Science Versus Religion! The Contest that isn't really there.

sink

gaynorvader wrote: »

I wasn't only referring to proving a god's existence, but also to the questions of life, in which case the investigator's beliefs could come into it.

The scientific method does not allow for personal beliefs to impact upon the science. It is designed specifically to eliminate personal biases so the truth is revealed.

gaynorvader

sink wrote: »

The scientific method does not allow for personal beliefs to impact upon the science. It is designed specifically to eliminate personal biases so the truth is revealed.

I agree wholeheartedly, that was my entire point. A scientist who has strong beliefs is not going to follow the scientific method properly as his/her beliefs are always going to cause them to overlook some facts either consciously or subconsciously.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not asserting that God isn't real, I'm asserting that the previous definitions of "God" are irrelevant. how we have defined God is irrelevant. At this stage how could we possibly know what God actually is? Our definitions are worthless. We need to build up scientific models, one on top of the other. And if we get stuck some where along the line we stop until we figure out how to get passed that. Maybe we never do.

But what religion has done is jumped to the end, and is now saying science cannot investigate this as if that is a fault with science.

You're now arguing about whether or not science is the only trustworthy means of investigation. *shrug* I'm arguing that the the existence of God is not a scientific question, so there is no inherent contest between science and religion. Someone who believes in God is just as capable of becoming an exceptional scientist, in any field, as someone who doesn't.

I'm not saying that at all.

But "we can't investigate this" is still a question for science. It is not a question that will be answered outside of science.

You can't say before hand that X Y Z exist but we won't be able to investigate them with science. That is meaningless, because without investigating X Y Z we can't say they exist.

We don't have to say they exist. We simply have to say that such hypotheses cannot be investigated with the scientific method. I can think of a multitude of things that might possibly exist but can never be investigated with the scientific method.

That isn't really true. Once off events can and are studied by science. Yes it is a lot harder, but not impossible.

I'm going to need an example of some phenomenon that breaks the assumption of uniformitarianism and has been studied by scientists.

No, I can claim you cannot say that the Christian god has any bearing on reality. You can't say that that is "God", how could you possibly know? It is not that you are wrong, it is that you couldn't know in the first place. You could, by some fluke, be totally correct. But that doesn't change the fact that the "Christian God" is irrelevant.

The idea that you can claim something exists and then claim it can never be studied by science doesn't make any sense. If it can't be studied with science how can you claim it exists?

Again, you're arguing that science is the only appropriate and relevant means of establishing statements about reality. Whether or not that is true doesn't change the fact that 'God' is not inherently an anti-scientific concept.

gaynorvader

Morbert wrote: »

You're now arguing about whether or not science is the only trustworthy means of investigation. *shrug* I'm arguing that the the existence of God is not a scientific question, so there is no inherent contest between science and religion. Someone who believes in God is just as capable of becoming an exceptional scientist, in any field, as someone who doesn't.

If science is not humanity's only trustworthy means of investigation, what are the other ones?

Morbert

gaynorvader wrote: »

If science is not humanity's only trustworthy means of investigation, what are the other ones?

I can't think of any. Why?

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

You're now arguing about whether or not science is the only trustworthy means of investigation. *shrug*

Not really. I'm arguing over whether or not God's existence is a question for science.

You appear to be saying it isn't because we have already defined God as being non-testable through science. I'm saying that you can't do that because we cannot determine that God is non-testable through science in the first place, so defining him as such is irrelevant. It is the cart before the horse.

It is like Hurin saying science can't study God because he exists outside the universe. If he exists outside the universe and I can't study him with science then Hurin can't say he exists outside the universe, so it becomes irrelevant. Hurin's statement of a fact has no merit.

Morbert wrote: »

I'm arguing that the the existence of God is not a scientific question, so there is no inherent contest between science and religion. Someone who believes in God is just as capable of becoming an exceptional scientist, in any field, as someone who doesn't.

Depends on what you mean by exceptional scientist.

Someone who states that God exists even though they do not have an science to support that is inherently being unscientific. The consequences of that vary greatly from scientist to scientist. In Creationist Scientists it can be devastating for their science.

Morbert wrote: »

We don't have to say they exist. We simply have to say that such hypotheses cannot be investigated with the scientific method. I can think of a multitude of things that might possibly exist but can never be investigated with the scientific method.

I can think of an infinite number of things that might exist, again that is irrelevant. Christians aren't saying God might exist. They are claiming he does.

Morbert wrote: »

I'm going to need an example of some phenomenon that breaks the assumption of uniformitarianism and has been studied by scientists.

Well quantum physics, which deals in probabilities rather than absolutes.

