Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 16 of 310 (485886)
10-12-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Straggler
10-12-2008 5:11 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Straggler writes:
If "god" is an advanced alien species then who, if anything, do they worship?
I'd think that if they planted life here 4 billion years ago, they'd know more answers than we do about god(if there is god). I just can't think like them and answer your question because i naturally don't possess the knowledge I think they'd possess(if they exist).
Straggler writes:
Or have they concluded that all is ultimately the result of wholly natural processes?
The Why question may quite well be eternal. Maybe they are asking the same thing, i'd not be surprised. But deep inside me Natural Processes just don't sound right(on top of other things), it seems like a cop out of the uncomfortable questions of our existence.
Straggler writes:
If they have concluded this is it even posible that this is a viable and evidence based conclusion?
It seems you are asking if we'd ever be able to read the mind of god. Why not? There are so many scientists after him(really trying to destroy the idea of him) and we are just getting started to barely understand the world we live in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 5:11 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 5:40 PM Agobot has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 17 of 310 (485887)
10-12-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Agobot
10-12-2008 5:33 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
The point of this thread as I intended it is to ask the question as to whether people think that their beliefs, or lack of them, are justified or even derived fom science.
Can I assume from your responses that you think science is an inadequate basis upon wich to base conclusions regarding origins etc. etc.?
If so, upon what do you base the beliefs that you do hold and in what way are they superior, more reliable or in some other way preferable to those that science is capable of providing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 5:33 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 6:00 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 31 by dogrelata, posted 10-13-2008 10:17 AM Straggler has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 18 of 310 (485888)
10-12-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
10-12-2008 5:24 PM


Re: True Randomness
PaulK writes:
I don't see any way to prove that a past mutation was "random".
However, the evidence that "randomness exists' would be precisely what I was talking about. We have to show that mutations are "random" in the sense that evolutionary theory says that they are random - and not some other sense (which would be irrelevant, at best).
What if they are random most of the time, and only at certain times they become directed. Or what if the creator is trying to hide its presence from us orchestrating evolution in an apprehensible manner? IMO the only way to avoid this possibility is by proving that true randomness exists, and hence we'd no longer have doubts that what we perceive as chaos can actually be 'orchestrated' order that we don't comprehend and mistake for chaos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2008 5:24 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2008 5:52 PM Agobot has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 19 of 310 (485889)
10-12-2008 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
10-12-2008 5:24 PM


Re: True Randomness
Lets not drag this thread down the randomness of mutation in evolutionary theory path.
Randomness in the wider sense is inherent in nature according to QM. Objections to this are invariably philosophical or aesthetic.
So lets leave the question of randomness in nature at that and discuss the degree to which members consider their theistic/deistic/atheistic views to be derived from or verified by science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2008 5:24 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 6:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 310 (485890)
10-12-2008 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Agobot
10-12-2008 5:42 PM


Re: True Randomness
quote:
What if they are random most of the time, and only at certain times they become directed. Or what if the creator is trying to hide its presence from us orchestrating evolution in an apprehensible manner
Unless we can predict when it will happen and test it, then it's invisible to science.
quote:
IMO the only way to avoid this possibility is by proving that true randomness exists, and hence we'd no longer have doubts that what we perceive as chaos can actually be 'orchestrated' order that we don't comprehend and mistake for chaos.
Your opinion is, I am afraid, disconnected from reality. Even if we proved that "true randomness" existed (whatever you mean by that) it would not tell us if a specific past event was random or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 5:42 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 6:10 PM PaulK has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 21 of 310 (485891)
10-12-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
10-12-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Straggler writes:
The point of this thread as I intended it is to ask the question as to whether people think that their beliefs, or lack of them, are justified or even derived fom science.
Can I assume from your responses that you think science is an inadequate basis upon wich to base conclusions regarding origins etc. etc.?
Yes, scientific findings can be misinterpreted by laypeople. Some posit that evolution means there is no god, some others claim the singularity means there is god, others think if the Bible is wrong then God does not exist. Interpretation is how humans twist the facts to suit their beliefs.
Science is the only way to the creator, if there is one. Too bad i am not very fond of his character and his way of managing the world, it's almost frightening if there is creator and he holds the views that are visible from the reality of our existence.
Straggler writes:
If so, upon what do you base the beliefs that you do hold and in what way are they superior, more reliable or in some other way preferable to those that science is capable of providing?
We know too little to make a definite choice Creator-Natural Processes. Both hardcore atheism and religious fundamentalism at this level of scientific knowledge are childish, IMO.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 5:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 6:10 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 22 of 310 (485892)
10-12-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
10-12-2008 5:52 PM


