[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Then I guess that leaves God in the unmeasurable category doesn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Just look at a map of the world.
His socks are the size of New Jersey.
His boots are the size of Italy
Each of his balls are the size of Uruguay
His pecker is the shape and length of Baja California
Use your imagination. That is what ignorant, primitive peoples did when they invented God to explain stuff they couldn’t otherwise explain. And today, ignorant primitive people still use him for this purpose. 
I explained what I meant (though I agree I sort of coined a term right there). I can “materially justify” my belief in the axioms of math by looking at, say, 5 blocks and taking 2 of them out of the arrangement, leaving me with 3; thus, the equation “5-3” has a material meaning. However, I cannot materially justify my belief in, say, the ressurection of Jesus, because as the burden of proof argument above talks about, I can’t, say find anybody else who can turn water in to wine (or anything else physical). I’m perfectly willing to allow you a definition of God that doesn’t explicitly interact with the physical world. If he does though, you could have provable, testable, and presumably continuing works of miracles that could be addressed. But since we don’t the burden of proof rests on you.
[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
Sure the method is called ‘looking at the evidence’.
If someone reads a non-religious book, and performs an action related to the contents of the book, what reason do we assign to the performing of that action? Without any complicating evidence, we assign the contents of the book and the attributes of the person to the reason.
If someone reads a religious book, and performs an action related to the contents of the book, what reason do we assign to the performing of the action? Without any complicating evidence, we assign the contents of the book and the attributes of the person to the reason.
See, unless we have any evidence that god did it, we have no reason to claim that god did it.
[/QUOTE]
Who is we?
I understand your thinking and I see why someone saying “god did it” would not be convincing for you, but your method isn’t really scientific is it?
If the person who has the experience believes “god did it” and many others support his or her belief your method doesn’t provide anything to seriously refute them does it? It is your reason for saying “I don’t believe it” Of course their testimony or belief isn’t proof either for anyone else, but their belief remains unfalsifiable doesn’t it?
[QUOTE=Valteron]
Not at all. Just look at a map of the world.
His socks are the size of New Jersey.
His boots are the size of Italy
Each of his balls are the size of Uruguay
His pecker is the shape and length of Baja California
Use your imagination. That is what ignorant, primitive peoples did when they invented God to explain stuff they couldn’t otherwise explain. And today, ignorant primitive people still use him for this purpose.
[/QUOTE]
While other ignorant people just choose to ridicule
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Ever hear of market research? The impact of all sorts of things can be measured, and the statistical validity of the conclusions measured and described. You can call this scientific or not, depending on whether you consider sociology or psychology scientific.
The scientific question is whether we can distinguish between the case where there is no god, but a Bible and religion, and that there is a God. Results that would indicate a God might be measurable miracles, information in the Bible not explainable by knowledge available at the time it was written, or even reaction to reading the Bible totally unlike that of reading other books. Since I don’t think anyone has shown any of these things, we have to go with the null hypothesis (no god, everything explainable by known real causes) for the moment. At least if you’re making any pretense of using science.
Another way of looking at it is that in the stories in the Bible, where God is a real presence, no one had to conduct experiments looking for subtle statistical variations to demonstrate him. That offers up an excellent model of the world with god present, one we don’t see in reality.
[/QUOTE]
That seems reasonable, but not conclusive, when talking events like the miracles mentioned in the Bible. Healing the blind, raising the dead etc. but I was referring to something more subtle as I described.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I disagree that nature is reality. In fact, nature emerges from a quantum world that is decidedly not real.
[/quote]
It’s real enough that we build devices to exploit it.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
think that what is real must be essential, necessary, and eternal (nontemporal). The universe, as I see it, is nothing more than a probability distribution.
[/QUOTE]
Nothing is essential or necessary, and quite possibly nothing is eternal. I fail to see while any of those qualities have anyhting to do with something being real. And if the universe is “nothing more than a probability distribution”, then that doesn’t make it any less real.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I agree that we face that question, but I don’t know why the answer would be difficult. If, as I posit, the universe is basically a mathematical expression, then we have the spirit influencing the atoms. Simply because the spirit is not corporeal does not imply some insurmountable disconnect. Just as a material man can influence a nonmaterial math problem, a spirit may simply manipulate a material brain. Atoms are just potentialities and possibilities. There’s no reason that what manipulates them must be physical.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, that doesn’t work. A math problem is a pattern of ink on a page, electrons in a computer, neuronal impulses in the brain; it’s just as physical as a rock.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
The math problem is nonmaterial because it isn’t made of physical stuff. The pencil and paper may describe the problem, but the same tools can also describe God, music, and unicorns.