If you run an experiment that gives you result X it may give you result Y the next time you run it. All you can do is work out the probability of X and Y, not determine what the outcome will be.

And for a long time people though there was a strong limit on how much they could know about atomic particles. But we keep coming up with new, ingenious ways to model them despite this being very difficult. And this all happens inside science. Theology isn't providing alternative answers.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you're arguing that science is the only appropriate and relevant means of establishing statements about reality. Whether or not that is true doesn't change the fact that 'God' is not inherently an anti-scientific concept.

Well like Jimi that just becomes a debate about what "anti" means.

I think a statement someone makes, such as "God exists", which they make in opposition to the scientific method is anti-science.

gaynorvader

Morbert wrote: »

I can't think of any. Why?

Because, you should back up your statements with facts, or at least reasoning. Simply saying that science is not the only way of proving/determining things without offering any alternatives is a bit daft.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. I'm arguing over whether or not God's existence is a question for science.

You appear to be saying it isn't because we have already defined God as being non-testable through science. I'm saying that you can't do that because we cannot determine that God is non-testable through science in the first place, so defining him as such is irrelevant. It is the cart before the horse.

It is like Hurin saying science can't study God because he exists outside the universe. If he exists outside the universe and I can't study him with science then Hurin can't say he exists outside the universe, so it becomes irrelevant. Hurin's statement of a fact has no merit.

You're confusing defining with determining. God can easily be defined as non-testable, and science cannot be used to determine whether or not such a God exists.

Depends on what you mean by exceptional scientist.

Someone who states that God exists even though they do not have an science to support that is inherently being unscientific. The consequences of that vary greatly from scientist to scientist. In Creationist Scientists it can be devastating for their science.

Of course a belief in God is inherently unscientific. Creationism is also unscientific, but the difference is creationism contradicts scientific theories. It is anti-science. A belief in God, on the otherhand, does not have to contradict any scientific theory.

I can think of an infinite number of things that might exist, again that is irrelevant. Christians aren't saying God might exist. They are claiming he does.

So? It doesn't matter if a Christian believes in God because they were compelled by some philosophical argument, or because they flipped a coin and decided to subscribe to some religious faith. All that matters is the question of the existence of God is not a scientific question, and that science cannot be used to investigate the existence of God.

Well quantum physics, which deals in probabilities rather than absolutes.

If you run an experiment that gives you result X it may give you result Y the next time you run it. All you can do is work out the probability of X and Y, not determine what the outcome will be.

This does not break the assumption of uniformitarianism. The laws of quantum mechanics, regadless of their probabilisitc regime, are assumed to be the same across the universe. I have opened, along with this tab, a program that calculates various properties of atomic/molecular structures using the laws of quantum mechanics. I assume the results and statistics are reliable today, just as they were yesterday.

And for a long time people though there was a strong limit on how much they could know about atomic particles. But we keep coming up with new, ingenious ways to model them despite this being very difficult. And this all happens inside science. Theology isn't providing alternative answers.

And?

Well like Jimi that just becomes a debate about what "anti" means.

I think a statement someone makes, such as "God exists", which they make in opposition to the scientific method is anti-science.

The satement "God exists" is not made in opposition to the scientific method.

Morbert

gaynorvader wrote: »

Because, you should back up your statements with facts, or at least reasoning. Simply saying that science is not the only way of proving/determining things without offering any alternatives is a bit daft.

Please explicitly quote where I said science is not the only way of determining things.

gaynorvader

Morbert wrote: »

[...]

Reality is under no obligation to be how anyone says it should be. The existence of things is not limited to what we can describe and formulate as testable hypotheses. So you cannot say everything that exists can be investigated with the scientific method.

[...]

Maybe I've misinterpreted what you have said, and if that is the case I apologise.

Morbert

Apology accepted

gaynorvader

@Morbert I would like to know, however, what you mean when you say that God cannot be proven by science?

Fanny Cradock

Because science tests that which is in the natural world. If something lies outside of the natural world and in a metaphysical realm, which is the contention of Christianity in relation to God, then science really cant say much about it.

Morbert

gaynorvader wrote: »

@Morbert I would like to know, however, what you mean when you say that God cannot be proven by science?

The existence of God can't be investigated with the scientific method. It was a response to the claim that the existence of God can be investigated with the scientific method.

What I did not say was "God can't be investigated with the scientific method, therefore God can be investigated with other methods." In fact, I explicitly stated that I was not commenting on the validity of religious claims. That is a topic for another thread.

gaynorvader

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because science tests that which is in the natural world. If something lies outside of the natural world and in a metaphysical realm, which is the contention of Christianity in relation to God, then science really cant say much about it.

It's possible science can deal with things in the metaphysical realm, just not yet. It is unfair to confine science to the natural world, just because that is as far as we've gotten to date.

