Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[Piscivore]

God would have had the option of not creating this universe or of creating a different universe, would it not?

Which god? Jefferson's? Maybe, I don't know. I'm not god and I don't know if Jefferson ever addressed that particular item.

And didn't God inspire humans?

Yes, and? So does a sunset, does that make it supernatural?

I'm not sure what you mean by untestable or how that is relevant.

It's relevant to the OP, and to the question of if something that's not subject to scientific evidence yet is also not supernatural.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is the evidence supporting your claims?

You are looking for a definition of natural, HZ, not evidence of a claim. At least try to make the question relevant.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

It's relevant to the OP, and to the question of if something that's not subject to scientific evidence yet is also not supernatural.

I'm not quite following this line of thought. How one words a question or problem might make it relevant to scientific exploration, but everything in the natural world is subject to investigation should one choose to ask a science question about it.


It would help if you could relate this to the point in the OP: that the evidence explaining what god beliefs are is ignored, and instead the assumption is made the belief is about a real thing. If that real thing is natural it is testable. Only when the scientific community contrives a definition of an untestable god does a god become untestable.

I am saying this approach assumes a conclusion, 'gods exist'. When in reality all we have is evidence 'belief in gods exist'. I am saying that if we really want to consider just the science here and not the politics, then we have evidence god beliefs are beliefs in mythical beings. We have no evidence god beliefs resulted from actual god encounters.

Some folks here want to argue that conclusion. Fine, but they need to argue it on the evidence not on the fact one could contrive an untestable god.

How is your untestable natural god relevant here? It makes no sense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If God is necessarily supernatural, then we have no quarrel. I guess I'm not thoroughly convinced that's the case, but at this point, that's more my problem to ponder than yours to solve.



The intelligence in my example has a substrate -- the matter and energy of the universe.

My little attempt to construct a naturalistic God. I won't be too hurt if you're not bowled over.

Same reply as above. I don't get your point. If the supposed god is natural, then how is it untestable?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Extreme rarity is better explained by cause than by random chance. ...

No Beth, it isn't. Diamonds are more rare than houses.

The same argument applies whether it is rarity or complexity.

 

[fls]

Which god? Jefferson's? Maybe, I don't know. I'm not god and I don't know if Jefferson ever addressed that particular item.

Wikipedia states that he was responsible for the reference to the rights of men as endowed by their Creator in the Declaration of Independence, so it does look like he considered God supernatural at least in the sense of creation.

Yes, and? So does a sunset, does that make it supernatural?

A sunset isn't considered conscious or an event that is arbitrary (i.e. that it occurs (or not) by intent).

It's relevant to the OP, and to the question of if something that's not subject to scientific evidence yet is also not supernatural.

Why would you say that the creation of the universe and morality are not subject to scientific evidence?

Linda

 

[Beth]

No Beth, it isn't. Diamonds are more rare than houses. The same argument applies whether it is rarity or complexity.

I simply disagree with this. For most scientific tests, the rarity of an observed outcome is how we determine whether the null hypothesis (which is typically that random chance can reasonably account for the observations) should be rejected or not. The relative rarity of an observation or set of observations, which is expressed as a probability, is a crucial component of scientific tests of hypotheses. Complexity doesn't enter into it other than as a potential factor in computing the theoretical probability of the observation under the null hypothesis of random chance.

 

[BjornTheCyborg]

Can you give some examples of things that Science is certain about?

Linda

What I said was that science requires certainty in it's conclusions. This is different than saying that science has concluded something to a point of certainty.

But since you asked, I would say that whole Earth revolving around the sun thing seems pretty certain.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You must have read a I post I didn't write. I didn't present a hypothesis, I just questioned yours.

I need to back up about something I didn't say and I need to understand why something else I didn't say isn't right??

Perhaps that could be said to be evidence that all my posts are imaginary .
...

You said that the Cargo cult could be an example of [.....] That is an hypothesis.

I said it was an example of [......] that tested an hypothesis.

Let's look at the 2 hypotheses, however, because I think it helps show the reason you are left with an hypothesis and I have an example supporting mine.

Yours: God beliefs could result from encounters with superior beings and those superior beings could be gods.
Mine: God beliefs result from encounters with natural events/beings/whatever, but not from encounters with real gods.

