Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[BillyJoe]

I wish skeptics and scientists did compare God or gods to elves or fairies more often...

God is a little different: The Tooth Faerie, the Easter Bunny, and Father Christmas are all purported do things that we know parents actually do. God at least is purported to do something for which we, as yet, have no answer - the creation of the universe, something out of nothing.

Hey, I said a little different, I'm not going to hijack this thread.

Also God is, at least potentially, falsifiable. If, in the distant future, science does discover how the universe originated, how something arose out of nothing, God would seem to have been falsified.

BJ

 

[geni]

Um, how about stories of what happens after you die?

Stories require language. Can you show that ceromonial burrial requires the same?

 

[geni]

Personally I don't rule out ever knowing these things in the future but it is generally accepted in science that one cannot know anything about conditions before the Big Bang or outside the Universe. I did not make this concept up on my own.

No but you appear to have misunderstood it. Our churrent scientific understanding and enigineering ability doesn't let us know what is outside the universe but if thats enough for you to reject a claim you also have to reject string theory.

 

[westprog]

No but you appear to have misunderstood it. Our churrent scientific understanding and enigineering ability doesn't let us know what is outside the universe but if thats enough for you to reject a claim you also have to reject string theory.

In a sense, if something is scientifically detectable outside the universe, then it's not outside the universe. If something is considered to exist outside the universe, then it must be in principle scientifically undetectable.

The issue as to whether something undetectable outside the universe can interact with the universe has just been covered elsewhere.

 

[geni]

In a sense, if something is scientifically detectable outside the universe, then it's not outside the universe. If something is considered to exist outside the universe, then it must be in principle scientifically undetectable.

The issue as to whether something undetectable outside the universe can interact with the universe has just been covered elsewhere.

We strongly suspect that something undetectable outside visable universe can interact with the universe. The recent discovery of dark flow points in that dirrection.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Before the BB and outside the Universe are untestable things which can be pondered, but nothing can be known about them. These two untestable conditions are reasonable to ponder. While we have no evidence anything existed before the Big Bang and/or outside the Universe, the rest of our knowledge, (things within the Universe generally do have conditions outside them and before them.), makes these two untestable conditions reasonable to ponder.

As geni and others have suggested, you may be too quick in barring science from "before the Big Bang."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090113-st-before-big-bang.html

"It's no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang," Kamionkowski said. "All of that stuff is hidden by a veil, observationally. If our model holds up, we may have a chance to see beyond this veil."

The next step is to gather better data about the Cosmic Microwave Background, to confirm that the unevenness seen so far really holds up.

This is an important distinction between science and religion. In the former, the "unknowable" often proves a temporary roadblock. God, on the other hand, is permanently unknowable by definition.

 

[westprog]

We strongly suspect that something undetectable outside visable universe can interact with the universe. The recent discovery of dark flow points in that dirrection.

The visible universe is not the universe. Dark matter, as envisaged, remains part of the universe. That's if dark matter exists, of course.

 

[Malerin]

Besides beliefs in gods, do you have any evidence gods exist? Belief is all we have evidence for. We have no evidence of existence of gods.

We have indirect evidence via the fine-tuning of the physical constants. We have anecdotal accounts from reliable people who claim to have spiritual experiences related to God and to have observed supernatural phenemena. We now know millions of people have had NDE's, a sizeable percent of which report a highly spiritual experience complete with visitations from dead people, being in the presence of God, and veridical OBE's. Science does not have a satisfactory account for the NDE phenemenon, nor is it clear why we should have evolved as creatures who have intensely spiritual experiences right before death. Children's vivid memories of past lives are evidence that a soul exists, which is indirect evidence for the existence of God.

All of this is evidence, though none of it will be convincing evidence to most people here. How convincing it is will depend on metaphysical atitudes about reality itself.

 

[paximperium]

The visible universe is not the universe. Dark matter, as envisaged, remains part of the universe. That's if dark matter exists, of course.

Dark Matter interacts with the universe and is therefore part of the universe.

 

[paximperium]

We have indirect evidence via the fine-tuning of the physical constants.

An argument that you've tried before but has been utterly demolished. Using this discredited claim again despite being corrected is telling.

We have anecdotal accounts from reliable people who claim to have spiritual experiences related to God and to have observed supernatural phenemena. We now know millions of people have had NDE's, a sizeable percent of which report a highly spiritual experience complete with visitations from dead people, being in the presence of God, and veridical OBE's.

Anecdotes, inconsistent and unverified claims are not exactly evidence for your god or even a god but is poor evidence for ALL gods, pixies, spirits and juju monsters.

Science does not have a satisfactory account for the NDE phenemenon, nor is it clear why we should have evolved as creatures who have intensely spiritual experiences right before death.

So? If and when we actually figure this out, what's going to happen to your "faith"? Will you suddenly become an atheist?

It isn't that surprising that people experience weird things when their brains malfunction.

Children's vivid memories of past lives are evidence that a soul exists, which is indirect evidence for the existence of God.

Hahahahahaha...snort. Talk about a big leap into nonsense. Except for the the terrible evidence for "past-life" nonsense, it would be evidence for a soul, not any god. The Buddhist may be a tad surprised.

All of this is evidence, though none of it will be convincing evidence to most people here. How convincing it is will depend on metaphysical atitudes about reality itself.

Ahhh, the Malerin cop-out excuse for his sad evidence.

