Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[BjornTheCyborg]

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?

Alright fine, I'll bite.

We invoke the laws of probability/statistics; all of which are mathematically proven to a point of certainty.

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.

I see.....so I was claiming that something didn't make sense and now you want me to explain why it "wasn't nonsense". Do you see my problem?

 

[fls]

Alright fine, I'll bite.

We invoke the laws of probability/statistics; all of which are mathematically proven to a point of certainty.

I see.....so I was claiming that something didn't make sense and now you want me to explain why it "wasn't nonsense". Do you see my problem?

You claimed that science always requires certainty in its conclusions. This doesn't make sense to me, since it seems that science simply deals with relative certainty instead. And if science deals with relative certainty, then Skeptigirl's statement to that effect did not deserve your ire.

I'm simply trying to understand what you think science does differently in the face of absolute certainty rather than relative certainty.

Linda

 

[BjornTheCyborg]

You claimed that science always requires certainty in its conclusions. This doesn't make sense to me, since it seems that science simply deals with relative certainty instead. And if science deals with relative certainty, then Skeptigirl's statement to that effect did not deserve your ire.

I'm simply trying to understand what you think science does differently in the face of absolute certainty rather than relative certainty.

Linda

Nothing. There does that answer your question?

Skeptigirl Said: "Science does not require certainty to draw conclusions, and in fact, certainty is almost never known in scientific conclusions."


So any fact learned about reality,through science, is not certain?

How useful do you think science would be if Skeptigirl's statement were true?

 

[paximperium]

So any fact learned about reality,through science, is not certain?

Yes. Nothing in science is ever 100% certain.

How useful do you think science would be if Skeptigirl's statement were true?

Very very very useful since science is self-correcting and always liable to change and correction as new things are learnt and discovered.

 

[fls]

Nothing. There does that answer your question?

Skeptigirl Said: "Science does not require certainty to draw conclusions, and in fact, certainty is almost never known in scientific conclusions."


So any fact learned about reality,through science, is not certain?

Pretty much. It's always subject to revision. First the earth revolved around the sun, then they both revolved around a common center of mass, and now they both are moving in a curved space-time.

How useful do you think science would be if Skeptigirl's statement were true?

Exquisitely useful.

Linda

 

[BillyJoe]

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 .

This idea seemed to coincide with the onset of his dementia.
(Antony flew over the cuckoos nest)

 

[BjornTheCyborg]

Yes. Nothing in science is ever 100% certain.

Very very very useful since science is self-correcting and always liable to change and correction as new things are learnt and discovered.

Pretty much. It's always subject to revision. First the earth revolved around the sun, then they both revolved around a common center of mass, and now they both are moving in a curved space-time.

Exquisitely useful.

Linda

Interesting.

So all those physics formulas we use when engineering things like bridges and buildings were all discovered by scientists who were "relatively certain" that they would work.

 

[Beth]

Interesting.

So all those physics formulas we use when engineering things like bridges and buildings were all discovered by scientists who were "relatively certain" that they would work.

Yes. In fact, they probably calculated the exact certainty they had that it would work and designed to ensure that it was better than 99%.

 

[fls]

Interesting.

So all those physics formulas we use when engineering things like bridges and buildings were all discovered by scientists who were "relatively certain" that they would work.

Yes.

Linda

 

[Malerin]

Pretty much. It's always subject to revision. First the earth revolved around the sun, then they both revolved around a common center of mass, and now they both are moving in a curved space-time.

How uncertain are you that the Earth is flat? Use the traditional epistemic scale of 0 being logically impossible, and 1 being logically necessary.

 

[BjornTheCyborg]

Yes. In fact, they probably calculated the exact certainty they had that it would work and designed to ensure that it was better than 99%.

How does one calculate the exact certainty of something?

Yes.

Linda

So when you drive across a bridge you're ok with being "relatively certain" that it won't collapse?

 

[paximperium]

Interesting.

So all those physics formulas we use when engineering things like bridges and buildings were all discovered by scientists who were "relatively certain" that they would work.

Yes. A "formula" for a bridge may not be perfect but it is good enough at that level.

An engineer does not need to know the curved-space equations of gravity or the reaction of gluons and bosons at the sub-atomic level of steel. His formulas for building a bridge are "good enough".

 

[paximperium]

How does one calculate the exact certainty of something?

There are multiple different semi-formal and formal systems to do so. Bayesian Statistics is one such way.

So when you drive across a bridge you're ok with being "relatively certain" that it won't collapse?

Yes.
So when you fly on a plane are you 100% certain it won't crash?
When you walk towards the bathroom are you 100% certain you won't slip and fall?

 

[Beth]

How does one calculate the exact certainty of something?

With those physics formulas you referenced earlier and test data on the materials that were used to build the bridge.

So when you drive across a bridge you're ok with being "relatively certain" that it won't collapse?

Do I have any choice? I suppose I could just never set foot on a bridge ever, but that isn't very realistic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

This is fitting the evidence to the conclusion.

You can say that god makes sense to you. But you cannot say there is any evidence for that because you've merely hypothesized what a god would do. And there is nothing to base your hypothesis on.

Complexity, rarity, & elegance are all qualities that say nothing about gods and designers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

It isn't our science necessarily that differs. You don't seem to be separating the ideas of imagination, contemplation, & proof, from the concept of following the evidence to the conclusion it supports.

I do believe that imagining a positron, however, was not based on myths about matter. I'm assuming it was based on hypothesizing something to explain some data that had been observed.

Could gods exist? Yes. But what does the evidence support? It supports the conclusion god myths are very common throughout the history of human populations. Why is that evidence not good enough or sufficient enough to apply to current god beliefs? What is stopping you from drawing a conclusion here?

Is there really any evidence suggesting there are mythical gods and real gods? Evidence, not wishful thinking or hypotheses, is sorely lacking. In fact, it is lacking to such an extent that untestable gods had to be hypothesized to continue to avoid drawing a conclusion about all the existing evidence revealing the mythical nature of god beliefs.

 

[Beth]

This is fitting the evidence to the conclusion.

An interesting claim since I've specified I haven't come to any conclusion - I'm quite comfortable saying I don't know - and of the available hypotheses, the god hypothesis is not my preferred one.

You can say that god makes sense to you. But you cannot say there is any evidence for that because you've merely hypothesized what a god would do. And there is nothing to base your hypothesis on.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree here. I've given you my reasoning. You are free to reject it. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right; I'm just sharing my opinion.

Complexity, rarity, & elegance are all qualities that say nothing about gods and designers.

I think you've confused me with someone else. I'm never claimed anything about complexity or elegance and all I claimed for rarity was that it indicated that random chance was not a likely explanation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How uncertain are you that the Earth is flat? Use the traditional epistemic scale of 0 being logically impossible, and 1 being logically necessary.

The uncertainty principle in science applies to theories, not observable facts. So you can be certain the Earth is not flat, but you can never say with absolute certainty the theory of gravity completely explains the shape of the Earth.

 

[fls]

How uncertain are you that the Earth is flat? Use the traditional epistemic scale of 0 being logically impossible, and 1 being logically necessary.

I'm not uncertain about whether the Earth is flat. Did you mean to ask me how certain I was? And when you say "logically impossible", what do you mean considering that the shape of the earth is a posteriori, rather than a priori knowledge?

Linda

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Interesting.

So all those physics formulas we use when engineering things like bridges and buildings were all discovered by scientists who were "relatively certain" that they would work.

Yes. And as evidence, I give you, Galloping Gertie.


That would be that pesky .0001% of uncertainty in bridge design.