God is not Science, it's claims are not Scientific

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier

You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.

No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.

This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.

No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.

There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?

So you are not aware. That is cool but stop pretending you are.

Ok...so make me aware...give me an example instead of bull#. Make an actual point for debate....

They are well documented in philosphy as are their rebuttals. They usually are classified as the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments.

There is also reasonable evidence it could be a biological predisposition.

So present some of this well documented evidence then. You keep saying it exists...yet present none with which to debate with...

Because they are massive texts. Google it man. If you don't know what I am talking about you are already at a loss here.

You can also find the rebuttals. Start with Aquinas Ways. He doesn't mention the bible.

I know it's hard for some folks to get that I don't find them compelling enough to be convinced but also can't say they aren't thought provoking and logic based. But I am not binary.

Massive Texts? Really?

Mankind created god(s) in his or nature's image way before written language.

Logic, as stated earlier, can be very correct but useless if the premises upon which we build our argument are false which I find often the case in Abrahamic commentaries.

Yes. Aquinas alone would be several pages.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Only the godless created gods.

Teleological Argument – A Fine-Tuned Universe
The list supporting the Teleological Argument seems to be growing larger and larger as scientists discover more about the universe. Even now, this is a very long list, and who really likes lists? However, when I discuss these issues with atheists, they often ask for “details on this so-called fine-tuning,” so here’s the list:

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
Ratio of space energy density to mass density
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between galaxy clusters
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
Electromagnetic fine structure constant
Gravitational fine-structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass values for the active neutrinos
Number of different species of active neutrinos
Number of active neutrinos in the universe
Mass value for the sterile neutrino
Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
Number density of metal-free pop III stars
Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
Flatness of universe's geometry
Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
Constancy of dark energy factors
Epoch for star formation peak
Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
Level of charge-parity violation
Number of galaxies in the observable universe
Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
Water's temperature of maximum density
Water's heat of fusion
Water's heat of vaporization
Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
Location of clumpuscules in the universe
Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field1
Teleological Argument – Mathematical Impossibility without a Designer
The Teleological Argument reflects one of three possibilities for the existence of this incredible fine-tuning: law, chance or design. Scientists have puzzled over it for years and have found no natural laws that can account for it. The odds against such a theory ever being discovered seem insurmountable. Even Stephen Hawking, who was originally a believer in a “Theory of Everything” that could possibly explain the fine-tuning as necessary by law, after considering Gцdel's Theorem concluded that one was not obtainable. He states: “Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.”2

Since the threshold of mathematical impossibility is 1 in 10 to the 50th power, and the odds of this fine-tuning coming into existence by chance are far, far beyond that, we can rule out chance. Only a transcendent Creator makes sense of this unbelievably complex order in the universe.

During the last 35 years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life absolutely depends upon this very delicate and complex balance of initial conditions. It appears that “the deck was stacked” in the substances, constants and quantities of the Big Bang itself, to provide a life-permitting universe. We now know through modern science that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe like ours. How much more probable?

Well, the answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimally small as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball due to gravitational attraction.3 Physicist P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeroes!4 Davies also calculates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by merely one part in 10 raised to the 100th power (!) would have prevented a life-permitting universe.5 As we saw in the previous lists, there are dozens and dozens of such constants and quantities present in the Big Bang which must be exquisitely fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. Moreover, it's not only each individual quantity or constant which must be finely tuned; their ratios to each other must also be exquisitely finely tuned. Therefore, vast improbability is multiplied by vast improbability, and yet again by vast improbability repeatedly until our minds are simply reeling in vanishingly small odds.

There is no plausible physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values that they do. Reflecting on this, the once-agnostic physicist P.C.W. Davies comments, "Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact."6 Likewise, British Astrophysicist Sir Frederick Hoyle remarks, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics."7 Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, refers to this as “the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science.”8

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: okrian

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: okrian

Had to study him. He also got people off track and bear then in debates. A lot of atheists don't do well either. They get off on tangents and he ends up winning.

I totally agree. This ends up being a bit of the problem with some other religious debates, because both parties come with a set bunch of points that they want to get across and don't actually end up engaging with each other all that well. And for some of the atheists that have debated him, they can't get off their own script to address points. But all debates with him mean you will be debating his points, not the other way around.

Which always amazed me how often he could win. You already know what the guy was going to say.

The problem. Is they literally train them to debate that specific topic.

I had almost all atheist professors. They hated the guy but respected his chops. They also blasted the same kind of things being said her.

I tried using Russell's teapot and my professor tore me up in a class debate one of the atheists no less.

I'm going to guess that a portion of it comes down to ego? Do debaters want to forego all of their own points (that they are no doubt proud to present as they are almost always presented in a very postured manner) and spend all of their time merely refuting/debunking? It would perhaps be viewed at starting from the weaker position since you are allowing the other person to frame the course of the debate. I'm not saying that it would have to be (the weaker position), just spitballing here.