The Cargo cults could be seen as confirming your hypothesis. But you've only shown superior beings could have been gods. You have not shown that the superior beings the god beliefs were based on, were gods.

So while part of your hypothesis was tested, god beliefs resulted from encounters with superior beings, you have not tested all of your hypothesis, gods beliefs were the result of contact with real gods.

Whereas, my hypothesis, natural events/encounters led to god beliefs was directly tested if you consider the Cargo cults an experiment.

The only part of my hypothesis not tested, was did it apply to all god beliefs? But for that I am relying on other evidence, the commonness of known god myths, and the concept this best explains the evidence. The fact we can speculate on other explanations for the evidence is fine. But in the end, you go with what the evidence does support, not what it could support.

The problem with this particular topic is that so many people try so hard to fit the evidence to the conclusion, god(s) exist(s). That is not good science.

Alternative conclusions affect the certainty of your conclusions. That's fine. I think any scientific examination of the evidence supports the conclusion gods are mythical beings. But I don't mind at all that some people don't draw the same conclusion about the preponderance of evidence. And certainly lots of people have not actually looked at the preponderance of the evidence.

Excluding the question of how god beliefs developed, and the evidence that god beliefs are the result of human imagination (or not if that's your conclusion) as not being within the realm of science when they clearly are, is what my objection is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I simply disagree with this. For most scientific tests, the rarity of an observed outcome is how we determine whether the null hypothesis (which is typically that random chance can reasonably account for the observations) should be rejected or not. The relative rarity of an observation or set of observations, which is expressed as a probability, is a crucial component of scientific tests of hypotheses. Complexity doesn't enter into it other than as a potential factor in computing the theoretical probability of the observation under the null hypothesis of random chance.

I think you misunderstand how this statistic is calculated. Random chance is completely relevant to the rate of occurrence.

If something is common, say headaches, then the number of headaches coming from a drug has to be very large for it to be more common than chance.

If something is rare, say an allergic reaction, then the number of allergic reactions doesn't need to be very high to say it is more frequent than chance.

You can't say what it would take to be more common than by chance if you don't know the normal rate of occurrence, and we have nothing to compare something to. It is NOT rareness, it is relative rareness.

And even then, you've only shown a relationship. You haven't yet even shown causality. And just as with rareness or complexity, nothing about causality or an association alone implies design.

 

[Piscivore]

I'm not quite following this line of thought. How one words a question or problem might make it relevant to scientific exploration, but everything in the natural world is subject to investigation should one choose to ask a science question about it.

Quite so. I don't theink the question you are asking is a science question, because you start with the unwarranted assumtion that gods are not subjective and gods are inherently supernatural. That's not the case. Asking a question that's tailored to fit the evidence you do have to prove an hypothesis you want to be true is not science.

It would help if you could relate this to the point in the OP: that the evidence explaining what god beliefs are is ignored, and instead the assumption is made the belief is about a real thing.

That's the assumption that theists put forth, and which you wish to examine scientifically, is it not? Shouldn't you be investigating the hypothesis as presented?

Further, your assumption that "god = supernatural" specifically excludes the possibility that the belief could be about a real thing- because if it isn't a "real thing"- i.e. isn't supernatural- it's not god. That's not sound logic.

If that real thing is natural it is testable. Only when the scientific community contrives a definition of an untestable god does a god become untestable.

No, "god" is not testable because the definition of god is subjective, and subjective things are not testable.

I am saying this approach assumes a conclusion, 'gods exist'.

Actually, yours is much closer to assuming god exists, because your assumption seems to be that there is only one god to test for. Sure, you name drop "Zeus Pele Thor" what have you, but as fictional characters to be compared to and equated with "god"- the "real god"- not as part of the set "gods".

When in reality all we have is evidence 'belief in gods exist'.

What you mean to say is that no scientific evidence exists, but it can't, because subjectively defined entities are not scientifically testible themselves.

Subjective evidence is available for gods, just the same as subjective evidence is available to show something is beautiful. But these are not science.

I am saying that if we really want to consider just the science here and not the politics, then we have evidence god beliefs are beliefs in mythical beings.

We have evidence some god beliefs are beliefs in mythical beings. There's some evidence our earliest ancestors worshipped animals- both the ones that fed them, and the ones that fed on them. Are they "mythical" too? Or are they not gods, because they are "real"?

