Smart Kid

[wolfgirl]

At least wolfgirl quit while she thought she was ahead.

I didn't quit. I just have a lot of other things going on besides this thread.

There is no more or less evidence for God than there is for Santa, et al.

Evidence against Santa: physical impossibility of having a sled that can carry enough presents for all children on Earth.

Evidence against God: physical impossibility of having an ark that can carry two of every animal on Earth, plus food to feed them all for a year.

Evidence against Easter Bunny: rabbits can't carry eggs into houses.

Evidence against God: snakes can't talk.

Evidence for all of these things: we like to believe them because they make us feel good.

 

[The Grave]

No, really?

Yes, BillyJoe is using typical faither logic here....

1. Pick a topic most people think is a rubbish scientific theory
2. Pretend {or really believe} that they think it's true
3. Make a lot of noise about how there's no evidence for it BUT yet scientists 'believe' it {{only those who invented it!}}
4. Criticise science for accepting something on faith {which most haven't}
5. Draw a fabulously pathetic conclusion that science is a faith.
6. Go to bed with a faither grin.

Sweet dreams..... That's all they are!


Griff....

 

[BillyJoe]

Regarding String theory...

Human decisions about what abstractions to use for phenomena have an affect on the nature of the phenomena.

You'll have to explain to me how the nature of subatomic particles are affected by humans using "vibrating strings" as abstractions to explain them.
If you're saying something else, I don't get it.

You are talking as if definitive absolute answers about such issues are possible.

A great number of physicists at present believe that all the different types of subatomic particles are composed of "vibrating strings", in straight and closed varieties, and that they can explain the properties of all these different types of subatomic particles. If true all of reality is made up of nothing but these "vibrating strings".
Either this is true or it is not.

I used strings in answer to PT's claim that:
"...if there's not evidence to support a god hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent!"
Whether or not "vibrating strings" exist is not affected by whether or not we have evidence for it now (which we don't).
Same for god.

 

[Lonewulf]

Whether or not "vibrating strings" exist is not affected by whether or not we have evidence for it now (which we don't).
Same for god.

And for all intents and purposes, those vibrating strings might as well not exist if there is no evidence for them and the theory of them makes no accurate predictions.

Without being falsifiable, it's only barely "science", if it's science at all. We are developing ways to attempt to falsify it, but until we do, it's not a scientific theory. It's barely a hypothesis.

Same with God.

The only difference is, God is demonstrably made up by humans from a time period where such crap as astrology and alchemy made sense.

Just like Santa Clause.

 

[BillyJoe]

Still on strings...

My astronomy instructor wasn't very happy with string theory. Until there becomes something falsifiable or predictable with it, it's just a nice idea.

An astronomy instructor seems just the person to provide a reliable opinion on string theory.
I agree with him though.

They're currently building particle accelerators that could potentially prove some aspects of String Theory, and I will find it interesting if they discover anything. However, your claim of, "Well, they haven't proven it YET, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe that it exists!" is faulty at best.

What I actually said was that it is wrong to say, as PT did, that:
"...if there's not evidence to support a god hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent!"
It is just as wrong to say that as it is to say:
"...if there's not evidence to support a string hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent!"

Furthermore, there's more "evidence" for string theory than there is for God, that's for damned sure.

There is no evidence for the string hypothesis.
Likewise for the god hypothesis.

 

[BillyJoe]

What's the incontrovertible evidence against Santa Claus?

You are joking aren't you?

How is this better than the evidence against God?

There is no evidence against god (the ever existing being who created everything else).

Why not? Your categorisation seems to be based squarely on the fact that the God character is is more powerful than the others...

God is different from the other characters because he has not been disproven whereas these other characters have been.

 

[BillyJoe]

I didn't quit. I just have a lot of other things going on besides this thread.

I was just joking around.

There is no more or less evidence for God than there is for Santa..

Agreed.
The difference does not lie in evidence for god v santa.
The difference lies in the evidence against god v santa.
There is no evidence against god.
The evidence against santa is conclusive.