It can come down to time as well. Rarely have I seen a debate where I didn't think... wait... we're moving onto the audience Q&A already? There is a degree of complexity in these arguments and it always isn't a quick rebuttal that will suffice. And in this regard, yes, when you know what your fellow debater is bringing... how can you not be prepared with rebuttals and the kind of backup (references or otherwise) that you know is required with that specific person.

These things all have so much more depth than a series of points vs. a series of points.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

If the claim is that something exists, or that, that thing has some kind of properties, then it is clearly a matter that science can be used to validate or invalidate.

We may not be able to say 100% that it does not exist, but based on what claims are being made, we can evaluate and calculate the probability based on the evidence provided.

The problem with that is human science is very limited and is only as advanced as measured by humans. How many intelligent creatures exist in between where we are at, and all the way up to the highest of the high? And how can science measure anything above where we are at on the proverbial totem pole if they are hidden, and far away, and way beyond the reach of current (human) science?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: okrian

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: okrian

Had to study him. He also got people off track and bear then in debates. A lot of atheists don't do well either. They get off on tangents and he ends up winning.

I totally agree. This ends up being a bit of the problem with some other religious debates, because both parties come with a set bunch of points that they want to get across and don't actually end up engaging with each other all that well. And for some of the atheists that have debated him, they can't get off their own script to address points. But all debates with him mean you will be debating his points, not the other way around.

Which always amazed me how often he could win. You already know what the guy was going to say.

The problem. Is they literally train them to debate that specific topic.

I had almost all atheist professors. They hated the guy but respected his chops. They also blasted the same kind of things being said her.

I tried using Russell's teapot and my professor tore me up in a class debate one of the atheists no less.

Which is why I use my magical fire breathing dragon who lives in my garage. He is falsifiable. But if you require evidence for whether he exists or not, then I require evidence to whether your God exists.

a reply to: luthier

If God exist he speaks mathematics.

Same language as science.

a reply to: okrian

I agree. The people who could win the debates with Craig which really is not that many stayed on topic and didn't fall for his traps.

This is such a hard thing to discuss of people have never really been part of or watched formal debate.

If you say god is lame like so many people do you just got taken to the cleaners.

I think a lot of people assume philosphy is easy and opinion. Nearly every person who has argued against me here has said philosphy is useless. Yet they are trying to bring god into philosphy.

I don't think it's a scientific question. I don't think k metaphysics are science. I also dont this that means it's lame or useless.

I have battled with the teleological argument. It still doesn't convince me enough to believe but I find it fascinating. That alone seems to stump people.

What can I say I am an agnostic.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Again all you are doing is showing you don't understand the argument. You may think it seems smart but it's not even the same topic.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: dug88

He's playing you for philosophical debate dude, he doesn't actually believe in any gods, told me earlier in a public post.

Ya I figured...I'm just not too sure what his point is....

My point is there are valid rebuttals and they are good to know and that people who believe scripture is literal are a minority.

Maybe not on ATS but in the real world.


For instance Aquinas saying there must be a necessary being not contingent on anything else to avoid infinite regress.

The rebuttal is the universe can be it's own cause.

The teleological is where I find things interesting. Why is there not pure chaos? Why does carbon weigh what it does? Etc..which again are a problem if you consider the anthropic principle.

My point is there are deep thoughts about design beyond my book said so.

There is no good evidence for the existence of gods. Hence, the importance put on faith. Word games do not make evidence.

Why are you acting like an expert in a field you don't know anything about and are calling word games?

Of you have that personal belief cool. However there is an entire field of study, probably the oldest, that disagrees with your opinion.

Evidence is not required. There is no evidence for a great deal of cosmology. That doesn't make it faith.

philosophy is a history of people disagreeing about things that niether side can demonstrate. I will take science any day.

And Science has it's own preconceived set of unproven axioms. In fact there is a whole field of philosophy of science. Again Epistemology applies.

Science is breaking down because the sacred 'scientifc method' cannot solve for modern multi-cause messy or wicked
problems:


blogs.discovermagazine.com...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

If God exist he speaks mathematics.

Same language as science.

If God exists he is a mathematician.

The idea of a God was obviously created when Humans were perplexed when they encountered misc unexplained phenomena.

There is a reason for everything, God is not one of them.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: dug88

He's playing you for philosophical debate dude, he doesn't actually believe in any gods, told me earlier in a public post.

Ya I figured...I'm just not too sure what his point is....

My point is there are valid rebuttals and they are good to know and that people who believe scripture is literal are a minority.

Maybe not on ATS but in the real world.


For instance Aquinas saying there must be a necessary being not contingent on anything else to avoid infinite regress.

The rebuttal is the universe can be it's own cause.