"You all close minded. Open your mindz and accept what I sayz because reality is really subjective blah blah blah..."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No but you appear to have misunderstood it. Our churrent scientific understanding and enigineering ability doesn't let us know what is outside the universe but if thats enough for you to reject a claim you also have to reject string theory.

I don't think we need to waste time on this sidetrack. If you think your concept of testable and untestable is relevant then tell us why.

I see no reason a tedious semantic argument about the distinction between "knowable", "testable" and "falsifiable" is necessary here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We strongly suspect that something undetectable outside visable universe can interact with the universe. The recent discovery of dark flow points in that dirrection.

You are confusing unseen dimensions with outside the Universe.

Please take this hijack elsewhere.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

This is an important distinction between science and religion. In the former, the "unknowable" often proves a temporary roadblock. God, on the other hand, is permanently unknowable by definition.

The only permanently unknowable god is one defined that way. One can define a god so as to describe it as untestable. We know that.

My premise is that one can determine if god beliefs are based on imagination or based on real gods. One need no longer look for real gods since it can be shown god beliefs are imaginary.

Defining a god as permanently untestable is simply making the scientific process fit the preconceived conclusion, an untestable god exists. That is bad science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We have indirect evidence via the fine-tuning of the physical constants. We have anecdotal accounts from reliable people who claim to have spiritual experiences related to God and to have observed supernatural phenemena. We now know millions of people have had NDE's, a sizeable percent of which report a highly spiritual experience complete with visitations from dead people, being in the presence of God, and veridical OBE's. Science does not have a satisfactory account for the NDE phenemenon, nor is it clear why we should have evolved as creatures who have intensely spiritual experiences right before death. Children's vivid memories of past lives are evidence that a soul exists, which is indirect evidence for the existence of God.

All of this is evidence, though none of it will be convincing evidence to most people here. How convincing it is will depend on metaphysical atitudes about reality itself.

How convincing it is depends on following the evidence to a conclusion (good science) or fitting the evidence to a preconceived conclusion (bad science).


....and, what Paxi said.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think we need to waste time on this sidetrack. If you think your concept of testable and untestable is relevant then tell us why.
I see no reason a tedious semantic argument about the distinction between "knowable", "testable" and "falsifiable" is necessary here.

In a way, I think these issues are germane. If you'll bear with me a bit. . .

The reason God claims retreat toward something like the un-defined, non-intervening deist God is so that they can remain safe from the scrutiny of science.

You've very correctly made a strong case that "testable" doesn't have to mean we have access to realms that are somehow outside the natural world. (It's similar to a discussion I once had with Schlitt about his assertion that we need to identify all the trapdoors to reject a vanishing illusion as being something supernatural.)

Instead, the burden is on the claimant to provide evidence for his or her claims. If that "evidence" comes up short, we reject the claim. (As you said--period.)

So claims of a God outside the reach of science or completely separated causally from the natural world can't possibly have any evidence to support them and are necessarily rejected.

It is unreasonable even to entertain such claims.

The problem is that a number of folks around here give these words very narrow meanings. One a few threads "rational" was defined as anything that is possible, with "possible" meaning anything that is not logically contradictory. (And yes, at least two of these people said that it would be "rational" to believe the claims of those Nigerian scam e-mails!)

So. . I think the tedious semantic argument over many of these terms is necessary.

Having said that, I think the burden of proof is properly where you have placed it (in the sentence I highlighted above).

 

[westprog]

Dark Matter interacts with the universe and is therefore part of the universe.

That something interacts with the universe doesn't necessarily make it part of the universe - though dark matter is part of the universe, if it exists.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In a way, I think these issues are germane.

Testable and untestable is of course germane, but Geni's sidetrack about whether outside the Universe and before the BB were knowable or not, was not germane.

The reason God claims retreat toward something like the un-defined, non-intervening deist God is so that they can remain safe from the scrutiny of science.....
It is unreasonable even to entertain such claims.

But the scientific community does entertain these claims by allowing the "untestable" definition to block scientific scrutiny when there is overwhelming evidence all god beliefs are mythical beliefs.

 

[paximperium]

That something interacts with the universe doesn't necessarily make it part of the universe - though dark matter is part of the universe, if it exists.

Name one thing that exists that meets your criteria.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That something interacts with the universe doesn't necessarily make it part of the universe - though dark matter is part of the universe, if it exists.

Detecting the gravity of dark matter confirmed it exists, unless you want to re-write the physics of gravity laws, but I digress.

Whether or not something interacts with the Universe in the case of god definitions is what supposedly makes a Deist god belief make no testable claims. So for the sake of this discussion, detectable/testable/falsifiable/interacts with the Universe vs something that is not detectable/testable/falsifiable and does not interact with the Universe is the definition being used.

Whether something is or is not interacting with the Universe that is also outside the Universe is a thread hijack. PLEASE FOLKS, take this discussion elsewhere! Assume for the sake of the discussion the claim has been made that an undetectable god exists.

The thread is about how science might examine a claim that an untestable god exists other than to look for evidence of that god directly.

 

[Malerin]

How convincing it is depends on following the evidence to a conclusion (good science) or fitting the evidence to a preconceived conclusion (bad science).


....and, what Paxi said.

How is positing the existence of a spiritual being to explain a highly spiritual event like an NDE "bad science"? "God exists" is currently a much better explanatory hypothesis for NDE accounts than science. Or are you assuming, from the start, that all phenemena must have a material physical cause? Because an assumption like that would need some evidence to support it.