Morbert

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's possible science can deal with things in the metaphysical realm, just not yet. It is unfair to confine science to the natural world, just because that is as far as we've gotten to date.

It's not necessarily about different realms. It's about what can and cannot be subjected to the process of observation, induction, experimentation, and affirmation/falsification.

sink

Morbert wrote: »

We don't have to say they exist. We simply have to say that such hypotheses cannot be investigated with the scientific method. I can think of a multitude of things that might possibly exist but can never be investigated with the scientific method.

The only things that can't be investigated with the scientific method are things that cannot be observed either directly or through their interaction with other bodies. The only things that can't be examined using science are things which even if they exist, have absolutely no impact upon the reality we can percieve and it would be them same from our perspective as if they didn't exist at all.

Morbert wrote: »

I'm going to need an example of some phenomenon that breaks the assumption of uniformitarianism and has been studied by scientists.

I'm going to need any phenomena that has been observed breaking uniformitarianism.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you're arguing that science is the only appropriate and relevant means of establishing statements about reality. Whether or not that is true doesn't change the fact that 'God' is not inherently an anti-scientific concept.

True it's a nonsence concept. The only thing that isn't nonsence when trying to understand physical reality is science.

Morbert wrote: »

You're confusing defining with determining. God can easily be defined as non-testable, and science cannot be used to determine whether or not such a God exists.

True but it's a pointless concept. I can dream up an infinite number of things and define them as non-testable by science, if it is non-testable by science for all intents and purposes it does not exist.

Morbert wrote: »

Of course a belief in God is inherently unscientific. Creationism is also unscientific, but the difference is creationism contradicts scientific theories. It is anti-science. A belief in God, on the otherhand, does not have to contradict any scientific theory.

True, which is why I generally don't have an issue with religious belief.

Morbert wrote: »

So? It doesn't matter if a Christian believes in God because they were compelled by some philosophical argument, or because they flipped a coin and decided to subscribe to some religious faith. All that matters is the question of the existence of God is not a scientific question, and that science cannot be used to investigate the existence of God.

True again, but in my view they are deluding themselves which they have every right to do. Everyone self deludes to a certain degree otherwise we would all sink into depression.

Morbert wrote: »

The satement "God exists" is not made in opposition to the scientific method.

True it just has complete disregard for it.

We seem to agree on an awful lot!

sink

I better clear up something in case anyone doesn't get where i'm coming from.

If god physically exists or interacts with physical reality, god should be able to be tested by science for science observes and tests everything and anyhting that is physical. If god does not exist or does not interact with physical reality there should be no possible way for science to test for god, since there is no physical trace to follow. So saying god can't be testable by science is in my view as good as saying god either does not exist or does not interact with physical reality.

Fanny Cradock

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's possible science can deal with things in the metaphysical realm, just not yet. It is unfair to confine science to the natural world, just because that is as far as we've gotten to date.

Maybe, maybe not. However, science as we know it is concerned with, and can report on, the natural world. So we shouldn't be building any castles in the sky with regards to the possible extension of its boundaries. One doesn't have to be an atheist, a Christian, Muslim or whatever to realise this. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

hivizman

sink wrote: »

I better clear up something in case anyone doesn't get where i'm coming from.

If god physically exists or interacts with physical reality, god should be able to be tested by science for science observes and tests everything and anyhting that is physical. If god does not exist or does not interact with physical reality there should be no possible way for science to test for god, since there is no physical trace to follow. So saying god can't be testable by science is in my view as good as saying god either does not exist or does not interact with physical reality.

I think (please correct me if this is wrong) that Morbert is arguing that there is a third possibility, that God may interact with physical reality, but not in a uniform way. A scientific test for the existence of God would have the following structure:

If God exists, then, in situation A, the physical effect X will be observed (this could be expressed in absolute terms or in terms of probabilities).

The "physical effect" could be a measurement on an instrument or something similar - the important thing is that it is capable of being observed by us.

The experimenter sets up situation A. If effect X is not observed, then the scientific conclusion is that (a) something is wrong with the experiment (this is dealt with by repeating the experiment, maybe several times), (b) something is wrong with the logic leading to the prediction that effect X will be observed, or (c) something is wrong with the assumptions on which the experiment is based - for example, the assumption that God exists.

On the other hand, if effect X is observed, this could be interpreted as (a) something is wrong with the experiment, (b) the assumptions and logic are valid (in particular, God does exist), or (c) there is an alternative explanation for effect X that does not involve the assumption that God exists.

