Bosun

The point of the analogy is that different people can look at the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions about what the evidence shows. Hung juries are a fact of life even about supposedly objective facts.


I do not believe that the existence of god a subject that is amenable to scientific inquiry. Never said it was. All I ever said was that my examination of the evidence, although leading to a different conclusion than yours, is just as rational. Not better, not worse, just different. If you are asking that the existence of a creator depend on a mathematical relationship to the creation, I agree that isn't going to happen.

But in this thread we are disucssing evidence. My opening shot was to the effect that evidence is evaluated differently by different people and to different levels of certainty. It seems that, to the atheist, any evidence not confirmable by a reproducible, falsifiable, experiment is irrational. I dispute that. By such standards, we could empty prisons of most of our convicted felons. (And imprison some people who are walking around free. I mean did OJ kill Nicole or not?)

I suppose that all could be true, but I would not raise it to the level of an axiom or even a good theory. It presupposes that other minds perceive the universe as yours does or should. Do you really think that people "willingly deceive" themselves? My take is that such people may be deceived, but not against their will not to be deceived.

Bosun

copernicus

Just what do you mean by "evidence"? Is it not a fact that supports some proposition? Juries argue over the admissibility of evidence, not just whether admissible evidence passes a standard. Scientists do the same. In our case, we often argue over what constitutes admissible evidence to support a theistic or deistic claim.

Nobody here is asking for a mathematical proof, although some theists do promote convoluted anselmian proofs. Your claim that god is immune to scientific inquiry strikes me as disingenuous, especially since you go on and on about "evidence". If god is immune to scientific inquiry, then we probably disagree on the meaning of "evidence". It isn't just that we disagree on how to interpret the evidence. We disagree on what constitutes evidence.

Scientific evidence is confirmable in the sense that it is reproducible. It is not falsifiable. Theories are falsifiable. And the whole point of science is that its "convicted felons" sometimes do get set free by new evidence. And unjustly free "felons" do end up in jail on the basis of new evidence. That is a good thing about science. Your claim that such standards lead to bad consequences strikes me as absurd. I don't think that scientific evidence would empty our jails, but it certainly has set people free by proving them innocent. (I am thinking of the use of DNA to reexamine old convictions.) Is that bad?

Sometimes the point is made that religious belief--or belief in the supernatural generally--is a scientific theory. It has been with us longer than recorded history, and it has been subject to rigorous experimentation over recorded history. Like all theories, it tells us something about the nature of reality and it makes predictions (prophecies). To the extent that it makes concrete claims, it has an unparalleled record of failure. In our modern age, we have a clearly discernable "god of gaps" phenomenon, where failed supernatural religious theory is replaced by natural scientific theory on the basis of unimpeachable evidence. That trend itself is "evidence" that looks bad for religion-based theories.

Bosun is right that different people do disagree over the same evidence. What they don't do is "agree to disagree" and go their separate ways. Imagine the progress we would have made if scientists followed the same ecumenical spirit. We would still have adherents of phlogiston theory publishing papers next to those who believed in oxygen. Oh well, "evidence is evaluated differently by different people and to different levels of certainty", Joseph Priestly's critics would say as they blithely dismissed all his work.

njhartsh

Granted! But, of course, anyone who would write that "the existence of god is manifest by existence itself" is obviously in the latter category--unless (s)he's just flat-out confused.

Well, the "truth" assertion is (1) an utterly unparsimonious inference to draw from the evidence, (2) totally non-falsifiable and (3) arguably internally logically contradictory--so: reason says no dice. Meanwhile, the "falsity" assertion is (1) not supported by sufficient evidence (evidence of universal absence being an excruciatingly tough row to hoe) and (2) probably non-falsifiable as well--so: reason probably gives that one the thumbs-down too.

This kind of statement, from most people, exhibits mere excusable ignorance. Given the amount of exposure you've had to explanations about why the above is wrong, I don't think you have much excuse.

Four fingers, Winston--he's holding up four fingers.