Evidence against God: physical impossibility of having an ark that can carry two of every animal on Earth, plus food to feed them all for a year.
Evidence against God: snakes can't talk.

That's the christian God.

Evidence for all of these things: we like to believe them because they make us feel good.

Whether or not something feels good has no bearing on whether or not that something is true.

 

[BillyJoe]

Yes, BillyJoe is using typical faither logic here....

1. Pick a topic most people think is a rubbish scientific theory
2. Pretend {or really believe} that they think it's true
3. Make a lot of noise about how there's no evidence for it BUT yet scientists 'believe' it {{only those who invented it!}}
4. Criticise science for accepting something on faith {which most haven't}
5. Draw a fabulously pathetic conclusion that science is a faith.
6. Go to bed with a faither grin.

Sweet dreams..... That's all they are!

1. A large number of physicists do not think the string hypothesis is rubbish. They are spending their lives investigating it.

2. They do think it is true, or could be true. Why otherwise would they spend the time and money and waste their life's work.

3. There is no evidence for it, at least yet, because the very nature of strings (their size) is that are almost impossible to investigate.

4. Where did I critisise investigating the string hypothesis?

5. Where did I draw that conclusion?
The string hypothesis probably falls into the category of "Things you believe to be true although there is no evidence for it". Another one is the multiverse hypothesis to explain the universal constants.

6. I'll let you in on a secret: I'm not a "faither".

 

[BillyJoe]

And for all intents and purposes, those vibrating strings might as well not exist if there is no evidence for them and the theory of them makes no accurate predictions.

For "all intents and purposes they do not exist" is not the same as "they do not exist". To repeat, having no evidence for something does not mean that something does not exist.

Without being falsifiable, it's only barely "science", if it's science at all. We are developing ways to attempt to falsify it, but until we do, it's not a scientific theory. It's barely a hypothesis.

You are probably right.
Physicist seem to be attracted by the beauty of the "vibrating string hypothesis".
That doesn't mean strings don't exist though. Consider...
A couple of thousand years ago atoms were hypothesised to exist. There was no evidence for atoms at that time. Therefore atoms don't exist???

Same with God.

Agreed.

The only difference is, God is demonstrably made up by humans from a time period where such crap as astrology and alchemy made sense.

Yeah, about the time the atom was hypothesised.

 

[Lonewulf]

You are probably right.
Physicist seem to be attracted by the beauty of the "vibrating string hypothesis".
That doesn't mean strings don't exist though. Consider...
A couple of thousand years ago atoms were hypothesised to exist. There was no evidence for atoms at that time. Therefore atoms don't exist???

So you're saying that the default position should be that it DOES exist?

That's logical.

There's a reason that falsifiable claims are those preferred by scientists. Do you need help in figuring it out?

Yeah, about the time the atom was hypothesised.

What, God?

Now you're just being silly. Or purposefully deceitful.

Provide evidence that "atoms" were hypothesized in the same way as we have theories of atoms today.

Agreed.
The difference does not lie in evidence for god v santa.
The difference lies in the evidence against god v santa.
There is no evidence against god.
The evidence against santa is conclusive.

Which you have yet to demonstrate.

What's the matter? Afraid to dismiss Santa conclusively?

No one's kidding here. Demonstrate the "irrefutable evidence" that Santa doesn't exist, in a way that can't be applied to God.

Tip: You can't do it.

I'll go back to the Chinese Teapot. If your default position is that the teapot exists, then you can spent billions trying to look for it, floating out there in space, for something that MUST be there, but that there is no reason to believe.

 

[volatile]

You are joking aren't you?

Well, I thought you were! But clearly you're not. I'm now deadly serious... submit your proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

There is no evidence against god (the ever existing being who created everything else).

So you're picking a deist God? And your suggestion that he doesn't exist is that there's no proof against it? There's also no proof against Russell's Invisible Teapot, if you're playing by those criteria...

