Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[fls]

I think the problem here is that there are definitions of God that are not mythical in nature, and the Deist God is one of them. You can do what both you and skeptigirl propose about the mythologies. But a God defined as, say, “an overarching universal intelligence” lies outside the “Mythological Gods” group. Conclusions about the latter may or may not hold for the former.

I think that when Skeptigirl refers to mythological gods, she isn't referring necessarily to "gods as the subject of mythological type stories", but rather "gods as entities with characteristics that appear magical/imaginary/fabulous" (Skeptigirl can clarify that). I think that could also apply to the Deist God, although I agree that that issue needs to be made explicit (it isn't something that can necessarily be assumed to be implied).

Not trying to be snarky, but could you define the deist God so I know what you mean?

As far as I know, that is what is meant by "an overarching universal intelligence"? It is a characteristic that is 'fabulous' compared to that which we have direct experience of. And there isn't anything we know of that makes the characteristic necessary (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion ).

Not amenable at this time. That last is all-important, and history -- as I'm sure you're aware -- is jam-packed with examples. Darwin had no clue how characteristics were passed on, and no way of finding out – it was decades and many technical advancements before the discovery of genetics was possible. A thermal theory of the sun was not possible before relativity and spectrometry. And so on.

EXACTLY! And even under those circumstances, Darwin didn't declare that characteristics were passed on in a supernatural manner. Or we didn't assume that the sun formed and burned in a supernatural manner.

We can only test things when we have the tools to test for them.

My point is that even when we recognize that we don't have the tools to test for something, we don't then go on to assume that the thing we cannot test for has the set of characteristics 'supernatural'.

You can test God mythologies. My contention is that that is not the same as testing for God. (As I said, there are non-mythological notions of God.)

I think that without some sort of 'fabulous' nature, whatever it is that you are talking about would not be a god. And that science is amenable to addressing whether or not something is 'fabulous' in nature.

Linda

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....I said that there could be some idea or entity that caused similar ideas to germinate. It could be as simple a thing as "we don't really die", or "there's something bigger than us", or even "there's something in the bushes watching me". That there is danger in the bushes is real, even if the creature the poor little slob is imagining isn't.

OK, now I see where you are going with this line of reasoning.

Your idea has been hypothesized many times before but the evidence says, no.

This is part of my point. Follow the evidence. Forget the untestable god garbage which is not following the evidence.

Here's the evidence in favor of your hypothesis, feel free to add to it: god myths are universally common.

That's it. That's all the evidence that supports the hypothesis, real god(s) inspired god myths.

Here's the evidence supporting god beliefs are all myths:

1) What Hoke said is valid. Not only are the god concepts too dissimilar to support your hypothesis, many of them outright contradict each other.

2) The themes that are similar between god myths: explaining the world, wanting life after death, and trying to affect major events like illness, death and natural disasters, are all consistent with what we know about the psychology of human behavior.

3) The hypothesis, god beliefs are invented, was directly observed with the Cargo Cults.

So, a better hypothesis, that the consistent themes are due to natural human tendencies and traits, is consistent with the evidence, no magic intervention is at all suggested by this evidence.

Is a god which you hypothesize is sending messages to humans all over the planet consistent with the definition of a Deist god that isn't detectable? You might as well just say god beliefs appeared by magic. Is that an hypothesis we would entertain using the scientific process to explain any other human belief?

When you take away the double standard, the evidence is not inexplicable. It supports a rational conclusion. The evidence is best explained by natural causes.

Is it proved that your hypothesis is wrong? No. But so what? I don't have to prove it. I need merely develop the best theory that explains the evidence. Anything beyond that is political and not science. Making up special evidence categories and defining special untestable gods is not warranted by the evidence and is not consistent with the scientific process.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the problem here is that there are definitions of God that are not mythical in nature, and the Deist God is one of them.

What evidence do you have that a Deist god is NOT a myth?

Not trying to be snarky, but could you define the deist God so I know what you mean?

A Deist god is supposedly a god for which the believer "makes no testable claims" therefore science cannot investigate said god. This means the god set the Universe in motion then sat back to watch.

