Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

The conclusion I am speaking of here that you have drawn is that rarity supports god design. And I say rarity does not. Your agnosticism is another matter. I'm only saying here that there is no case for rarity being evidence of design or no design.

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.

Which is why I enjoyed your company when you visited.

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.

No, I merely added those two qualities because all three have come up between this and the related thread as the same argument supposedly supporting evidence of design. I said complexity and you clarified you were talking about rarity. The exact same reasoning applies to all three qualities of an item.

 

[Beth]

The conclusion I am speaking of here that you have drawn is that rarity supports god design. And I say rarity does not.

You have misunderstood me then. What I have said is that rarity supports a hypothesis other than random chance. I also said a designer is one such hypothesis, but I did not mean to imply that rarity supported it specifically and only it.

Which is why I enjoyed your company when you visited.

I'm glad you did!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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



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

OK, now I see where you tried to go with this one. That leaves, no answer or a supernatural answer.

The problem here is I don't believe there is any evidence the supernatural exists. When something exists, it is no longer supernatural even if it is stranger than we could have imagined, even if it turned out to be a god being. So I'm still left with no answer and see your version as just making an answer up. As such, that answer would be meaningless.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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


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-

An assumption would precede the evidence. I am saying all gods looked at carefully turn out to be myths. One can draw a conclusion about uninvestigated gods because the evidence supports a consistent pattern. Have we looked at every single organism before concluding they all evolved? When you see a new tree species you've never seen before, can you usually recognize it is a tree or do you need to investigate each one to draw any conclusion about their treeness?

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.

Same answer as above.

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.

Regardless of how the C-47 was perceived, it was a natural object.

The 'No True Scotsman' is not applicable to evolution theory is it? Does it apply to recognizing a tree?

Evidence > Theory formed > Hypothesis formed in order to test theory > Hypothesis confirmed > Theory supported

That's all I'm saying here. I'm pointing out this evidence and conclusion are ignored. I am not saying someone shouldn't look at the evidence. I invite people to argue the evidence. What I object to is developing definitions of untestable gods and proclaiming one cannot prove gods don't exist.

I say, what does the evidence say about god beliefs and why is that the theory which must not be mentioned? If you really think the thousands of mythical gods still leaves room for one of those to be a real god, I say you are ignoring reality.

But if you want to ignore reality, go for it. PRESENT THE EVIDENCE REAL GODS EXIST. But don't tell me it is science that because I cannot prove a specially defined god doesn't exist this is evidence against the conclusion all god beliefs are myths.

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.

This misconstrues the theory I presented.

Evidence for the theory > there is an observable pattern > there is no evidence supporting the conclusion there are two patterns here, real gods and imaginary gods

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

No no, now you are way off base. Can you prove you will never come across a plant that looks like a tree but turns out to be a fungus? Does that stop you from recognizing a tree when you see one?

THEORY!, Pisci, THEORY!!! Myths explain the evidence behind god beliefs.

Not, disprove gods exist.

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.

More far fetched stretching here. This makes you look desperate.

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.

Lots of foot stamping here, not a lot of evidence supporting the conclusion god beliefs are not myths.


Look what I've done! It just dawned on me. This makes the person making the claims responsible for the evidence. PROVE GODS EXIST. I no longer have to prove they do not exist.

I'm happy to argue the theory based on the evidence. Prove gods exist. I have lots of evidence god myths exist.

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

Because that is supposedly what makes it untestable in science which is what this is all about.

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

I haven't.

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.

See first answer above.

God myths are not gods.

Of course they are not. That's the point. No evidence of gods, only evidence of god myths.

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".

See first answer above.

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

See first answer regarding patterns. Anthropology has a lot to say about the human trait of developing god myths.

But that says nothing about the existence of gods.

If all god beliefs are imaginary and there is no evidence real gods interacted with people resulting in god beliefs, ..... you take it from there.

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".


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.


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.

This just all runs on in the same theme. See the first answer above.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have misunderstood me then. What I have said is that rarity supports a hypothesis other than random chance.

No, it does not. P values only apply when you compare frequency of a baseline to frequency after applying the change.

I'm telling you that you've misinterpreted what is meant by probability in the research example you are thinking of.

There is absolute rarity here and relative rarity. The research you noted only looks at relative rarity and you are trying to apply absolute rarity.

You're an engineer and I'm pretty sure you understand the math. Take a look at the formula to get the probability you are referring to. You will see it compares baseline to the study condition. How rare something is means nothing. The comparison with and without is the only way those P values are calculated.