If one of the necessary attributes of God is that God is free to act as God wills, and thus God does not behave in a predictable way, we have a problem, because the fact that the predicted effect X is not observed, even after many repetitions of the experiment, may be interpreted not as evidence that God does not exist, but rather that God exists but is exercising God's freedom to act and hence behaving unpredictably. Perhaps God is angry at our lack of faith and is messing up our experiments, or perhaps God is causing the "wrong" results to test our faith. No doubt other stories are possible.

The trouble with this is that any result of a scientific test can be rationalised away by an appeal to God's freedom to act in unpredictable ways. So either this freedom is not a necessary characteristic of God, or God's existence can't be tested using the standard methods of science. However, this is still consistent with the belief that God acts on the physical world.

gaynorvader

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. However, science as we know it is concerned with, and can report on, the natural world. So we shouldn't be building any castles in the sky with regards to the possible extension of its boundaries. One doesn't have to be an atheist, a Christian, Muslim or whatever to realise this. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

Very true, but I have faith in science, that one day it will come to pass that it will provide us with answers, and more questions. Is this really any different than someone putting faith into a deity? I admit our current level of scientific achievment is incapable of determining the existance of gods.

hivizman wrote: »

I think (please correct me if this is wrong) that Morbert is arguing that there is a third possibility, that God may interact with physical reality, but not in a uniform way. A scientific test for the existence of God would have the following structure:

[...]

If one of the necessary attributes of God is that God is free to act as God wills, and thus God does not behave in a predictable way, we have a problem, because the fact that the predicted effect X is not observed, even after many repetitions of the experiment, may be interpreted not as evidence that God does not exist, but rather that God exists but is exercising God's freedom to act and hence behaving unpredictably. Perhaps God is angry at our lack of faith and is messing up our experiments, or perhaps God is causing the "wrong" results to test our faith. No doubt other stories are possible.

The trouble with this is that any result of a scientific test can be rationalised away by an appeal to God's freedom to act in unpredictable ways. So either this freedom is not a necessary characteristic of God, or God's existence can't be tested using the standard methods of science. However, this is still consistent with the belief that God acts on the physical world.

I agree with this. It's sound logically.

Anyone else notice that God is mentioned an awful lot as opposed to a god or gods, I always find that a bit odd, especially from atheists, surely they should be arguing against all religion.(this last paragraph is a bit OT and not aimed at hivizman personally)

sink

hivizman wrote: »

I think (please correct me if this is wrong) that Morbert is arguing that there is a third possibility, that God may interact with physical reality, but not in a uniform way. A scientific test for the existence of God would have the following structure:

If God exists, then, in situation A, the physical effect X will be observed (this could be expressed in absolute terms or in terms of probabilities).

The "physical effect" could be a measurement on an instrument or something similar - the important thing is that it is capable of being observed by us.

The experimenter sets up situation A. If effect X is not observed, then the scientific conclusion is that (a) something is wrong with the experiment (this is dealt with by repeating the experiment, maybe several times), (b) something is wrong with the logic leading to the prediction that effect X will be observed, or (c) something is wrong with the assumptions on which the experiment is based - for example, the assumption that God exists.

On the other hand, if effect X is observed, this could be interpreted as (a) something is wrong with the experiment, (b) the assumptions and logic are valid (in particular, God does exist), or (c) there is an alternative explanation for effect X that does not involve the assumption that God exists.

If one of the necessary attributes of God is that God is free to act as God wills, and thus God does not behave in a predictable way, we have a problem, because the fact that the predicted effect X is not observed, even after many repetitions of the experiment, may be interpreted not as evidence that God does not exist, but rather that God exists but is exercising God's freedom to act and hence behaving unpredictably. Perhaps God is angry at our lack of faith and is messing up our experiments, or perhaps God is causing the "wrong" results to test our faith. No doubt other stories are possible.

The trouble with this is that any result of a scientific test can be rationalised away by an appeal to God's freedom to act in unpredictable ways. So either this freedom is not a necessary characteristic of God, or God's existence can't be tested using the standard methods of science. However, this is still consistent with the belief that God acts on the physical world.

If god was able to interupt the natural laws that govern the universe that should be detectable becuase it would break the assumption of uniformitarianism. If suddenly the laws of thermodynamics don't apply it would point to an outside actor interupting the natural laws governing our universe. That would be detectable and would be able to be tested scientifically, thus making god scientifically testable.

Fanny Cradock

hivizman wrote: »

I think...

Good post, Hivizman

gaynorvader wrote: »

Very true, but I have faith in science, that one day it will come to pass that it will provide us with answers, and more questions. Is this really any different than someone putting faith into a deity? I admit our current level of scientific achievment is incapable of determining the existance of gods.