The problems with this myth are several. If the god did nothing after creating the Universe, that also means the god could not have made its presence known to anyone within that universe.

Such a god would also be irrelevant to anyone within the universe since it takes no further actions.

Claiming a god could exist is not evidence a god does exist.

Essentially a Deist god is simply an attempt to move the goalpost off the playing field. The more gods that are identified as mythical (Pele, Ra, Thor, Zeus, etc) the less and less likely any other god looks to not be a myth. Solution, claim you cannot see, touch or hear the invisible friend.

Not amenable at this time. That last is all-important, and history -- as I'm sure you're aware -- is jam-packed with examples. Darwin had no clue how characteristics were passed on, and no way of finding out – it was decades and many technical advancements before the discovery of genetics was possible. A thermal theory of the sun was not possible before relativity and spectrometry. And so on.

We can only test things when we have the tools to test for them.

When you find the evidence for any real gods, let us know.

You can test God mythologies. My contention is that that is not the same as testing for God. (As I said, there are non-mythological notions of God.)

Neither is it mine, exactly. My contention is you can demonstrate the evidence supports the conclusion that god beliefs are not based on real gods. Therefore one need not bother with defining untestable gods.

 

[Herzblut]

False. Any claim on reality can be tested and disproved.

Especially if it's true.

Wrong again. You haven't read of all those prayer studies have you?

Why wrong? And: no, I haven't.

False again. The data shows how myths and religions develop. Your hand waving doens't magic it away.

Data as such doesn't show a thing.

Yawn...nothing beats a raving ad hominem when you have nothing relevant left.

Good luck again collecting your research budget.

 

[Herzblut]

My contention is you can demonstrate the evidence supports the conclusion that god beliefs are not based on real gods.

Circular reasoning.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....Yes. But can you go from there to saying that science therefore disproves the existence of God? Isn't that what you're doing?

You make your case for repitition. I must again repeat what you can find I have already written several times, I am not addressing the question of proving gods do or do not exist. There is no reason to address this question.

I am addressing the matter of following the evidence which supports the conclusion, not that gods don't exist, but that all god beliefs originate in human imagination. If the belief is from one's imagination, and not based on real gods, that leaves no more reason to ponder if gods exist than to ponder what if it were turtles all the way down.

Whether real gods exist is not necessary to address once we've shown the evidence of belief is not evidence of gods. What is left to base gods existing on? The contrived untestable god could exist. So what? It is merely an exercise in 'what ifs?'

...
Please note: I'm only addressing here the question of “how many makes a conclusive pattern?”.

"Conclusive" is more or less a lay term. "Evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion" is technically how one states a scientific conclusion. There are an awful lot of known mythical gods. We have the Cargo Cults which provide direct evidence of a god myth developing. Pisci wants the commonness of god beliefs to be considered as possible evidence real gods underlie the myths. I have already addressed why that hypothesis fails. What is left that does not support, 'the origin of gods beliefs is imagination'?

...Emphatically not my claim. Recognizing a pattern of god myths is one thing. Discounting the possibility of God based on that particular pattern may or may not be scientifically appropriate.

Break the habit here, Ryan. The habitual answer is "yes but it doesn't prove gods don't exist"

Develop a new pattern. The evidence supports the theory god beliefs result from human storytelling and human imagination.

It's the political implication of that change that is stopping you, not the science of it.

...I agree with almost all of what you say. I disagree only with the conclusion. Often science can extrapolate from specific cases to the general. My belief is that that just isn't possible here.

And yet it is possible with so many other scientific theories. Can you identify the specific scientific argument for why we must disprove gods, while with everything else we use the standard of, the evidence supports?

...You say “There is no reasonable scientific grounds to ponder the existence of real gods except as human fantasies like FSMs, IPUs and IGDs.” Absolutely. But having no scientific grounds to ponder something is not the same as science concluding that that something doesn't exist. In fact, if science has no grounds to ponder something, it has no grounds to reach a conclusion about that something.

See above discussion.

...Let me emphasize that my issue with your arguments is less about the existence of God, and more about the conditions science needs to come to a conclusion in any given case. I hope that's clear.