Look at a Bell curve. It has tails. The tails represent rarity. But unless you compare something, to the distribution curve which occurs without the thing, by looking at where the something falls on the curve, the tails don't imply anything other than how something's values are distributed.

Hologram universe conditions are supposedly just right and scientists are amazed the Universe looks this way.

Our universe hypothetically falls in the tail of a distribution curve of universe compositions.

First, we have no way of really knowing how rare this is because we don't have a distribution curve of universes.

But say we did. Now you need to know how often a god creates a hologram universe vs how often a hologram universe is created without a god.

That is also completely unknown. You simply can't get a p value from this data.

I'm glad you did!

Summer's coming and they've put new trails in the park.

 

[Malerin]

I'm not uncertain about whether the Earth is flat. Did you mean to ask me how certain I was?

How certain are you that the Earth is not flat? Give me a value between 0 and 1.

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

I mean logically impossible. It is possible the Eath is flat, round, donut-shaped, etc.

 

[Malerin]

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.

Uncertainty (or certainty) applies to everything that is a proposition that attempts to describe reality. "The Earth is flat" is such a proposition. We can assign an espisetmic value to it between 0 and 1.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Uncertainty (or certainty) applies to everything that is a proposition that attempts to describe reality. "The Earth is flat" is such a proposition. We can assign an espisetmic value to it between 0 and 1.

Here, I've found a good discussion of the issue of certainty in science.

Facts Are Well-Confirmed Observations

This point troubles people - sometimes a lot. Aren't facts things that we know to be absolutely true? Isn't that the meaning of "fact"? Well, it is the common conception of the word, but let's think about this...

Can a Fact Be Wrong?

YES!! Can "many competent observers" be wrong? Of course! For instance, according to the definition of "fact":

* At about the same time, it was a fact that the sun orbited the earth. Ask any 15th century astronomer!
[more examples are listed]

How can we know that something is absolutely true? Nature has no answer book (as far as I know) that we can look in to "check our answers" - like we commonly check our assignments in school.

About all we can do, as rational beings, is make the best observations that we can, and try to ensure that competent observers confirm the observations. A fact is a well-confirmed observation

(emphasis mine)

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

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.

Again, I disagree with this. You're still imposing a value judgement, namely calling it "interesting". While your phrasing may sound less self-centered than saying that the universe is very special because of humanity, there's no reason to think that the human concept of "interesting" has any meaning in this context.

That the universe seems immensely interesting and marvelous to its inhabitants is great. It is also not surprising. I'm sure you're familiar with the puddle analogy.

Oh, and there are other options than parallel or designed - one universe serially crunching / inflating, for instance. There's also the possibility that the physical forces are interdependent and balance out.

The point is, we have this one data point. Applying the very human tendency to see intent is a logical short-circuit. You're thinking of intelligence based on the kind we know and creating further problems without really explaining anything. Like, what sort of universe does the designer inhabit, and where did that come from?

 

[BillyJoe]

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 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.

Okay. And that is my intent as well.

We agree.

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.

...oops!

But I said the probability of what will exist next. I agree that what exists next cannot be determined, but the probability wave of what will exist next is determined by what comes before (I'm pretty sure that is correct).

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 guess you are telling me what phyicists have to say about Nothing?
But, then, is Nothing black or white?
Surely Nothing means the absence of any properties?

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 [tentative] conclusions.

Yes (we agree again ), which puts the question of gods within the scope of science. In other words, science certainly has something to say about the existence of gods. And those disclaimers must be an exercise in political correctness or cognitive dissonance.

BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

OK, now I see where you tried to go with this one.

Well, I am still trying

That leaves, no answer or a supernatural answer.

Well, I am trying for an answer or explanation that is not natural (all natural explanations having being exhausted)

The problem here is I don't believe there is any evidence the supernatural exists.

Same.

When something exists, it is no longer supernatural even if it is stranger than we could have imagined, even if it turned out to be a god being.

And, if all natural explanations have been exhausted and still we have no answer to the final question: how something came from nothing?

So I'm still left with no answer and see your version as just making an answer up. As such, that answer would be meaningless.

But that's not the question I asked...

"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?"

Sure we have no answer (or explanation), because we can only have natural explanations and all natural explanations have been exhausted. So, yes, we have "no answer' but we can say that, whatever the answer or explanation is, it cannot be a natural explanation.

BJ

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

BJ, here are the choices:

Natural
Unnatural
No answer

You keep wanting there to be only two choices, but I see three. It's a different perspective on the world. You cannot convince me because I don't have the same perspective you are trying to pigeon hole me into.

I see a supernatural explanation in your scenario as a nonsensical answer, not as a logical, that's all that is left answer.

In your scenario, you have no more natural explanations left.

