Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
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....

You are missing the important part of the point. Say you've determined it is extremely rare that the Universe has occurred the way ours has. Now you have to compare that to something else, in this case, the frequency of god created universes. Only then would you see that the god created universes occur more often than one would expect by chance.

In other words it isn't how rare or not rare something is, it is how the thing you want to test COMPARES to the baseline. All you have is the proposed baseline.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

I am talking only about the scientific evidence here. I make no assumptions. I am saying look at the evidence.

1) There are thousands of gods the evidence supports are myths.
2) There are no gods with clear evidence they exist.
3) We have observed natural events that developed into god myths.

What evidence are you suggesting we look at? Or why are you suggesting we not look at the evidence I listed?

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?

First, there is no evidence of any god. So based on that, you suggest I should take a Deist claim, that they make no claims and they believe in an untestable god, and ignore all the evidence that every other god belief is a myth as if that had no bearing on a god belief I am evaluating?

Sorry, I'm not tossing all the evidence that supports the hypothesis, all god beliefs are myths, because someone claims their god belief is the special belief that is not a myth. I am going to apply the evidence. That is science.

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.

This is silly. I am saying god beliefs are based on real events. There were no magical beings the Cargo cults based their god beliefs on.

If you want to test the hypothesis gods are real, go for it. Just don't tell us that because you can describe an untestable god, we should therefore not apply all the evidence we know about god myths to god beliefs.

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

So science has nothing to say about Thor, Pele, Mars, Zeus, Venus, Aphrodite, and science has nothing to say about the human trait of developing god myths?

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".

So god myths and supposed 'real' gods are totally unrelated? You know the one true god and all the rest of the god beliefs are myths.

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

God myths, we can safely call myths. You know the one true god and all the rest of the god beliefs are myths?

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

If I define criteria for beauty, I can use the scientific process to investigate beauty. The criteria for what is beautiful evolved and did not enter the human brain by magic. God beliefs also did not enter the human brain by magic. We can look at the evidence for both of these, subjective judgment of beauty and god beliefs, and we can determine how these human judgments/beliefs developed. And low and behold, nature and nurture explain the origin of both. No gods, no unique human qualities magically bestowed upon us are needed.

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"?

So, do you have any evidence real gods account for any god beliefs?

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.


I have not been arguing on that basis.


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

If god beliefs are the result of natural events, what are you arguing for? We are on the same page.

 

[BillyJoe]

Hey, you can pass if you're sick of this, but...

But science already supposedly has nothing to say about a Deist god. And I'm saying the pattern of god myths applies to all gods including a deist god. Your scenario did not make a difference in my logic structure of this problem.

I'm sorry there was an obvious and unintended error in my post but I'll have to backtrack to show why it should have been obvious, and then to ask a question.

We are asking the question: does science have anything to say about the existence of god?
First, science can obviously have something to say about the theist god because, by definition, he interacts with nature.
Second, science can obviously also have something to say about the natural god being described here - the cargo cult god, the whole earth god - for the same reason.
But it seems science is having some difficulty having something to say about the non-interventionist deist god. I was trying to develop a scenario where science can have something to say about the deist god. Unfortunately that something turns out to be that the deist god is non-natural/supernatural.

If at some time in the future, science has a theory of everything excluding how something came from nothing, and if that situation had obtained for 10,000 years, would you not accept that natural explanations had been exhausted for that final unsolved puzzle? You said you would prefer it to remain as an unsolved puzzle but, isn't it true that, although it is indeed an unsolved puzzle, it is a puzzle for which there can be no natural explanation, all natural explanations having been exhasuted?

BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

Okay, I think that is what I was getting at. We would find the idea of causelessness unsatisfactory and would therefore make up a cause (i.e. the deist god).

Before giving it a name, couldn't we just say that we have one final puzzle for which there can be no natural explanation, all natural explanations having being exhausted?