The teleological is where I find things interesting. Why is there not pure chaos? Why does carbon weigh what it does? Etc..which again are a problem if you consider the anthropic principle.

My point is there are deep thoughts about design beyond my book said so.

There is no good evidence for the existence of gods. Hence, the importance put on faith. Word games do not make evidence.

Why are you acting like an expert in a field you don't know anything about and are calling word games?

Of you have that personal belief cool. However there is an entire field of study, probably the oldest, that disagrees with your opinion.

Evidence is not required. There is no evidence for a great deal of cosmology. That doesn't make it faith.

philosophy is a history of people disagreeing about things that niether side can demonstrate. I will take science any day.

And Science has it's own preconceived set of unproven axioms. In fact there is a whole field of philosophy of science. Again Epistemology applies.

Science is breaking down because the sacred 'scientifc method' cannot solve for modern multi-cause messy or wicked
problems:


blogs.discovermagazine.com...

Yes, but we know they are unproven. And when we get a better understanding, those axioms will be updated with little hand wringing.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
The idea of a God was obviously created when Humans were perplexed when they encountered misc unexplained phenomena.

There is a reason for everything, God is not one of them.

The question is can you prove it..

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver

You did without knowing them. A dragon is not a creator or designer unless that is what you are getting at.

The teapot argument is used to show that some claims are unverifiable. People in these threads claim that gods are verifiable. Through their personal experiences and feelings.

...and perhaps they have sufficient antidotal 'proof' for a subjective truth but no one can ever provide objective evidence to the existence of a 'god(s).

Nor can I prove objectively that there isn't a 'god(s)' as I don't have any means to measure the unseen.

We can only verify what we can see - or built instruments to 'see' - or calculate, and that is a limited bit of reality.

There are a lot of, as D. Rumsfeld would say, 'unknown, unknowns' out there.

Agnostic - can't prove the reality of god(s) or no god(s).

I can claim that i believe in all kinds of things that are beyond detection. But do i have a valid reason to?

Even with the knowledge that there are definately things in the universe that we don’t know about, it is pointless to start naming what those things are. At least until i have good reason.

And a valid reason for you may not be a valid reason for me. It is a subjective measure.

Science requires reproducible results under specified conditions and procedures. In the domain of science Valid first demands reproducible facts.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

If the claim is that something exists, or that, that thing has some kind of properties, then it is clearly a matter that science can be used to validate or invalidate.

We may not be able to say 100% that it does not exist, but based on what claims are being made, we can evaluate and calculate the probability based on the evidence provided.

The problem with that is human science is very limited and is only as advanced as measured by humans. How many intelligent creatures exist in between where we are at, and all the way up to the highest of the high? And how can science measure anything above where we are at on the proverbial totem pole if they are hidden, and far away, and way beyond the reach of current (human) science?

When/if they get here, i’ll change my mind.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Woodcarver

You did without knowing them. A dragon is not a creator or designer unless that is what you are getting at.

The teapot argument is used to show that some claims are unverifiable. People in these threads claim that gods are verifiable. Through their personal experiences and feelings.

...and perhaps they have sufficient antidotal 'proof' for a subjective truth but no one can ever provide objective evidence to the existence of a 'god(s).

Nor can I prove objectively that there isn't a 'god(s)' as I don't have any means to measure the unseen.

We can only verify what we can see - or built instruments to 'see' - or calculate, and that is a limited bit of reality.

There are a lot of, as D. Rumsfeld would say, 'unknown, unknowns' out there.

Agnostic - can't prove the reality of god(s) or no god(s).

I can claim that i believe in all kinds of things that are beyond detection. But do i have a valid reason to?

Even with the knowledge that there are definately things in the universe that we don’t know about, it is pointless to start naming what those things are. At least until i have good reason.

It's a good thing you don't work in cosmology or theoretical physics.

But I am sure you would pretend to be an expert there as well.

Name one thing that cosmologists claim that they do not have a valid reason to propose? Do not ignore this question.

Again, valid, is a subjective attribute.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It's not a personal attack. It's an observation. Perhaps you should study some philosophy or refresh.

No this is a personal attack.

a reply to: luthier

And if not we are sure to construct a being that displays similar traits to our notion of god rather soon after the AI singularity comes to fruition.

Now if anything we manage to construct/constructs itself, learns exponentially, is omnipresent/omnipotent and devised a means of the manipulation of space-time, which in all lightly hood it would accomplish given its propensity to learn exponentially, it may very well travel back and, tamper with some primates thus create the human race.

Now if that did happen would it be because of science, religion, or a bit of both.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It's not a personal attack. It's an observation. Perhaps you should study some philosophy or refresh.

No this is a personal attack.

I don't think it is. You would need to show what I am responding to. Saying someone is not qualified to make the argument based on their claims is not an ad honinem.