In my scenario, if there is evidence it is natural, if there is no evidence then you might as well say the dust bunnies created the universe out of Jack in the Bean Stock's golden eggs. God did it is the equivalent. It's not an answer, it is a made up explanation.

 

[BillyJoe]

BjornTheCyborg,

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.

Newtons mathematics has been shown to be uncertain, yet you couldn't say that science has been unable to apply Newtonian mathematics in a practical manner.

 

[BillyJoe]

Beth,

What I have said is that rarity supports a hypothesis other than random chance.

If you keep tossing a coin for long enough, you will end up with that rare run of a hundred heads in a row and it will have appeared by random chance.

BJ

 

[Beth]

No, it does not. P values only apply when you compare frequency of a baseline to frequency after applying the change.

We've already been over this. I responded to this objection back in post 226.

Summer's coming and they've put new trails in the park.

I'm sure they are absolute beautiful, but I don't think I'll make it up to the northwest this year. Maybe in 2010?

 

[Beth]

Beth,



If you keep tossing a coin for long enough, you will end up with that rare run of a hundred heads in a row and it will have appeared by random chance.

BJ

I'm aware of that. In our discussion, this requires a vast multitude of universes. This is what is referred to as the 'multiverse' theory. Or, as Thatsoundagain points out, an infinite cycle of universe. I agree that those are also reasonable hypotheses.

 

[Beth]

Again, I disagree with this. You're still imposing a value judgement, namely calling it "interesting". While your phrasing may sound less self-centered than saying that the universe is very special because of humanity, there's no reason to think that the human concept of "interesting" has any meaning in this context.

That the universe seems immensely interesting and marvelous to its inhabitants is great. It is also not surprising. I'm sure you're familiar with the puddle analogy.

Oh, and there are other options than parallel or designed - one universe serially crunching / inflating, for instance. There's also the possibility that the physical forces are interdependent and balance out.

The point is, we have this one data point. Applying the very human tendency to see intent is a logical short-circuit. You're thinking of intelligence based on the kind we know and creating further problems without really explaining anything. Like, what sort of universe does the designer inhabit, and where did that come from?

I don't disagree with most of what you've said, but I'm quite comfortable with the assumption that a designed universe is more likely to produce life than the probabilities the physicists currently give for such universes appearing by random chance alone.

If you're not comfortable with that assumption, that's okay. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. I'm just sharing my viewpoint on the matter.

 

[fls]

How certain are you that the Earth is not flat? Give me a value between 0 and 1.

0.0236

I mean logically impossible. It is possible the Eath is flat, round, donut-shaped, etc.

Okay, but your question seems to have nothing to do with what I have been talking about.

Linda

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

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.

Why separate out the messy parts of science – the imagination, the contemplation, the wild-ass speculation? It's all integral.

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.

Positrons were not proposed to explain anything, least of all an actual observation. The Schroedinger wave equation gave a square root in the result – meaning a “plus or minus” was involved. Every other physicist said, “the minus can't relate to anything physical, therefore it doesn't mean anything.” Dirac, for no good reason, said, “what if...”

de Broglie's matter waves weren't even based on an equation. He said, “if energy can be particles, what if...”

When Kip Thorne proposed wormholes, do you know what sparked the physics? His buddy, Carl Sagan, was writing a sci-fi novel and needed a plot device for transporting his character over vast distances in a short time. Since then, wormhole theories have been published in peer reviewed journals.

God is a wormhole in the novel of religion. Because it's based on fiction, and there's no observation requiring it, does not mean science should stop considering the possibilities. And considering possibilities, however far out, does not a double standard make.

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?

The conclusion I draw is that God is not required to explain anything, and all gods defined by religion are fictional. The conclusion I do NOT draw is that science has a double standard because in spite of everything, it's willing to entertain notions of God.

Have I not, in this thread, given an example of a god that falls outside the only two god categories you seem to be considering? My God of the Self-Aware Universe is:

a) Not mythological; and,
b) Not untestable

Ultimately, I don't think you and I have different ideas about God. I think we have different ideas about science, and what makes for a double standard.

Is there really any evidence suggesting there are mythical gods and real gods? Evidence, not wishful thinking or hypotheses, is sorely lacking.

Calling it “wishful thinking” is poisoning the well. Calling it hypothesizing is better. It may be a crazy hypothesis, it may have no evidence for it, it may be unnecessary. But so were wormholes. So were matter waves. So were many things.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

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.

A minor quibble. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (ETA: if that's what you're referring to?) applies to observable facts, not theories. It says -- in part and very roughly -- you cannot measure both the position and momentum of an object to arbitrary precision.