Re: True Randomness
PaulK writes:
Your opinion is, I am afraid, disconnected from reality. Even if we proved that "true randomness" existed (whatever you mean by that) it would not tell us if a specific past event was random or not.
A theory of everything is needed to prove and explain how randomness would work in a world like ours - composed of a quantum and classical worlds. So far we can only guess if determinism and hard determinism are true and valid, and what you percieve as randomness is or is not the only available state/choice there is(whether there is a creator or not). A seemingly random event can be an inevitability when all the forces of nature dictate the only available outcome of what you perceive as randomness(even if there is no God). Nature could ruin randomness as well and then the implications of this could be interpreted in multiple ways, but we'd be going pretty far offtopic in a very deep subject.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2008 5:52 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 10-13-2008 1:24 AM Agobot has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 23 of 310 (485893)
10-12-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Agobot
10-12-2008 6:00 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
How would you describe your position in terms of atheism/deism/theism?
Are you any of the aforementioned or none of the above?
What is your position regarding the EvC debate in it's widest sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 6:00 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 24 of 310 (485895)
10-12-2008 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Straggler
10-12-2008 5:45 PM


Re: True Randomness
Straggler writes:
Lets not drag this thread down the randomness of mutation in evolutionary theory path.
Randomness in the wider sense is inherent in nature according to QM. Objections to this are invariably philosophical or aesthetic.
So lets leave the question of randomness in nature at that and discuss the degree to which members consider their theistic/deistic/atheistic views to be derived from or verified by science.
Agreed.
Straggler writes:
How would you describe your position in terms of atheism/deism/theism?
More towards theism, less towards atheism, and very far from religions.
Straggler writes:
What is your position regarding the EvC debate in it's widest sense?
I try to keep an open mind, things are not always as skin deep and simple as they seem at first sight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 5:45 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 7:09 PM Agobot has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 25 of 310 (485896)
10-12-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Agobot
10-12-2008 6:27 PM


More towards theism, less towards atheism, and very far from religions.
That is interesting as that is not how you come across when confronted with more conventional theists.
I try to keep an open mind, things are not always as skin deep and simple as they seem at first sight.
Fair enough. But to what extent is your position dependent on science and on what basis do you justify those aspects that are not scientifically derived?
Would your position be the same regardless of science?
If not how might it be different in the absence of present scientific understanding?
If so is there any possible scientifc evidence that would change your view??
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Deleted irrelevant and inappropriate subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 6:27 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Agobot, posted 10-13-2008 6:00 AM Straggler has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 310 (485914)
10-13-2008 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Agobot
10-12-2008 6:10 PM


Re: True Randomness
quote:
So far we can only guess if determinism and hard determinism are true and valid, and what you percieve as randomness is or is not the only available state/choice there is(whether there is a creator or not). A seemingly random event can be an inevitability when all the forces of nature dictate the only available outcome of what you perceive as randomness(even if there is no God).
I won't argue with any of this, but it is completely irrelevant.
Firstly because neither option lets us show that a particular past event was definitely random (which was what you wanted).
Secondly because "random mutations" are STILL random in the sense meant, even in a deterministic universe.
Thirdly because neither option seems to get us anywhere near determining if there is or is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Agobot, posted 10-12-2008 6:10 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Agobot, posted 10-13-2008 4:44 AM PaulK has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 27 of 310 (485918)
10-13-2008 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-12-2008 1:05 PM


simple answer no i do not consider science to be the foundation upon which my own individual position is founded ....
as to why ...
deism is about faith ....if science could prove there to be a god of what ever sort then faith and belief become irrelavent ... you do not go round beliving in your kitchen table all day in the hope that it is there at dinner time .. you know its there and act accordingly ....
with deism .. you either have or have not a reason to have faith ...and that is a totally personal thing .. you do not need science to tell you any thing about it ....
it is only when you rely on the external to prop up your faith that you open up to questions .. and that is where science comes in as it is in the business of trying to answer questions ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 1:05 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 28 of 310 (485919)
10-13-2008 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
10-13-2008 1:24 AM