We have no evidence god beliefs resulted from actual god encounters.

Given that "god" is undefined in that sentence, it is nonsense. You yourself brought up the cargo cults, wherein their god is something very real, even if the beliefs surrounding the god are not factual.

Some folks here want to argue that conclusion. Fine, but they need to argue it on the evidence not on the fact one could contrive an untestable god.

I have not been arguing on that basis.

How is your untestable natural god relevant here? It makes no sense.

Of course not, because you assume that "god = supernatural". Why?

 

[Hokulele]

But since you asked, I would say that whole Earth revolving around the sun thing seems pretty certain.

Well, other than the picky little fact that it doesn't.

 

[Piscivore]

Wikipedia states that he was responsible for the reference to the rights of men as endowed by their Creator in the Declaration of Independence, so it does look like he considered God supernatural at least in the sense of creation.

How does that follow?

And I'd be wary to consider a document that was plainly written as political polemic as outlining a point of theology.

A sunset isn't considered conscious or an event that is arbitrary (i.e. that it occurs (or not) by intent).

Okay... another person can inspire. How is "insipring people" proof of supernaturality?

Why would you say that the creation of the universe and morality are not subject to scientific evidence?

Linda

In the case of the creation of the universe, as of now we have relatively little evidence of how the creation of the universe happened, and only hypotheses to explain it. And, in fact, I specifically said that Jefferson would most likely accept whatever scientific evidence was available. The point of that was that his belief that god was the creator was likely based on the absence of evidence- or the means to gather it- in his own time of any scientific notion of the origin of the universe.

Morality, on the other hand is entirely subjective. Some people and cultures value security over liberty, some the opposite. Some people and cultures value rights to property over rights to life, others do not. Some people value virginity and sexual abstinence, some do not. How does one determine scientifically what everyone values, when no one values the same things?

 

[Beth]

I think you misunderstand how this statistic is calculated. Random chance is completely relevant to the rate of occurrence.

Right. I've no argument with this.

If something is common, say headaches, then the number of headaches coming from a drug has to be very large for it to be more common than chance.

If something is rare, say an allergic reaction, then the number of allergic reactions doesn't need to be very high to say it is more frequent than chance.
You can't say what it would take to be more common than by chance if you don't know the normal rate of occurrence, and we have nothing to compare something to. It is NOT rareness, it is relative rareness.

I've no disagreement with any of this. Nor does it contradict anything I've said.

However, in the case we are discussing, the seeming 'fine-tuning' of the universe and the possibility that it is a hologram, we do have ways of computing what the theoretical probability of that occuring by random chance assuming our current physical models of the universe are correct. That probability has been computed by well-respected physicists are being very very low.

And even then, you've only shown a relationship. You haven't yet even shown causality. And just as with rareness or complexity, nothing about causality or an association alone implies design.

Yes, I'm aware that causality is not demostrated. Nor have I claimed that it was. It is simply being hypothesized as one possible cause. I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

 

[Piscivore]

Well, other than the picky little fact that it doesn't.

It doesn't?

 

[Beth]

It doesn't?

I think she means that the earth revolves around the N-S axis and orbits the sun. Definitely a picky little fact. His meaning was clear even if his terminology was correct.

 

[Piscivore]

I think she means that the earth revolves around the N-S axis and orbits the sun. Definitely a picky little fact. His meaning was clear even if his terminology was correct.

What's it doing while it orbits...?

 

[Hokulele]

Nope, but that is nice and pedantic as well.

I meant that both the sun and earth co-orbit their common center of mass. Neither object is fixed at the center of anything.

 

[Piscivore]

Nope, but that is nice and pedantic as well.

I meant that both the sun and earth co-orbit their common center of mass. Neither object is fixed at the center of anything.

But in the course of so co-orbiting, the earth travels a path that takes it around the sun, and it is revolving as it does so, yes?

I don't see where he said that anything was fixed or at the centre of anything...

 

[BillyJoe]

The Earth rotates about its axis and revolves around the common centre of gravity of the Earth and the Sun.

But it doesn't even do that.
There's the effect of the moon and the lesser effect of the planets and the infinitesmal effects of the other masses in our galaxies and the vanishingly small effect of the other galaxies in the universe.

Which brings us back to the original point that conclusions are never certain in science.

BJ