[/quote]
All just patterns in matter and energy. Patterns in the brain, patterns on a screen, patterns of sound.
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
I think your question is related to the mind-body problem in philosophy: anyone who believes that humans have a “spirit” or “soul” or “mind” that goes beyond the configuration of atoms in our physical brains is faced with the question of how an immaterial mind/spirit can influence a physical body.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s why the “mind body problem” is used as an argument against non-material minds/souls; it doesn’t make sense. An immaterial thing shouldn’t be able to interact.
Damn Hong Kong time zone; I always get into these threads late. I think the issue isn’t so much that atheists demand scientific proof for God’s existence. Rather, they demand evidence, and this evidence can be scientific or not. Even **Liberal ** admits that God can influence the course of worldly events. If so, then good evidence for God’s existence would be if we could detect one of these interventions, through scientific or other means. But as has been pointed out already, reported miracles or divine interventions seemed to fall off rapidly once people began taking a more critical stance toward their existence. Hume, in his ever rude fashion, wrote, “[Miracles] are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors.” Stated a bit tendentiously, as is Hume’s wont, but the basic point is sound.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Rationality and observation are not synonyms. People rationally discuss analytical (non-physical) things all the time. In fact, that’s what we’re doing in this thread. Meanwhile, as you laud science for its ability to falsify, keep in mind that falsification is itself a philosophical principle and is not falsifiable.
[/QUOTE]
Falsifiability is not a fact; it is a norm of inquiry. Thus, it is not justified in the same way an assertion is (e.g., by presenting evidence that there are particles called ‘falsificatons’ out there, which are emitted by false theories upon confrontation with contrary evidence, etc.). You justify falsifiability by showing that it is a good norm to adopt vis-a-vis our goal of attaining true beliefs and avoiding false beliefs. Belief in God is totally unlike this–it is a factual belief; you are asserting the existence of an entity (or substance or…). And it is appropriate for us to demand evidence. If none is forthcoming, there is no reason to believe.
Now as you allude to, evidence can come in two different kinds–a priori and a posteriori. Theists often try to prove the existence of God a priori, committing themselves to the existence of a priori synthetic knowledge. We good post-Kantians reject that such knowledge is possible, and demand empirical evidence–we demand a posteriori evidence. This could take the form of scientific evidence, but as **Voyager ** so eloquently pointed out, science is not by any means the only empirical knowledge-producing discipline.
I don’t see why science couldn’t prove a god, but it absolutely couldn’t prove there isn’t one. Proving a negative and all that. But one problem I see, is that in the highly unlikely event that we were to prove the existence of god and his name were Ted and he liked to smoke banana peels and wave his penis at strangers, the faithful and scientific would say we proved something else and god existed outside of Ted.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Falsifiability is not a fact; it is a norm of inquiry. Thus, it is not justified in the same way an assertion is (e.g., by presenting evidence that there are particles called ‘falsificatons’ out there, which are emitted by false theories upon confrontation with contrary evidence, etc.). You justify falsifiability by showing that it is a good norm to adopt vis-a-vis our goal of attaining true beliefs and avoiding false beliefs. Belief in God is totally unlike this–it is a factual belief; you are asserting the existence of an entity (or substance or…). And it is appropriate for us to demand evidence. If none is forthcoming, there is no reason to believe.
[/QUOTE]
For you and others who require that type of evidence it’s appropriate to not believe.
The mistake comes when non believers assert that nobody else has a valid reason to believe. IMHO it’s pretty similar to believers claiming they have the truth and all others must accept their version.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
For you and others who require that type of evidence it’s appropriate to not believe.
The mistake comes when non believers assert that nobody else has a valid reason to believe. IMHO it’s pretty similar to believers claiming they have the truth and all others must accept their version.
[/QUOTE]
Only if you think that belief and disbelief require the same standard of evidence.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The mistake comes when non believers assert that nobody else has a valid reason to believe. IMHO it’s pretty similar to believers claiming they have the truth and all others must accept their version.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s not the same. There’s a difference between saying that someone must accept your belief and saying that someone is wrong. Unless you reject the principle of non-contradiction, then the very act of belief presupposes that others who don’t share this belief are mistaken. If you believe in God, you think that others who don’t believe in God are wrong–surely, it cannot be the case that God exists for some people and not for others. Either He’s out there or He isn’t. Similarly, if I have good reason to believe that the traditional God of Christianity doesn’t exist (and I think I have excellent reason to believe this), then I think that those who believe in God are mistaken, just as they believe that I am mistaken. To believe something, but *not * to believe that those who disagree with you are wrong, is to fail the most elementary test of logical thought.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Sorry, that doesn’t work. A math problem is a pattern of ink on a page, electrons in a computer, neuronal impulses in the brain; it’s just as physical as a rock.