I will admit that I cannot imagine, even 10,000 years from now, how science/naturalism would consider that a satisfactory solution given that it simply raises far more questions than it answers, but it is certainly consistent with human nature.

I was not saying 10,000 years from now, I was saying that the scenario where one final puzzle remained unexplained had obtained (lasted) for 10,000 years. Maybe it does raise more questions than it answers but, if natural explanations have been exhausted, there is nowhere to go but non-natural explanations.
(And since when does science not raise more questions than it answers )

My next question is, would that god have anything to do with the gods we have now, considering that none of the information that would give us the idea about that god is currently available to us?

No. That was not my intention. I was developing a scenario where science can have something to say even about the non-interventionist deist god.

But as far as we can tell, we don't have something - that is, a particle has one value or the other, but there is no cause as to which it is. The value (e.g. spin direction) comes from nothing.

But, there is something that existed before the thing that exists next and, if I understand correctly, the probabilities of what exists next is based on the something that existed before.
On the other hand, for the question: how something came from nothing, there is nothing that exsited before. Not quantum physics, not probability, not possibility. Nothing.

Broken symmetry. One property that Nothing has is symmetry.

I'm not sure how Nothing - non-existence - can have any property.

I admit that it makes no sense to me that when we encounter "I don't know", inserting an entity with magical powers will be considered justifiably preferable to just leaving it be.

I agree - unless all natural explanations have been exhausted. Then, of necessity, we would have to accept that there must be a non-natural explanation.

 

[Cainkane1]

My experience with Diests is this. They believe God created our solar system and then went elsewhere. They believe prayers a waste of time and there is no life after death. Of course there is no way to test for this god. Professor Anthony Flew came to believe that the complexity of DNA was proof that a creator exists and that after creating these self replicating molecules he left the creatures to develope on their own. However there has been much rebuttle in the scientific community against his idea.

 

[Beth]

You are missing the important part of the point. Say you've determined it is extremely rare that the Universe has occurred the way ours has. Now you have to compare that to something else, in this case, the frequency of god created universes. Only then would you see that the god created universes occur more often than one would expect by chance.

In other words it isn't how rare or not rare something is, it is how the thing you want to test COMPARES to the baseline. All you have is the proposed baseline.

I think it's a reasonable assumption that if a universe were created by an intelligent designer, then the probability that it contains life is considerably higher than the odds currently given by the physicists for ours. If you don't agree, that's fine. As I said earlier, this is just my take on it.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

ETA: Naturalistic doesn't just mean 'material', though. It also refers to the process of forming ideas by reference to material events. A universal intelligence isn't really an idea that comes from reference to natural events (i.e. observations that make the explanation useful, necessary, and sufficient), but is rather the product of wishful thinking that isn't necessarily excluded by observation...yet.

Linda

I guess I have a slightly different view of science from you and, I suspect, skeptigirl. Useful, necessary and sufficient is good, but it leaves out a legitimate interest in the merely possible.

When Dirac proposed the positron, it wasn't answering any question or resolving any observation. It wasn't even useful (at that point). It was simply allowed by a certain equation. Physicists were pleasantly surprised when the thing was actually discovered. Much the same can be said of de Broglie's matter waves.

And that's the spirit in which I offer the God of the Self-Aware Universe. Purely hypothetical does not mean unscientific. Unfortunately for me, we need to take measurements in extragalactic space to prove the theory; but maybe the Nobel committee will change its rules and award the prize to my great, great, great, great grandkids.

The economy being what it is, they may need the cash.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

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

I'm proposing a testable God. It's just not testable with today's technology (see above).

 

[fls]

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.

They are related. If you wish to claim that science requires certainty, it implies that science makes some sort of distinction based on whether or not something is certain - i.e. it treats those things that are uncertain differently. How do you think science treats uncertainty given that almost all of what falls under the process of 'scientific inquiry' would probably be considered uncertain?

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

So how would a scientist treat the discovery that that conclusion is contradicted by observation?

