determinism underlies classical mechanics, which is the set of the laws of physics that is relevant to most humans on a daily basis. Why are the laws the way they are? Well, we have answers for some of them, and have not yet found answers for others. This is a matter of scientific pursuit not of faith.

In the case of evolution, I am willing to accept that it "just happened". But IMHO, the universe is another story. (And don't even get me talking about what we call "consciousness".)

No physical theory states that the universe "just happened". The big bang theory simply talks about the universe since some starting point, prior to which it makes no claims. There are plenty of other theories which attempt to explain what could have been happening in a wider context, such as m-theory. We do not yet have enough information to conclude which (if any) of these theories could be correct, but acquiring such information in the future is not impossible. Again, this is a matter of scientific discovery.

As for consciousness, it is an emergent property of sufficiently complex neural networks.

Edited by Bonam, 14 July 2010 - 05:21 PM.

[eyeball]

As for consciousness, it is an emergent property of sufficiently complex neural networks.

It's what a universe groks itself with.

[GostHacked]

It's what a universe groks itself with.

I had to look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok

What do you mean by that though?

[eyeball]

I had to look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok

What do you mean by that though?

I recall reading Stephan Hawking saying something to the effect that consciousness gives the universe the ability to appreciate itself. I don't know why but the elegance of that calms my mind. It centers me. In light of other ideas - that observers affect what they observe, that the center of the universe is relative and subjective, I feel thankful, content and even hopeful.

I feel blessed so I guess I must be.

[GostHacked]

I recall reading Stephan Hawking saying something to the effect that consciousness gives the universe the ability to appreciate itself. I don't know why but the elegance of that calms my mind. It centers me. In light of other ideas - that observers affect what they observe, that the center of the universe is relative and subjective, I feel thankful, content and even hopeful.

I feel blessed so I guess I must be.

The only ones reflecting on any kind of consciousness is us. As far as our current knowledge goes. The rest is TBD.

[eyeball]

The only ones reflecting on any kind of consciousness is us. As far as our current knowledge goes. The rest is TBD.

Einstein seems to have determined that the universe is in fact a self-reflective entity. I mean it's center is everywhere right?

Perhaps it's better to think of us as being like a cluster of universes. We're each in the center of our own.

Pick any direction you chose, go 14 billion or so light years in it, and you'll still be in the center...of your's.

Edited by eyeball, 15 July 2010 - 11:15 AM.