I repeat, "Break the habit here, Ryan. The habitual answer is "yes but it doesn't prove gods don't exist"

Develop a new pattern. The evidence supports the theory god beliefs result from human storytelling and human imagination."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I understand people are making the claim, we haven't got the evidence to conclude gods don't exist. Stop yourselves from thinking of this problem in those terms.

The above claim is being merged with the theory I have put forth, the evidence is explained by god myths, not by real gods.

Un-merge the two. Stop worrying about proving every theist in the world believes in a myth. That is a political, not a scientific problem. Science is only concerned with the evidence.

Can you identify the specific scientific argument for why we must disprove gods, while with everything else we use the standard of, the evidence supports?

Once you identify that, we can move on to really looking at what the evidence does or does not support. But until people recognize this is where the politics is interfering with the science, it is clouding an analysis of the evidence.

 

[Herzblut]

The above claim is being merged with the theory I have put forth, the evidence is explained by god myths, not by real gods.

Science never explains anything using "real gods" - per construction. Methodological naturalism is namely a scientific doctrine. Hence, your conclusion is part of your premise, which makes your reasoning perfectly circular.

Science limits itself to naturalism, it is therefore no big surprise that scientific models of god believe are all naturalistic.

 

[Beth]

Once you identify that, we can move on to really looking at what the evidence does or does not support. But until people recognize this is where the politics is interfering with the science, it is clouding an analysis of the evidence.

Speaking of where the evidence leads us, I have a question for you Skeptigirl. I gather that it is a matter of consensus among well respected theoretical physicists that our universe is 'fine-tuned'. While there is some disagreement on the exact level of magnitude of the probability of various constants having the values required by the best theories, there is strong agreement that they are very unlikely to occur by chance alone.

There is a rather new theory that these constants are in fact, not just finely-tuned, but that these constants are in the exact relationships required for our universe to be considered a hologram. This is not yet proven but we may well have the data to prove or disprove the theory in the next 3-5 years. If such a theory proves true, I think that would constitute evidence that points towards a designer. How do you feel about it? Would such a finding suggest a creator to you?

 

[Malerin]

I'm not sure what claim you think I am backing away from but since I've not backed away from any of my claims here I assume it was something you misunderstood.

The claim that evidence must convince everyone.

As for the evidence you are trying to present as scientific evidence, I'm sorry, Malerin but I am only the messenger here about what is and is not scientific evidence.

That's quite an ego you got there.

And personal gut feelings, spiritual experiences and the like are not scientific evidence of gods.

Never claimed they were.

I am talking about people within the scientific community addressing (or not) scientific evidence.

As has been pointed out, the scientific community doesn't concern itself with God's existence or non-existence.

If the source were confirmed and the message unmistakable, yes, otherwise no. If god showed up and it was clearly not a trick, you'd have your evidence.

How would you confirm a one-time message that the VLA happens to pick up?

Systematically collected anecdotal accounts, especially with controls are definitely scientific evidence. We use such data often in medical research. One additional requirement, however, is you have to demonstrate how the evidence supports the conclusion.

We can do the same thing with theism. We can systematical collect anecdotes from people claiming to have had religious experiences. We can control for drug users, history of mental illness, compulsive liars, etc. We can also demonstrate how the evidence supports the conclusion: people have religious experiences because God exists (Pr(E/"God exists") > .5). In other words, given that God exists, it is likely that people would report having religious experiences.

So for example, I cannot conduct a survey where the questions are biased and then claim the result supports my biased conclusion. One needs to validate one's methodology in scientific research. One doesn't just say, I surveyed 20 people and 18 believed in God therefore that is evidence God exists.

That's not what I'm claiming should be done. We survey 20 people and find out how many report having had a religious experience. I'm guessing the number will be quite high. The high number of people who claim to have had religious experiences then becomes the evidence. You keep assuming that the evidence is "God exists". That is the hypothesis. The evidence are the various phenemena I've described, none of which included "God exists".

I would need to demonstrate that the evidence supported the conclusion. You cannot use the conclusion in this case as evidence. You would need more than that.

If you step back from the strawman you keep building, you would see that's not being done.