Linda

 

[fls]

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

Where does this idea come from? We test all sorts of things that are subjective - health, intelligence, beauty, etc.

Linda

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

I think it's a reasonable assumption that if a universe were created by an intelligent designer, then the probability that it contains life is considerably higher than the odds currently given by the physicists for ours. If you don't agree, that's fine. As I said earlier, this is just my take on it.

I don't agree, since that's assuming that an itelligent designer would be more likely to be interested in creating life than not.

 

[fls]

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.

I agree. You obviously have some idea of a god that you think Jefferson followed, and I will probably be unable to guess what is in your mind. Why don't you simply describe that god for me.

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

I don't think inspiring people is the element that is supernatural. It is that god inspires in a way that is like a person, except that god is not an ordinary person like your next-door-neighbour. It is an entity that doesn't depend upon a material form.

I'm not asking you to agree to something that you don't want to agree to. You don't need to agree that specific labels can be attached to gods. I'm simply looking at what it is that people actually say about gods, what it is that they do for people, and considering whether or not those characteristics are amenable to scientific inquiry. People claim that anything that is supernatural is not amenable to scientific inquiry. I'm pointing out that what people actually mean, when they make reference to the supernatural nature of gods, are things that are amenable to scientific inquiry. And for those gods which do not have supernatural characteristics, their ability to be a useful explanatory/organizing force is also amenable to scientific inquiry (since much of what science is about is looking for useful explanatory/organizing forces).

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.

That does seem to be a common sort of god - it serves as a placeholder until science elucidates a cause, at which point it gets knocked out of place. Again, that sort of god is affected by or subject to scientific inquiry.

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?

One can measure the utility of various outcomes, values can be surveyed and described, the effects of natural selection on moral/ethics can be studied...

The issues that you describe apply to other areas of inquiry (such as health) that are unquestionably valid science. Subjectivity/objectivity does not represent a means of making the distinction between amenable to science and not.

Linda

 

[fls]

Before giving it a name, couldn't we just say that we have one final puzzle for which there can be no natural explanation, all natural explanations having being exhausted?

I think I misunderstood your intent. I think that we are actually working to the same goal (based on your other posts as well).

I agree that it is possible to discover barriers to knowledge - the Uncertainty Principle as an example. And that it would be reasonable to attempt to use that information to say something about just what it is that is beyond the reach of Naturalism.

I was not saying 10,000 years from now, I was saying that the scenario where one final puzzle remained unexplained had obtained (lasted) for 10,000 years. Maybe it does raise more questions than it answers but, if natural explanations have been exhausted, there is nowhere to go but non-natural explanations.

I realize that you weren't necessarily saying only 10,000 years. The spirit of the idea is that the time that passes is excessive compared to the length of time in which we expect to make discoveries. And that maybe conclusions could be drawn from that. I agree.

No. That was not my intention. I was developing a scenario where science can have something to say even about the non-interventionist deist god.

Okay. And that is my intent as well.

But, there is something that existed before the thing that exists next and, if I understand correctly, the probabilities of what exists next is based on the something that existed before.

No. That is the point of Bell's Theorem. It indicates that there is nothing that can be used to figure out what will exist next. Nothing underlies the choice of which value the particle takes.

On the other hand, for the question: how something came from nothing, there is nothing that exsited before. Not quantum physics, not probability, not possibility. Nothing.

I'm not sure how Nothing - non-existence - can have any property.

That's the beauty of my idea. It's a property that must be present (any asymmetry would make it not Nothing), so it's a way to say something about Nothing.

I agree - unless all natural explanations have been exhausted. Then, of necessity, we would have to accept that there must be a non-natural explanation.