Well, I have no problem with your predictions for science as long as you recognise that they are faith based.

gaynorvader

sink wrote: »

If god was able to interupt the natural laws that govern the universe that should be detectable becuase it would break the assumption of uniformitarianism. If suddenly the laws of thermodynamics don't apply it would point to an outside actor interupting the natural laws governing our universe. That would be detectable and would be able to be tested scientifically, thus making god scientifically testable.

The effect would be detectable, but not necessarily the cause.

gaynorvader

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Good post, Hivizman



Well, I have no problem with your predictions for science as long as you recognise that they are faith based.

Nope, they're a prophecy! Heh, of course I recognise it as faith, I'd be an arrogant, hypocritical ass to claim otherwise!:D

sink

gaynorvader wrote: »

The effect would be detectable, but not necessarily the cause.

Doesn't matter, we know dark matter and dark energy exists, because we can observe it's physical interaction with what we can detect but we don't know what it is. If the laws of thermodynamics were suspended it would be definitive evidence that something is capable of interupted them. Science would be able to investigate what that something is making god subject to scientific investigation.

Morbert

sink wrote: »

The only things that can't be investigated with the scientific method are things that cannot be observed either directly or through their interaction with other bodies. The only things that can't be examined using science are things which even if they exist, have absolutely no impact upon the reality we can percieve and it would be them same from our perspective as if they didn't exist at all.

Again, science is not only limited by what we can observe, but also by what we can experiment on, test, and conclude by induction. Hivizman's post expands on this.

I'm going to need any phenomena that has been observed breaking uniformitarianism.

Why?

gaynorvader

sink wrote: »

Doesn't matter, we know dark matter and dark energy exists, because we can observe it's physical interaction with what we can detect but we don't know what it is. If the laws of thermodynamics were suspended it would be definitive evidence that something is capable of interupted them. Science would be able to investigate what that something is making god subject to scientific investigation.

We don't know that dark matter/energy exist. We just invented them to fit into the equation for now. It's perfectly likely that there is something else in their place, perhaps the gods themselves?

Morbert

sink wrote: »

If god was able to interupt the natural laws that govern the universe that should be detectable becuase it would break the assumption of uniformitarianism. If suddenly the laws of thermodynamics don't apply it would point to an outside actor interupting the natural laws governing our universe. That would be detectable and would be able to be tested scientifically, thus making god scientifically testable.

Suppose God prevented your apparatus from reporting such anomalies? Honestly, it is not hard to imagine how God might evade scientific scrutiny.

hivizman

sink wrote: »

If god was able to interupt the natural laws that govern the universe that should be detectable becuase it would break the assumption of uniformitarianism. If suddenly the laws of thermodynamics don't apply it would point to an outside actor interupting the natural laws governing our universe. That would be detectable and would be able to be tested scientifically, thus making god scientifically testable.

Isn't this basically the argument that Christians use in favour of the resurrection of Jesus?

1. According to the laws of nature, it is impossible for a human to rise from the dead.

2. Jesus rose from the dead.

3. Therefore the laws of nature have been suspended.

4. The only power capable of suspending the laws of nature is God.

5. Therefore God exists.

Of course, those who do not accept the existence of God reject point 2.

St Paul was ahead of us all here in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.

hivizman

hivizman wrote: »

St Paul was ahead of us all here in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.

For those without convenient access to a Bible, here is the passage:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ - whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

(NRSV, Anglicized Edition)

gaynorvader

hivizman wrote: »

For those without convenient access to a Bible, here is the passage:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ - whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

(NRSV, Anglicized Edition)

Doesn't that basically equate to; if Christianity is right, it is correct, but if it's wrong, we've all been wasting our time?

sink

Morbert wrote: »

Again, science is not only limited by what we can observe, but also by what we can experiment on, test, and conclude by induction. Hivizman's post expands on this.

I would agree with that. But what you are essentially saying is that any trace evidence left by god is likely to be inconclusve, not that god cannot be detected by scientific methods.

Morbert wrote: »

sink wrote: »

I'm going to need any phenomena that has been observed breaking uniformitarianism.

Why?

Becuase it has never happened so far as we know, and if ever did only scientific analysis could determine it conclusively. Ancient books written decades and centuries after the events they claim to depict are not reliable sources i'm afraid.

gaynorvader wrote: »

We don't know that dark matter/energy exist. We just invented them to fit into the equation for now. It's perfectly likely that there is something else in their place, perhaps the gods themselves?

We do know they exist but as I said we don't know what they are. They could essentially be an infinite number of things, even as you say 'god himslef'. And that is my point if they are the physical presence of god we have already detected gods presence we just don't know it yet. But we have no reason to jump to that conclusion.

sink

hivizman wrote: »

Isn't this basically the argument that Christians use in favour of the resurrection of Jesus?