There's more than one way to test what you are asking here in your example. It is the alternative I am talking about testing.

Evidence shows god myths are common. Zeus, Ra, Pele, Thor...... and so on.

As another poster pointed out, it's also odd that God myths are universal. I've never heard of a primitive culture that started out atheistic. Why this universal need to invoke God? Why didn't the scientific method kick in much earlier in our history?

Evidence is lacking real gods exist.

Evidence is lacking that toasters are conscious (and by lacking, I mean non-existent). Doesn't stop some of the people here from believing it.

Prayers aren't really answered, for example.

Depends on the prayer. I've prayed to have a good day. It's been answered lots of times.

The Bible contains only the knowledge one would expect to see in the time and place the texts were written. It doesn't get the germ theory right, for example. If a real god inspired the Bible, knowledge of the germ theory thousands of years before the microscope was invented would be hard to explain. But that knowledge is not in the Bible. Fear of lepers and a ban on pork don't cut it. Leprosy is really not very contagious and you could just cook the pork.

I thought we were talking about theism in general. Why the switch to Christianity?

Yes, you did but this thread and what I'm talking about is scientific evidence.

But your claim is

no evidence supports the, 'All Gods are not myths' theory

Do you want to amend it to "no scientific evidence"?

If you really had the scientific evidence you would be applying for the MDC.

I never claimed to have "scientific evidence". By the way, define "scientific evidence" please.

And it is not a reason to ignore the evidence people develop god myths.

Of course they develop them. People developed "germ theory" too. The question is, does the myth reflect reality in any way?

But there is no evidence organisms that did not evolve exist on Earth, only evidence organisms that evolved do, so no caveat. No evidence gods exist, only evidence god myths are common, so no caveat.

You mean "no scientific evidence", right? Because reported religious experiences are evidence.

The evidence supports the conclusion people invent god beliefs.

People have invented every theory there is. Again, the question is, does the theory match reality?

There is no evidence supporting the conclusion real gods exist.

Sure there is. NDE's, spiritual accounts, anecdotal accounts of the supernatural, the precise values of the constants, etc.

Period, the end, no caveat about untestable gods is justified on scientific grounds. It is understood theories which best explain the evidence don't require proof.

And why does God not explain the evidence of reported religious experiences? Seems to me, "God exists" explains it quite well: people report religious experiences because they are having authentic religious experiences.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Science limits itself to naturalism, it is therefore no big surprise that scientific models of god believe are all naturalistic.

That's what the theists like to claim. In reality, science looks for evidence supported conclusions. That is what is meant by "natural". If the evidence supported gods and magic, that's what the evidence would support.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Speaking of where the evidence leads us, I have a question for you Skeptigirl. I gather that it is a matter of consensus among well respected theoretical physicists that our universe is 'fine-tuned'. While there is some disagreement on the exact level of magnitude of the probability of various constants having the values required by the best theories, there is strong agreement that they are very unlikely to occur by chance alone.

There is a rather new theory that these constants are in fact, not just finely-tuned, but that these constants are in the exact relationships required for our universe to be considered a hologram. This is not yet proven but we may well have the data to prove or disprove the theory in the next 3-5 years. If such a theory proves true, I think that would constitute evidence that points towards a designer. How do you feel about it? Would such a finding suggest a creator to you?

A hologram doesn't point toward a designer. Nor does being "fine tuned" You'd need a little more reasoning behind that hypothesis to make the claim.

I found the hologram idea interesting. I'm waiting for a better lay explanation of exactly what they mean by it, or at least for more reading to come out on the viewpoint. It fits with my concept of future time and past time being edges of the Universe, but I don't claim to have a Universe concept that is in keeping with the sophisticated physics of today.

 

[Malerin]

A hologram doesn't point toward a designer. Nor does being "fine tuned" You'd need a little more reasoning behind that hypothesis to make the claim.

Here's the reasoning: if the odds of a life-permitting universe occuring by chance are 1 in ten trillion trillion trillion, there are only two rational explanations: Either there are a lot of actual universes out there, or something fine-tuned ours to be life-permitting. Believing we just got lucky would be on par with believing a coin that flips heads 100 times in a row is a fair coin.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll try to tackle this, Malerin, but we may be approaching the recycle chamber here where the discussion fails to move forward.