I think that what your approach represents is the attempt to prove a universal negative - the entire universe has been searched and no additional non-gods have been found. My approach has been from the other direction, where 'gods' are found and discovered to be non-gods without concern as to whether the search has been exhaustive. And I think that is one of the points under discussion - scientific inquiry and tentative conclusions proceed even in the absence of exhaustive searches. The extent to which our knowledge is complete is built into our assumptions. Incompleteness does not serve as a barrier that prevents us from attempting to form conclusions.

Linda

 

[Beth]

I don't agree, since that's assuming that an itelligent designer would be more likely to be interested in creating life than not.

No, you don't have to make that particular assumption. I've seen one physicist say that what our universe appears to be fine-tuned to create is black holes. It seems that for the majority of possible values of the various constants that physicists feel are possible end up with uninteresting universes composed of nothing but clouds of dust. So we need only assume that an intelligent creator prefers universes full of clumps of matter that give rise to interesting phenomena like like planets, stars, galaxies, black holes, etc. I don't find that to be an unreasonable assumption. At least, I don't find it any more unreasonable than the assumption that there exist trillions of other universes and by chance alone at least one has the values that ours does so that life can emerge.

 

[Piscivore]

I agree. You obviously have some idea of a god that you think Jefferson followed, and I will probably be unable to guess what is in your mind. Why don't you simply describe that god for me.

I did.

I don't think inspiring people is the element that is supernatural.

Then why mention it?

It is that god inspires in a way that is like a person, except that god is not an ordinary person like your next-door-neighbour.

Unquestionably.

It is an entity that doesn't depend upon a material form.

Why do you make that assumption?

I'm not asking you to agree to something that you don't want to agree to. You don't need to agree that specific labels can be attached to gods. I'm simply looking at what it is that people actually say about gods, what it is that they do for people, and considering whether or not those characteristics are amenable to scientific inquiry.

That's fine.

People claim that anything that is supernatural is not amenable to scientific inquiry. I'm pointing out that what people actually mean, when they make reference to the supernatural nature of gods, are things that are amenable to scientific inquiry.

Agreed.

And for those gods which do not have supernatural characteristics, their ability to be a useful explanatory/organizing force is also amenable to scientific inquiry (since much of what science is about is looking for useful explanatory/organizing forces).

Right, each on their own, according to the claims made. But not generally.

That does seem to be a common sort of god - it serves as a placeholder until science elucidates a cause, at which point it gets knocked out of place. Again, that sort of god is affected by or subject to scientific inquiry.

Agreed.

One can measure the utility of various outcomes,

But that only tells you how well the outcome aligns with the subjective value, not whether the value itself is "better" or "worse" than another.

If you think that safety is of greater value than individual liberty, then the utility of mandatory seatbelt laws and product safety laws aligns with that value. If you favour "caveat emptor" and less government intrusion, they do not.

values can be surveyed and described,

But this tells you nothing about which value is objectively "better"- just what the differences are.

You can explain in great detail why one person finds a Pollack or a Donatello beautiful, but that's not going to have any bearing on if another berson finds them beautiful or not.

the effects of natural selection on moral/ethics can be studied...

That just means that there is (or was) an environmental pressure affecting a behaviour that impacted reproduction and survivability. Were that pressure to change, natural selection could very well move behaviour in the opposite direction. Unless you are claiming that natural selection is goal based to a certain objective end?

Is the mating dance of the honeybee "better" or "worse" than the firefly's light show?

The issues that you describe apply to other areas of inquiry (such as health) that are unquestionably valid science.

Really? In health, your body is working properly, or it is not. There's only one way in which it can function that's "best". All humans are essentially the same, even if not identical- a doctor can look at any human anywhere and evaluate their health based on the same training and tests he uses for any other human. That's objective.

That's not the case with morality. A person can be "not functioning properly"- behaving outside the accepted parameters of the society he is in at the time- in one culture, but the same behaviour may be the norm in another. That's subjective.

Subjectivity/objectivity does not represent a means of making the distinction between amenable to science and not.

Yeah, it does.