1. According to the laws of nature, it is impossible for a human to rise from the dead.

2. Jesus rose from the dead.

3. Therefore the laws of nature have been suspended.

4. The only power capable of suspending the laws of nature is God.

5. Therefore God exists.

Of course, those who do not accept the existence of God reject point 2.

St Paul was ahead of us all here in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.

I guess it is a similar argument. As you say I have issues with point 2. If there was conclusive evidence that this happened I would have to take christianity seriously.

PDN

gaynorvader wrote: »

Doesn't that basically equate to; if Christianity is right, it is correct, but if it's wrong, we've all been wasting our time?

Actually it goes a step further than that. It equates to; If one particular aspect of Christianity is wrong (the resurrection) then we've all been wasting our time.

sink

Accidentally skipped this post.

Morbert wrote: »

Suppose God prevented your apparatus from reporting such anomalies? Honestly, it is not hard to imagine how God might evade scientific scrutiny.

The fundamental laws of nature are essential for us to exist as we are. If one were to suddenly stop working, you wouldn't need scientific apparatus to detect it. Essentially this goes back to my point that if we can't detect it and has no determinable impact upon that which we can percieve, it might as well not exist, for the result would be the same.

Morbert

sink wrote: »

Accidentally skipped this post.

The fundamental laws of nature are essential for us to exist as we are. If one were to suddenly stop working, you wouldn't need scientific apparatus to detect it. Essentially this goes back to my point that if we can't detect it and has no determinable impact upon that which we can percieve, it might as well not exist, for the result would be the same.

You're being contrived by assuming the laws of physics cannot be broken locally.

But either way you're missing the point. If the God of Christianity exists then he would be free to come and go as he pleases; to make his presence as discrete or as indiscrete as he likes.

Morbert

sink wrote: »

I would agree with that. But what you are essentially saying is that any trace evidence left by god is likely to be inconclusve, not that god cannot be detected by scientific methods.

No, I am saying God cannot be detected by the scientific method. He does not have to couple himself to a single photon if he doesn't want to.

Becuase it has never happened so far as we know, and if ever did only scientific analysis could determine it conclusively. Ancient books written decades and centuries after the events they claim to depict are not reliable sources i'm afraid.

Scientific analysis would not be able to determine it conclusively, as the scientific means of investigation would, by default, not be applicable.

hivizman

Morbert wrote: »

No, I am saying God cannot be detected by the scientific method. He does not have to couple himself to a single photon if he doesn't want to.

We need to distinguish between the mechanism by which God acts (if indeed there is a God who acts on the world) and the effects or consequences of God's actions. Even if we treat the mechanism as a "black box", we should be able to make hypotheses, based on the agreed properties of God, that, if God exists, then in a specific situation we would expect to observe a particular effect, whereas, if God does not exist, then we would expect to observe a different effect.

What if we observe the effect associated with the "null hypothesis" that God does not exist? This is where the rationalisation comes in. If God has the freedom to act as God wills, then we simply cannot make predictions about what will or will not happen in a given situation. Any apparently negative result can be explained away as an example of God's freedom not to be bound by what we expect God to do. This means that empirical propositions about God cannot be falsified, because (at least to believers) any possible result can be explained (possibly in a convoluted way that does not persuade non-believers) in a way that is consistent with the maintained hypothesis that God exists.

If we accept the idea that philosophers such as Karl Popper and others developed (and I think goes back to David Hume if not earlier) that a scientific proposition is one that is open to being falsified by empirical evidence, then propositions about the existence (or indeed the non-existence) of God can't be falsified by empirical evidence, and hence are not scientific. As I said before, this doesn't mean that God doesn't exist (forgive the double negative), just that we can't usefully employ the methods and language of the physical sciences to discuss God, except in a metaphorical sense.

sink

hivizman wrote: »

We need to distinguish between the mechanism by which God acts (if indeed there is a God who acts on the world) and the effects or consequences of God's actions. Even if we treat the mechanism as a "black box", we should be able to make hypotheses, based on the agreed properties of God, that, if God exists, then in a specific situation we would expect to observe a particular effect, whereas, if God does not exist, then we would expect to observe a different effect.

What if we observe the effect associated with the "null hypothesis" that God does not exist? This is where the rationalisation comes in. If God has the freedom to act as God wills, then we simply cannot make predictions about what will or will not happen in a given situation. Any apparently negative result can be explained away as an example of God's freedom not to be bound by what we expect God to do. This means that empirical propositions about God cannot be falsified, because (at least to believers) any possible result can be explained (possibly in a convoluted way that does not persuade non-believers) in a way that is consistent with the maintained hypothesis that God exists.