The claim that evidence must convince everyone.

You are confusing two different things. You are confusing what I said about the evidence you suggested was scientific. That was the anecdotes people believe represent god encounters. If those anecdotes cannot be independently verified as evidence of god (and they so far certainly haven't been) then those experiences or whatever you want to call them, are evidence of experiences. They are not evidence of gods.

This is not to be confused with scientifically verifiable evidence for which there is no consensus about conclusions drawn from the evidence.

That's quite an ego you got there.

If you can make the case there is scientific evidence for the existence of gods, go for it. Obviously I am not the only one who doesn't buy your NDEs are really supernatural experiences. I don't think we are going to reach a consensus there. But I'm pretty sure the scientific consensus about god experiences being evidence of gods is what I've said it is.

As has been pointed out, the scientific community doesn't concern itself with God's existence or non-existence.

You need to go back to the start and read the OP. That's what the whole discussion is about.

How would you confirm a one-time message that the VLA happens to pick up?

Not relevant to this discussion.

We can do the same thing with theism. We can systematical collect anecdotes from people claiming to have had religious experiences. We can control for drug users, history of mental illness, compulsive liars, etc. We can also demonstrate how the evidence supports the conclusion: people have religious experiences because God exists (Pr(E/"God exists") > .5). In other words, given that God exists, it is likely that people would report having religious experiences.

You would find inconsistent incompatibly different god beliefs. That is not consistent with a god as the source of those beliefs.

That's not what I'm claiming should be done. We survey 20 people and find out how many report having had a religious experience. I'm guessing the number will be quite high. The high number of people who claim to have had religious experiences then becomes the evidence. You keep assuming that the evidence is "God exists". That is the hypothesis. The evidence are the various phenemena I've described, none of which included "God exists".

Your evidence supports the conclusion lots of people believe god myths.

If you step back from the strawman you keep building, you would see that's not being done.

You are confusing a straw man with trying to explain to you why you are missing the mark. An experience is evidence of an experience. To say any more you need more than just the individual's conclusion about what the experience was.

As another poster pointed out, it's also odd that God myths are universal. I've never heard of a primitive culture that started out atheistic. Why this universal need to invoke God? Why didn't the scientific method kick in much earlier in our history?

The myths are actually not universal. Number of gods, what the gods do, creation stories, flood stories, ancestors vs gods, heaven vs becoming a star etc etc etc... These inconsistencies are better explained as coming from human origin. If there were that may gods out there messing with things, I think there would be more evidence than just a bunch of stories.

We could go on and on here discussing the evidence. I'm confident what it would show. But even if it didn't, I have said, by all means make the scientific case that god beliefs are evidence of real gods. My objection is to the failure to address this evidence, regardless of what it actually supports. Instead of making the case the evidence supports people interacted with real gods, we hear this "but you can't prove gods don't exist".

Stop with the 'can't prove it' garbage. Make a case for what the evidence supports.

Evidence is lacking that toasters are conscious (and by lacking, I mean non-existent). Doesn't stop some of the people here from believing it.

Toaster myths.

Depends on the prayer. I've prayed to have a good day. It's been answered lots of times.

You can pray a coin lands on heads. Your prayer will be answered approximately half the time.

I thought we were talking about theism in general. Why the switch to Christianity?

Lots of Christians in the neighborhood so it makes for examples people can relate to.

But your claim is Do you want to amend it to "no scientific evidence"?

I never claimed to have "scientific evidence". By the way, define "scientific evidence" please.

You may have missed the point this is about the scientific community's typical position science does not test for gods.

Of course they develop them. People developed "germ theory" too. The question is, does the myth reflect reality in any way?

The evidence says, yes. Myths reflect reality and not magical gods.

You mean "no scientific evidence", right? Because reported religious experiences are evidence.

Conclusions are not evidence. I agree to disagree with you.

People have invented every theory there is. Again, the question is, does the theory match reality?

That's what I am talking about.

Sure there is. NDE's, spiritual accounts, anecdotal accounts of the supernatural, the precise values of the constants, etc....