 

[BjornTheCyborg]

They are related. If you wish to claim that science requires certainty, it implies that science makes some sort of distinction based on whether or not something is certain - i.e. it treats those things that are uncertain differently. How do you think science treats uncertainty given that almost all of what falls under the process of 'scientific inquiry' would probably be considered uncertain?

If science were uncertain about all it's conclusions then we would be unable to apply any of what we learn in a practical manner.

So how would a scientist treat the discovery that that conclusion is contradicted by observation?
Linda

Yeah............you tell me.

 

[BjornTheCyborg]

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.

Did I say that anything about an object being fixed?

Fine, you win. The Earth does not orbit the Sun.

 

[fls]

Then why mention it?

It's an example of ways in which properties of material beings are transferred to a being that's immaterial.

Why do you make that assumption?

Because that is one of reasons given for why science does not find gods - that they do not have a material form and are therefore not expected to be detectable.

But that only tells you how well the outcome aligns with the subjective value, not whether the value itself is "better" or "worse" than another.

Many properties can only be described in relation to something else. There isn't an absolute standard against which motion can be measured, for example.

But this tells you nothing about which value is objectively "better"- just what the differences are.

Right, but this is a feature of much of science, including the hard sciences.

You can explain in great detail why one person finds a Pollack or a Donatello beautiful, but that's not going to have any bearing on if another berson finds them beautiful or not.

Sure it can. Interesting studies have been made of specific features like symmetries. Or if you analyze the complexity of the fractal patterns in paintings, like those of Pollack's, and compare it to patterns in nature and mathematically generated patterns, you discover that humans have a preference for complexity which falls within a specific range.

That just means that there is (or was) an environmental pressure affecting a behaviour that impacted reproduction and survivability. Were that pressure to change, natural selection could very well move behaviour in the opposite direction. Unless you are claiming that natural selection is goal based to a certain objective end?

I thought that was my point...that 'objective' is not necessary.

Is the mating dance of the honeybee "better" or "worse" than the firefly's light show?

That all depends upon how you define 'better' or 'worse', which is how science operates. For example, one could define 'better' as 'efficient use of resources' and measure how much expenditure of energy is involved per mating incident. Or one could measure the success rate (proportion of insects that mate or the number of incidents). Or 'worse' could be the number of insects that do not survive the mating ritual - perhaps by attracting the attention of predators or by exhaustion.

Really? In health, your body is working properly, or it is not. There's only one way in which it can function that's "best". All humans are essentially the same, even if not identical- a doctor can look at any human anywhere and evaluate their health based on the same training and tests he uses for any other human. That's objective.

That is simply not the case. Outcomes in health are my area of research, and if this were true, it would certainly make my life easier, but 'how' and 'what' to measure is a complex issue. It ranges from fairly simple measures, like dead or alive, to issues like 'well-being'. And while the presence or absence of disease can reasonably be determined, sorta, quantifying or even identifying disability or discomfort is difficult.

The same process by which we identify outcomes of interest and measures as to how closely someone conforms to that outcome, can be applied to moral questions. Interestingly, 'health' is often used as an outcome by which to determine whether something is moral.

That's not the case with morality. A person can be "not functioning properly"- behaving outside the accepted parameters of the society he is in at the time- in one culture, but the same behaviour may be the norm in another. That's subjective.

That's okay. Because the same thing applies to health. For example, sexual satisfaction may be a sign of well-being in one culture and unimportant to well-being in another. Or a quite different range of BMI may be associated with Quality Adjusted Life Years in one society compared to a different society.

Linda

 

[Piscivore]

I am talking only about the scientific evidence here. I make no assumptions.

Yes, you are. Here are all the unstated premises (assumptions) that need to ALL be true for your hypothesis to work:

1) There are thousands of gods the evidence supports are myths.