[/QUOTE]
But it’s not the math problem that’s physical. The ink on the page, the electrons in the computer, the impulses in the brain are all very different on a physical level, but they can represent the same math problem.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The mistake comes when non believers assert that nobody else has a valid reason to believe. IMHO it’s pretty similar to believers claiming they have the truth and all others must accept their version.
[/QUOTE]
right: but this isn’t what keeps happening in these threads. Liberal and others tend to act as though they have a proof that works for other people, and argue from a position that makes every other the position have the burden of proof, even though we have a preponderance of the evidence, because they’re treating them as given positions.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I understand your thinking and I see why someone saying “god did it” would not be convincing for you, but your method isn’t really scientific is it?
[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. It’s independent observation of events and drawing conclusions from the observations. No interaction of any gods were observed, so interaction of god is not a valid conclusion. If god changes something in this universe, then it will be indepdently observable in some way.
It doesn’t have to. The party making the claim has the burden of proof. If a person believes ‘god did it’, then it is not up to me to disprove him, it is up to them to provide evidence in support of it. Subjective experience can’t be evidence for this, because the human mind isn’t reliable in that way. Bias, prior expectation, bad memory, out and out lying, etc, there’s just too many things that can be used as non-god explanations before the ‘god did it’ explanation is needed.
Doesn’t matter. I don’t care if the belief is ‘unfalsifiable’ or not, until convincing evidence is brought forth, not believing it should be the default postion.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Nature is reality. Where does that leave God?
[/QUOTE]
This assumes that nature is the only thing that’s real. No offense, but I see no reason to accept that claim unconditionally.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
That seems reasonable, but not conclusive, when talking events like the miracles mentioned in the Bible. Healing the blind, raising the dead etc. but I was referring to something more subtle as I described.
[/QUOTE]
That’s covered by my example of reaction to reading the Bible. Measuring the impact of an ad, say, is darn subtle. If you give person A a Bible, and person B some other inspirational work (Chicken Soup for the Atheist Soul?) you can see if there is a difference. You can do that for just about any claim about God making a difference. I’m sure religious belief does, but that has nothing to do with God.
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
But it’s not the math problem that’s physical. The ink on the page, the electrons in the computer, the impulses in the brain are all very different on a physical level, but they can represent the same math problem.
[/QUOTE]
Yes; different translations of the same problem. There is no reason to believe that math problems have any existence in some sort of Platonic hyperspace. Patterns are real, but all patterns are made of something physical.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The mistake comes when non believers assert that nobody else has a valid reason to believe. IMHO it’s pretty similar to believers claiming they have the truth and all others must accept their version.
[/QUOTE]
No, the mistake is asserting that “belief” and “nonbelief” have equal weights and are equally justifiable on rational terms. Making an assertion–there’s a dude up in the sky with a white flowing beard who created the world in six days and then kicked back for some Sunday afternoon Wild World of Sports–places one in the position of having to validate, in some way, that there is in fact such a creature. Doubting this claim is not merely the flip side of the coin, it is the default position of any critical observer; an extraordinary claim needs to be backed by correspondingly impressive evidence.
I daresay most self-described atheists, when pressed on the question, will say not that there is absolutely no god or gods, but rather that there is no evidence and no necessity for such, and without this no conceivable reason to go blindly accepting someone’s word that there is, in fact, Our Father Who Art In Heaven. Compounding this is the fact that virtually all claims made in support of a Creator are either based upon authoritative appeals (“the Bible says so”, “my pastor told me”, et cetera) or entirely subjective experiences of questionable veracity, eyewitnesses being notably unreliable at recounting what actually occured. Neither of these arguments holds weight in any critical analysis, and the remaining justifications tend to center around vague assertions of irreducible complexity and nonaccidential design, which are weak statements at best and often falling clearly into the venue of logical fallacies. Atheism doesn’t require any faith; merely a healthy skepticism regarding unsubstantiated claims. The fact that they are unsupported doesn’t necessarily make them false, but it does undercut assertions that they are the Truth, or even likely.
Liberal is correct when he states that claims of supernatural deities are beyond science to test and falsify, because the claims themselves exist outside the framework of scientific theory. This doesn’t contribute to their validity–I can easily make a claim that is obviously manufactured but nonetheless nonfalsifiable–but it does remove the essential ability to reduce the claim to an experiment or observation that could possibly give a definitively negative result.
Stranger
[QUOTE=JThunder]
This assumes that nature is the only thing that’s real. No offense, but I see no reason to accept that claim unconditionally.
[/QUOTE]
And I see no evidence not to.