Re: True Randomness
PaulK writes:
Secondly because "random mutations" are STILL random in the sense meant, even in a deterministic universe.
They are? What if a creator devised an equation that governs how the universe works and the outcomes of "randomness"? Would that be random?
PaulK writes:
Thirdly because neither option seems to get us anywhere near determining if there is or is no God.
But we need to show that true randomness exists, and by that I mean complete unpredictability of the outcomes. Whatever the conditions and level of our knowledge, that'd be almost true randomness. This would come with the theory of everything that will limit the possibility of there being a creator even more, so we can be slightly more confident about randomness. It's an interesting and deep tpoic, if you want me to participate in such a debate open a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 10-13-2008 1:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 10-13-2008 7:22 AM Agobot has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 29 of 310 (485920)
10-13-2008 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Straggler
10-12-2008 7:09 PM


Agobot writes:
More towards theism, less towards atheism, and very far from religions.
Straggler writes:
That is interesting as that is not how you come across when confronted with more conventional theists.
If you are talking about my past, let's just say i drifted from atheism to agnostocism to a religion of science. A religion of science would be my understanding and recognition of sometimes hidden and sometimes very explicit order in the universe(which could be a misinterpreted science, but there is no way to know, we still know too little about our existence).
Straggler writes:
I try to keep an open mind, things are not always as skin deep and simple as they seem at first sight.
Agobot writes:
Fair enough. But to what extent is your position dependent on science and on what basis do you justify those aspects that are not scientifically derived?
Certain issues lie at the core of my belief(i hope they don't derail your thread too much). First issue - life arose in the quantum world, there was no classical world prior to life's emergence. In fact, for at least 2.5 billion years, life existed only in the quantum world, the living bacteria(prokaryote and eukaryote) did not have senses to recognise the classical world. They appear to have "lived" for so long in a quantum world of energies. Then comes the question, how does energy know how to combine to produce energy-replicating energies? Do elementary particles have a mind of their own? How did the first RNA molecule form out of thousands of atoms to carry information needed for self-replication of energies in a quantum world? By chance? It can be random(if true randomness exists) but why is it happening? What are the laws that are governing this process and making this possible? Our current understanding of nature would lead me to believe it's supernatural. But somewhere here my god can turn into a set of laws that we just don't know yet and i have no problem with that. I am just not contend with the "There is no reason why things are the way they are". I believe eventually we will know the why, whether it's god, aliens or a set of laws that are crucially important for the existence of the universe, but we are still not aware of them.
Then you have many more uncomfortable questions - how does altruism(the sacrifice of oneself for others) work quantum mechanically? How does intelligence work quantum mechanically? How does conscioness work quantum mechanically?
Is there a limit to what science can explain? Very possibly. But in that case, what on earth makes anyone think religion can do any better than science?
Straggler writes:
Would your position be the same regardless of science?
If not how might it be different in the absence of present scientific understanding?
If so is there any possible scientifc evidence that would change your view??
My views are following science, I don't think i could ever believe in the ancient books. If science ever proves there is no creator, so be it, but currently there is no scientific paper, book or magazine that states there is no creator. The scientific community is divided whether a creator is needed(most don't believe in a god that answers prayers), funny thing is that the director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins shares my beliefs(it appears Einstein claims the same with his - "Coincidence is how God remains anonymous"):
"Among Collins’s most controversial beliefs is that of “theistic evolution”, which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further."
“I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way,” he says.
“One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war."
“When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along. When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”
I've found God, says man who cracked the genome:
The Times & The Sunday Times
Francis Collins can of course be wrong, we still lack the information to make a fundamentally true statement - there is or is not a creator. I've chosen to be a scientific beliver, if it's possible at all, science will reveal why energy fields arranged the way they did after the Big Bang to promote existence and life(if it's not completely by chance and if chance exists to anyone but to those who don't have information beforehand about the event at hand).
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 7:09 PM Straggler has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 30 of 310 (485921)
10-13-2008 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Agobot
10-13-2008 4:44 AM


Re: True Randomness
quote:
They are? What if a creator devised an equation that governs how the universe works and the outcomes of "randomness"? Would that be random?
Unless the creator intentionally arranged things os that those particular mutations ocurred, yes.
But then, if we showed that normal mutatiosn were random in any sense you like we couldn't show that specific past mutations weren't intentionally arranged by some undectable influence. Which kills your whole approach.
quote:
But we need to show that true randomness exists, and by that I mean complete unpredictability of the outcomes.
Not for any reason we have been discussing or any reason relative to this thread. Or any reason I can think of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Agobot, posted 10-13-2008 4:44 AM Agobot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024