Your argument remains that it's more plausible to remain agnostic over God than over Santa because the God character is more powerful. As far as I can tell, the more extensive a character's powers, the more plausible it is, in your opinion - this is clearly absurd.

God is different from the other characters because he has not been disproven whereas these other characters have been.

Santa Claus has not been 'disproven'. There is strong evidence against his existence, hence I don't believe in him. The same is true of God, unless you have some inarguable way of disproving Santa.

(Here's a hint - you can't conclusively prove a negative (see: Karl Popper and his thoughts on falsifiability).)

 

[cyborg]

You'll have to explain to me how the nature of subatomic particles are affected by humans using "vibrating strings" as abstractions to explain them.
If you're saying something else, I don't get it.

There should be a not in there as in the universe doesn't give a crap how we choose to describe it.

Either this is true or it is not.

That cannot be determined.

 

[rcronk]

But Santa DOES exist - he's your parents! The evidence against him (sleigh going light speed, living at the north pole, etc.) only discredits the incorrect assumptions about his attributes - he still exists despite those incorrect attributes. Evidence for his existence includes presents appearing under the tree, etc. As children, people lied to us about him and so we have an incorrect picture of who he really is - but he does exist in the form of our parents. We find that out later as our understanding increases. We don't say that our parents don't exist because they are Santa but he has a sleigh that goes light speed and so therefore my parents can't exist - we say that we had misconceptions about who he is.

The same goes for god. We have evidence for and against him as we do for Santa. Evidence supporting god's existence include not only the fingers with which I'm typing this message but every one of us and all living things in existence. Some of this existence could also be seen as supporting abiogenesis/evolution but it can also support an intelligent creator.

I don't understand why some people's lies or misconceptions about god cause people to throw out the entire god theory completely rather than just the parts that are wrong. The abiogenesis that evolution relies upon (since only "living" things can evolve) hasn't been directly proven any more than the existence of god has been directly proven so why do people throw out the god theory completely?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But Santa DOES exist - he's your parents!

No. By your thinking, King Lear exists, and of course he is merely a fictional character.

I know it's cutesy to say that Santa exists because the parents do the things attributed to Santa, nevertheless, Santa Clause does not exist.

 

[rcronk]

JoeTheJuggler - You've completely missed the point. Read the whole post again.

 

[Tanstaafl]

...snip... I don't understand why some people's lies or misconceptions about god cause people to throw out the entire god theory completely rather than just the parts that are wrong. The abiogenesis that evolution relies upon (since only "living" things can evolve) hasn't been directly proven any more than the existence of god has been directly proven so why do people throw out the god theory completely?

Unfortunately, this approach tends to lead to worshipping at Our Lady of the Moving Goalposts.

You can always keep changing the definition of god whenever some previously claimed attribute is disproven. We can (and probably will) continue the exercise until most people are reduced to a deist god, where not much of anything is claimed at all. Some of us see the pattern emerging though, and are impatient to skip some intermediate steps.

ETA: By the way, evolution does not rely on any particular concept of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis clearly happened, since at one point there was no life, and now there is life. But evolution is completely compatible with the idea that god created the first life. It only describes how the current diversity of life came about from those early life forms.

 

[rcronk]

Good points - I'm glad you got the points I was trying to make also. The same moving goalposts exist in science as we continue to learn more and discover thing using the scientific method. I think that if god does exist, (and I believe he does) then science and theism will end up reconciled eventually. Truth is truth independent of any theory. God is said to have always existed - apparently that's beyond our current understanding, but if it is true, then abiogenesis didn't have to happen.

Again, your points are well taken.

 

[Jon.]

Good points - I'm glad you got the points I was trying to make also. The same moving goalposts exist in science as we continue to learn more and discover thing using the scientific method.