If we accept the idea that philosophers such as Karl Popper and others developed (and I think goes back to David Hume if not earlier) that a scientific proposition is one that is open to being falsified by empirical evidence, then propositions about the existence (or indeed the non-existence) of God can't be falsified by empirical evidence, and hence are not scientific. As I said before, this doesn't mean that God doesn't exist (forgive the double negative), just that we can't usefully employ the methods and language of the physical sciences to discuss God, except in a metaphorical sense.

Yes I am familiar with falsifiability. While the case for falsifiability as a qualification for what is and is not scientific, is a good one, it does not always apply in all circumstances. While the god concept is not falsifiable it is in theory verifiable by scientific methods (dependent on the action of god of course). If god were to arrange the stars to form the words 'I am god your creator and I exist' and then come down to and give a speech at the Vatican imparting his knowledge of creation, that would be verifiable by science. So while we can't say with absolute certainty that god does not exist we can say with absolute certainty that he has not been shown to exist in even the slightest fashion.

So god is not a scientific concept, but if god exists god should be capable of being detect by scientific methods all that is stopping us is the will of god according to believers, and the fact that he does not exist according to everyone else.

Again this brings me back to my original argument, if you can't detect it or perceive any impact it has upon the physical reality we perceive, for all intents and purposes it does not exist. So unless the scientific method can be applied to god and his existence is verified, in practical terms he does not exist for his existence would be identical to his non-existence.

Morbert

sink wrote: »

Yes I am familiar with falsifiability. While the case for falsifiability as a qualification for what is and is not scientific, is a good one, it does not always apply in all circumstances. While the god concept is not falsifiable it is in theory verifiable by scientific methods (dependent on the action of god of course). If god were to arrange the stars to form the words 'I am god your creator and I exist' and then come down to and give a speech at the Vatican imparting his knowledge of creation, that would be verifiable by science.

So god is not a scientific concept, but if god exists god should be capable of being detect by scientific methods all that is stopping us is the will of god according to believers, and the fact that he does not exist according to everyone else.

There is no reason to believe God should be capable of being investigated with the scientific method even if he is able to make his presence known by tampering with stars or experiments. Black holes, for example, can be scientifically investigated, but God is under no obligation even if he might decide to write his name in an oscilloscope every now and them.

Again this brings me back to my original argument, if you can't detect it or perceive any impact it has upon the physical reality we perceive, for all intents and purposes it does not exist. So unless the scientific method can be applied to god and his existence is verified, in practical terms he does not exist for his existence would be identical to his non-existence.

This doesn't mean religion and science are in conflict, or that religion is anti-science. Remember that this isn't a debate about the validity of religious claims. This is a debate about whether or not the existence of God is a scientific question, and whether or not scientists can be fully commited to their job and believe in God at the same time.

sink

Morbert wrote: »

This doesn't mean religion and science are in conflict, or that religion is anti-science. Remember that this isn't a debate about the validity of religious claims. This is a debate about whether or not the existence of God is a scientific question, and whether or not scientists can be fully commited to their job and believe in God at the same time.

I have already given my views on that. To be a scientist one is only required to follow the scientific method, if you do that your beliefs and bias won't be a factor. If your beliefs and biases cause you to drop the scientific method you are not doing science. So yes I do believe it's possible for a person of strong religious conviction to be a good scientist so long as they stick to the scientific method.

The main thrust of my argument was that science could be used to prove god given the right circumstance but god is unfalsifiable even if he does in fact not exist. In the absence of proof that god exists it is more logical to assume that he doesn't.

Pamela111

The Sun is getting hotter and the effects seen on our Planet are also being seen on other planets.

Radiation from the sun is increasing. This is a sign from Christ for the "end of times" and the chasetisements ahead for mankind in years to come.

Global Warming Scam

The planets are also losing their regular motion - almost 30 leap seconds have been inserted since the 1960s.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

Pamela111

And this is what they say is the main reason behind global warming - cows burping. :rolleyes:

So we have lost our fishing, our farming and next our cows.

I love science but with so many false scientific theories I am beginning to lose interest.

sink

I don't think this is the place to discuss global warming as it is way off topic. Take it to the weather forum, there you will find real Meteorologists to argue your case with .

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=374

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

But either way you're missing the point. If the God of Christianity exists then he would be free to come and go as he pleases; to make his presence as discrete or as indiscrete as he likes.

But that isn't the point though.

I know what you are saying that God (as defined by Christians) is non-testable, I said the same thing way back in this post here

But that means there definition of "God" is irrelevant. It should be thrown out. Science is not in the job of testing thing that are imaginary. The definition of "God" is imaginary even if God exists because we imagined it with no way of testing if it is anything to do with reality. But some fluke it could totally match reality, but that is irrelevant.