- Nathan

NonHomogenized

Correct.
No, I don't say that. I reject a creator because of Occam's razor. There is no evidence to support the existence of any creator of the universe, solar system, earth, life, or anything of the sort. Any argument for a creator of such is therefore the equivalent of saying "there must have been a creator, though!". These are usually arguments from ignorance, personal incredulity, "irreducible complexity" (which is a combination of the previous two), or first cause. The first three are extremely basic fallacies, and the last has a hole in it which is reminiscient of the one in the Titanic (ie, lying rusted and crushed in two pieces at the bottom of the ocean, with various debris such as the boilers scattered over an area of several square miles. Graphic, no?)

Regardless, though, agnosticism is saying "we cannot know". Atheism can be "I don't believe that god exists" as well as "there is no god". In fact, many atheists take that stance (a stance of non-belief, without go so far as to disbelieve). I'm not one of them, however. I think the whole idea of a god is meaningless, and that of a creator of any sort is bad logic.

malookiemaloo

Yes, of course I do but it is still a part of creation.


m

HRG

That was exactly my point, as an answer to your statement that some conjectured naturalistic mechanisms have never been observed: supernatural creation has not been observed either.
"All correlations are zero" is a law as well.
But you propose miraculous creation as an explanation for the presence of the universe.
Well, the most recent cosmological models are trying exactly that. The BB is not a singularity; it's only the classical mathematical model aka general relativity which becomes singular. This IMHO just means that the model ceases to be valid.
But then the explanatory power of a creator is zero; postulating an unexplainable creator can be parsimoniously replaced by postulating an unexplainable universe. As people say, you are replacing a riddle with an enigma

Regards,
HRG.

agnawstick

The creator could have at least convinced future generations even up to this date that he/she/it was at least an extraterrestrial if the Moses/Burning Bush story was different.

A guy walks alone into the mountains, comes back 2 weeks later with stone tablets and tales of a burning bush. From that evidence we are to believe that God spoke to him. I would still be mightily impressed if "God" made a 100% platinum version of the Ten Commandments in an indestructable plastic case or something.

Obviously even if there actually were two stone tablets. In 2 weeks in the woods with the know how, David Koresh could have chiseled 10 sentences out and presented it to his followers as God's commandments.

If we assume that God isn't all powerful, but just mostly powerful, he may not be able to change the laws that govern the setup of the universe. But he should be able to at least use those laws.

If God could not rig up a speaker system that broadcasts a message to everybody, but only talks to a guy who wanders through a small desert for 40 years, what kinda God is that?

When I was a child, I often thought I would have loved to live back in those days, when God actually talked to people in human form, as with Abraham, or his angels were hanging around with Lot, etc. Then I realized that it was bunk. It makes me question why "christians" reject mormonism. What is more logical? You have Jesus who only speaks directly to people in the mideast, or you have a Jesus who comes back and speaks to people who were isolated from the region as well. Would a loving creator let people in the Americas suffer without the truth until such noble Christians as Columbus came over 1500 years later?

I really think that we haven't even got to the extra terrestial stage of a higher power yet. God has not shown adequate lasting proof of his existence that can not be explained by earthly means. God has the power to put a spotlight on Bethlehem, with harp music playing, illuminating the birthplace of Christ. He has chosen not to do so. Until God actively takes a part in our lives, why are we obligated to actively believe in him?

njhartsh

I'm afraid that this shows another hole (cavity?) in my teeth example, at least insofar as that example is to be a fair reflection of "strong" atheism. NonHomogenized's noncognitivist position, on CJCT terms, amounts to the declaration that "The idea of 'an odd number of teeth' is meaningless and therefore necessarily false"--which is absurd. Whereas it's at least very unclear that NonHomogenized's actual noncognitivism about "god" is absurd.

Oh, well--the CJCT example is only intended to show the basic difference between "strong" and "weak" atheism, not to demonstrate which one makes more sense.

- Nathan

diana

Right you are. My apologies. Bad meme, bad meme.

I could have sworn that exact quote was in the Diaries of Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love. Glad I didn't have any money riding on it.

d

diana

Good point. I'd say far more than half. It's rare to bump into one who was raised atheist or agnostic, seems like.

I was aiming more for the point that those who are engaged in debate tend to be so busy defending their egos that they don't really listen to the other side. I include atheists in this grouping. And the more witnesses there are to the debate, the less likely either participant is to ever change his position.

d