Don't you see the difference here, though? Science is all about changing what we know - religion is about the unchangeability of what we "know". Therefore, the "goalposts" in science are supposed to move - nobody today is expected to have to re-prove that the sun is at the centre of the solar system, or that species come about via evolution actuated by natural selection. We try to discover new stuff that we didn't know about before. In religion, though, someone trying to inject new stuff into the body of knowledge is called a heretic and attacked as violently as the law of the time and place will allow (as a Mormon, you should know something about that).

I should also point out that "moving the goalposts" is usually a criticism of your argument - saying that you are changing your position in response to arguments made by the other side rather than addressing or refuting those arguments.

I think that if god does exist, (and I believe he does) then science and theism will end up reconciled eventually. Truth is truth independent of any theory. God is said to have always existed - apparently that's beyond our current understanding, but if it is true, then abiogenesis didn't have to happen.

Perhaps not, but "atheogenesis" (to coin a term) did: God had to come from somewhere. If he didn't have to come from somewhere, then why did the universe? You're just pushing the question off by a level or two.

Actually, even with God in the picture, "abiogenesis" (ie. life from non-life) did happen, according to the Bible: God breathed life into his clay man, and created the animals and plants, presumably out of nothing.

 

[RandFan]

The same goes for god. We have evidence for and against him...

No we don't. There is no evidence for god. If you chose to assign meaning that is not warranted then that is your prerogative but there is no evidence for god.

 

[BillyJoe]

So you're saying that the default position should be that it DOES exist?

No. Where have I stated that.
I simply stated that, a couple of thousand years ago, someone (Democritus) came up with the idea of atoms. There was no evidence for atoms and, in fact, the idea was dropped for two thousand years. Did the lack of evidence for atoms mean that they did not exist. Obviously not.

What I'm saying is that the lack of evidence for a thing doesn't mean that thing does not exist (in response to PT saying "...if there's not evidence to support a god hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent!")
And I've repeated it three times now.

There's a reason that falsifiable claims are those preferred by scientists. Do you need help in figuring it out?

No.
But how is this relevant to the question of whether evidence is necessary in order for something to exist.
There is no evidence for "vibrating strings". Are we therefore entitled to say "vibrating strings" do not exist?

Provide evidence that "atoms" were hypothesized in the same way as we have theories of atoms today.

Show me where I stated that they were.
I simply stated that about two thousand years ago someone (Democritus) came up with the idea of atoms. There was no evidence for atoms and, in fact, the idea was dropped for about two thousand years. Did the lack of evidence for atoms mean that they do not exist? Obviously not.

Demonstrate the "irrefutable evidence" that Santa doesn't exist, in a way that can't be applied to God.

Okay, a bit of hyperbole.
But all I need to demonstrate is that the god question is not analogous to the santa question.

Santa was never intended as anything other than an amusing story for children. Except for children under about the age of five, no one has ever seriously believed that santa exists. Santa does not play any serious role in the mental life of any person past age five. Santa is not a possible explanation for anything of any consequence. No one seriously wants to disprove santa. Santa was only ever intended as pure fantasy, frivolity, and entertainment.

God, on the other hand, arose out of a serious need to explain some of the most important things in our universe. It is a serious consideration for an enormous number of highly intelligent adults on our planet. God could be the ever existing being who created everything else in existence. God, in a sense, is no more mysterious than the fact of quantum entanglement, the fact of backwards in time causation in quantum interactions, the fact of the holistic interconnectivity of all the quantum "particles" in the universe, or the unfathomable reason why there is something rather than nothing.

In brief, god is concerned with the serious questions of our existence, santa with pure frivolity, fantasy, and entertainment. Which leads me back to my original point that you cannot dismiss god as easily as you can dismiss santa.

I'll go back to the Chinese Teapot. If your default position is that the teapot exists, then you can spent billions trying to look for it, floating out there in space, for something that MUST be there, but that there is no reason to believe.

I'm not sure why you want to continually attribute statements to me that I have not made.
I'm not sure why you want to add to the list of characters either, but I'll go with it: santa, the tooth faerie, the easter bunny, and....the chinese teapot!