God is a question for science and we don't know is a perfectly valid answer. It is the answer. There isn't another answer. God gets lumped into the set of all the other stuff we don't know, from invisible unicorns to the FSM

There is a reason why you keep getting thanked by all the Christians here, and I think it is because they all think you are saying that the answer lies outside of science and therefore we must use other things to learn about him. God is not a question for science so lets use this instead. God is a question for science and the answer is we don't know. That answer shouldn't be ignored simply because it is not pleasing to Christians.

I know you are not saying that, but I think you are not getting that point.

Fanny Cradock

Pamela, please keep your posts on topic. Any more discussion on climate change and the posts get deleted, I'm afraid.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

God is a question for science and we don't know is a perfectly valid answer. It is the answer. There isn't another answer. God gets lumped into the set of all the other stuff we don't know, from invisible unicorns to the FSM

Scientifically speaking, 'we don't know' is the answer. Thats no problem. Science doesn't know. As I said, me saying 'God exists' is not a scientific assertion.

There is a reason why you keep getting thanked by all the Christians here, and I think it is because they all think you are saying that the answer lies outside of science and therefore we must use other things to learn about him.

Thats very presumptuous of you, and not at all accurate. Way to once again just decide that all christians are like a big hivemind.

God is a question for science and the answer is we don't know. That answer shouldn't be ignored simply because it is not pleasing to Christians.

And when this question has an answer other than we don't know, we will see who or what is 'anti' science. Until then, saying 'God exists' is not 'anti' science, nor is it in conflict with science, as science has not only no answer, but no opinion on the matter.

I know you are not saying that, but I think you are not getting that point.

I think most get your point, but just disagree that this puts religion as anti-science.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Scientifically speaking, 'we don't know' is the answer. Thats no problem. Science doesn't know. As I said, me saying 'God exists' is not a scientific assertion.

But it is also anti-scientific because it is asserting something that, scientifically, you shouldn't assert.

It is the same way as saying "God doesn't exist" is anti-Christian. It isn't simply that it isn't Christian but that a Christian could hold that view and it wouldn't conflict with his Christianity, it is directly opposing a principle of Christianity.

You can't hold to that and still say you are saying under Christian principles.

JimiTime wrote: »

And when this question has an answer other than we don't know, we will see who or what is 'anti' science. Until then, saying 'God exists' is not 'anti' science, nor is it in conflict with science, as science has not only no answer, but no opinion on the matter.

It is because the scientific answer, the only scientific answer, is "we don't know".

To assert another answer is to go against, to oppose, the principles of science. You can't do that while claiming to not be in conflict with science.

To say it isn't a scientific assertion is some what irrelevant. Science deals with existence, if you are asserting something about existence you are within the realms of science. Because science cannot test what you are claiming doesn't make it any less anti-scientific, in fact that is why it is anti-scientific. You are claiming something is true that cannot be tested by science and as such cannot be claimed to be true by science. And that conflicts with the scientific principles.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

But it is also anti-scientific because it is asserting something that, scientifically, you shouldn't assert.

It is the same way as saying "God doesn't exist" is anti-Christian. It isn't simply that it isn't Christian but that a Christian could hold that view and it wouldn't conflict with his Christianity, it is directly opposing a principle of Christianity.

You can't hold to that and still say you are saying under Christian principles.



It is because the scientific answer, the only scientific answer, is "we don't know".

To assert another answer is to go against, to oppose, the principles of science. You can't do that while claiming to not be in conflict with science.

To say it isn't a scientific assertion is some what irrelevant. Science deals with existence, if you are asserting something about existence you are within the realms of science. Because science cannot test what you are claiming doesn't make it any less anti-scientific, in fact that is why it is anti-scientific. You are claiming something is true that cannot be tested by science and as such cannot be claimed to be true by science. And that conflicts with the scientific principles.

NB to you and Mods: This is not personal, and I don't mean it, I'm just using it for a point.

'You are an @sshole'

The term above is not 'anti' science. I have no scientific evidence, and have used no science methods in coming to this conclusion, but is it 'anti' science? No! Its simply got nothing to do with science. It would become scientific, if I was to set up a model to see if you were in fact an @sshole. If my preconception that you are an @sshole thrumped the evidence and outcome of my scientific model, then it would be 'anti' science. Saying 'God exists' at this moment in time is not a scientific assertion. If science finds an answer other than 'we have no opinion on it', then we can reassess. For now, there is no issue. Its really that simple. One can even have bias, and still adhere to the scientific method. Fact is, you have bias as an atheist, so if your arguement follows, atheists are also in conflict with science (I don't believe they are, but I think thats what your reasoning says).