...And why does God not explain the evidence of reported religious experiences? Seems to me, "God exists" explains it quite well: people report religious experiences because they are having authentic religious experiences.

See post # 122.

 

[BillyJoe]

That's the part I don't understand. How does ignorance allow one to make a statement of knowledge. If you don't know anything about a something, how can you say what the characteristics of that something must be (i.e. 'supernatural' vs. 'natural')?

If you are talking about the situation that obtains at the present time, I am in full agreement.
But I'm not sure that you are responding to my hypothetical scenario.

In my hypothetical scenario, I am fast forwarding into the distant future to a time when science knows everything and has a Theory Of Everything that explains everything. Except "how something came from nothing". Like completing a jig-saw puzzle that all fits together nicely but finding that there is one piece left over.

If you still object, then perhaps imagine that the above scenario has obtained for 10,000 years. Would you now be prepared to say that all natural explanations have been exhausted and that, therefore, the explanation for the ultimate question must be...well, let us say, non-natural.

BJ

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the reasoning: if the odds of a life-permitting universe occuring by chance are 1 in ten trillion trillion trillion, there are only two rational explanations: Either there are a lot of actual universes out there, or something fine-tuned ours to be life-permitting. Believing we just got lucky would be on par with believing a coin that flips heads 100 times in a row is a fair coin.

Those odds are meaningless speculation. Regardless of how exact someone thinks things had to be, that is no indication of how often things end up that way because we don't have the rest of the data to know. And, we don't know how many universes are out there.

But more importantly, "god did it", is not an answer. The Easter bunny did it. Space aliens did it. None of those hypotheses add one iota of answer other than to claim, we don't know therefore magic did it. We do know, OTOH, that the answer, "it was magic", has been disproved time and time again as an explanation for other things before they were understood.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

BillyJoe, how does saying, god did it, tell you anything when you cannot say how god got there? Something from nothing was made by something that was always there? Not a very satisfying answer. Might as well just leave it at, the nothing that was always there was the stuff the Universe was made from.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Science never explains anything using "real gods" - per construction. Methodological naturalism is namely a scientific doctrine. Hence, your conclusion is part of your premise, which makes your reasoning perfectly circular.

Science limits itself to naturalism, it is therefore no big surprise that scientific models of god believe are all naturalistic.

Nice try but no cigar.

If the evidence supports I have the magical power to levitate then that's what the evidence supports. It becomes part of the natural world because the evidence makes it natural.

If there was evidence for an extra-corporeal existence after death, then that becomes a natural thing. The only reason it is unnatural now is because there is no evidence supporting it to be true.

It is a myth that science is biased against any outcome the evidence supports.

 

[BillyJoe]

Here's the reasoning: if the odds of a life-permitting universe occuring by chance are 1 in ten trillion trillion trillion, there are only two rational explanations: Either there are a lot of actual universes out there, or something fine-tuned ours to be life-permitting. Believing we just got lucky would be on par with believing a coin that flips heads 100 times in a row is a fair coin.

False dichotomy

There are other possible reasons. One of them is that value of all these parameters are interconnected in some way and, once one has a definite value, the value of the others follow...um...naturally. This alone would reduce the luck factor. But it is also possible that one of the values cannot be other than it is. Our knowledge at present is not sufficiently advanced to know whether or not this is true.

My answer:
I don't know. I'm going to wait for more evidence. I'm not jumping to conclusions about a Designer...
...been there, done that. Been fooled too many times.

BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe, how does saying, god did it, tell you anything when you cannot say how god got there? Something from nothing was made by something that was always there? Not a very satisfying answer. Might as well just leave it at, the nothing that was always there was the stuff the Universe was made from.

The smily tells me you don't think that is a very satisfying asnwer.

So why not the former answer in that particular hypothetical scenario. If all natural explanations have been exhausted (the picture puzzle is complete), why not a non-natural explanation - an explanation that we mere mortals have not the slightest capability of understanding (can an ant understand physics?)?

Seems to me that is at least on an equal footing to continuing to hope for some breakthrough for a natural explanation in the next 10,000 years.

BJ