Assumption #1: That this has any bearing on other gods that may or may not be supported by evidence as myth. This is a fallacy of hasty generalisation. There may be gods that are not myths. Indeed, we know that there are- the C-47. The mammoth. The Universe. One can get around this fallacy by making another assumption-

Assumption #2: All gods are have the same properties and the same qualities. ("god = supernatural") If this were true then we can make the conclusion that what holds true for one god holds true for another. Since there are claims about gods that do not require them to be supernatural, this is a fallacy of accident, another generalisation error.

2) There are no gods with clear evidence they exist.

Assumption #3: Gods (like the C-47) for which clear evidence they exist is available are not "real gods".
Another fallacy, this time, the Scotsman. See Assumption #2.

Thinking that your premise #1 demonstrates this assumption is true is another fallacy, petitio principii:
Gods are myths if they are supernatural.
Gods are supernatural.
Therefore, gods are myths.

Assumption #4: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is the Negative Proof fallacy, a form of argument from ignorance.

3) We have observed natural events that developed into god myths.

So, the fact that there are mythic beliefs about something is not a valid test of that thing's existence, and has nothing to do with some other thing's existence. All the evidence debunking Bigfoot as a fairy tale has no bearing whatsoever on the Loch Ness monster.

Sorry, I'm not tossing all the evidence that supports the hypothesis, all god beliefs are myths, because someone claims their god belief is the special belief that is not a myth.

That's not why it is an invalid hypothesis. The hypothesis is invalid because it is logically flawed. It just. Does. Not. Work.

That's why the scientific community won't accept it, not because of politics, not because of some imaginary "double standard". It's not logical, SG.

This is silly. I am saying god beliefs are based on real events. There were no magical beings the Cargo cults based their god beliefs on.

Why does a god need to be a "magical being"?

If you want to test the hypothesis gods are real, go for it. Just don't tell us that because you can describe an untestable god, we should therefore not apply all the evidence we know about god myths to god beliefs.

Do so, but don't do it riddled with fallacy and error.

So science has nothing to say about Thor, Pele, Mars, Zeus, Venus, Aphrodite,

Whatever it has to say about Thor, Pele, Mars, Zeus, Venus, Aphrodite applies only to Thor, Pele, Mars, Zeus, Venus, Aphrodite. And you can't come to any conclusions about Pele because science says Thor doesn't cause lightning.

and science has nothing to say about the human trait of developing god myths?

God myths are not gods.

So god myths and supposed 'real' gods are totally unrelated?

Yes. We know that people make up things about real entities, so having a myth made up about sonthing is no test of its existence. New York Does not cease to be real because of "When Harry Met Sally". Socrates and Lincoln are not myths because of "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure".

You know the one true god and all the rest of the god beliefs are myths.

Um, I'm the one saying all gods are different, you know. Do pay attention.

God myths, we can safely call myths.

But that says nothing about the existence of gods.

If I define criteria for beauty, I can use the scientific process to investigate beauty.

And if one defines a god, we can use the scientific process to investigate that god. But the definitions of "beauty" and "god" may be- and very likely are- different for someone else.

All the rest is false dichotomy- the only oprions are not "your hypothesis" or "magic".

So, do you have any evidence real gods account for any god beliefs?

Irrelevant. I do not have to prove the converse of your hypothesis to be true in order for your hypothesis to be logically invalid. That's the Negative Proof Fallacy again.

If god beliefs are the result of natural events, what are you arguing for? We are on the same page.

Becuase you are using a faulty argument to come to a conclusion that is unwarranted. That I happen to agree with the conclusion is irrelevant. A bad argument is a bad argument, and it's not science, it's not skepticism, and it's dangerous and misleading.

 

[fls]

If science were uncertain about all it's conclusions then we would be unable to apply any of what we learn in a practical manner.

But if we do not have a way to proceed in the face of uncertainty, how can we get to the point where we are certain about anything?

Yeah............you tell me.

You're the one who claimed something that didn't make sense in a fairly adamant manner. I was asking for you to explain why it wasn't nonsense.

Linda