Current Poll (Religion)

[Gubbins]

(Sorry to hijack the thread everyone)

Quoting Haunted from 13:24, 15th Aug 2007

For example, if the subjects were electrically connected to the pipe (as in "real-life", where wet ground has a finite resistance)

How about air which has a finite electrical resistance?
Electroreception [is] entirely plausible for humans to have [...] no results, no proof.

You'll notice that wet ground has much less resistance than air. I wasn't suggesting electroreception as such, merely that humans can pass electrical current to whatever device they are using: in my case two pieces of wire - all you need is a field and a current. Remember, I'm not offering this as evidence or proof, merely as a theory.

...every physical phenomena hasn't been covered.

Again, proving negatives. No test will rule out 100% absolutely.

No, it has merely been proved wrong to, say, the 90% level. But so were the Copernican model and the radioactive age of the Earth at the time they were discovered. Both based on incomplete science.

(Edited for tags)

[Campbell]

I think you take it too far.
Somethings can have meaning subscribed to them via a scientific context.
e.g why do we cry/laugh/yawn etc?

Things like desire and fear can be attributed to evolutionary biology.
[/quote]

this sums up the funny thing about atheism - that if you take it to its logical conclusion (which nobody seems to do) then there is no meaning in anything at all, no reason to act in any way at all. but people still do. because they know that atheism exists only in situations where people are comfortable and well off, and it's not actually a stance it's just the opposite of a stance.

[Gubbins]

Quoting campbell from 22:15, 15th Aug 2007
this sums up the funny thing about atheism - that if you take it to its logical conclusion (which nobody seems to do) then there is no meaning in anything at all, no reason to act in any way at all. but people still do. because...

...Because there is a reason. The reason being the repercussions that society will inflict upon them. Common traits such as "do as you would be done unto" are there because, generally, if enough people follow them, then everyone is likely to reap the reward, thus holding society together.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Senethro]

oh no I see it now my atheism was a flimsy pretense afforded by my comfortable western lifestyle

kk now I have a horrible flaw as a person that prevents me having common ground with a vast proportion of hte population. I can only believe in stuff that is fact. That is, proven beyond reasonable doubt. The doctors call my condition Skepticaemia.

Now, given that I've rejected atheism what should I believe in, given my terrible disease? Please fill the void in my life kthx

[Frank]

Quoting Senethro from 22:42, 15th Aug 2007kk now I have a horrible flaw as a person that prevents me having common ground with a vast proportion of hte population. I can only believe in stuff that is fact. That is, proven beyond reasonable doubt. The doctors call my condition Skepticaemia.

Joke as you might, but this sensation isn't actually too far off what I actually feel at present (though, I do realise it has alot more to do with Gubbin's "20 years being told one thing vs objective viewpoint" problem.

That is, having been a Roaming Catholic for, essentially, the better(a curious phrase, eh?) part of 21 years, I realise a bit of difficulty facing an uncertain future: How do I propose to, if at all, celebrate Christmas/Holidays? What happens if I need to attend a wake? A funeral? A wedding? How do I propose to explain to friends and family that I've went from a fairly religious (given the traits of my friends and family) young chappie to some sort of atheist agnostic heathen infidel person.

Indeed, I always did enjoy going to mass. Hell, and even praying. Yet every time I even consider it hypothetically I can't go through with it. Even trying feels extremely hypocritical and insulting, in a manner of thinking, given that I simply don't believe anymore.

It's a strange place to be, going from very religious to very...other.

Quoting Senethro from 22:42, 15th Aug 2007Now, given that I've rejected atheism what should I believe in, given my terrible disease? Please fill the void in my life kthx

Develop your own void-filler. And market it as self-help. Become a millionaire. replace void-filler with money. Give up on happiness, just like everyone else?

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 18:19, 15th Aug 2007
Even astrology has some grain of truth in it (and this is coming from an astrophysicist)

I saw the same study I believe. Perfectly plausible, for example if you are born in september you are more likely to be a sporting person. This is because of the school cut off dates (in the UK at least) whereby those born in september will the oldest (and thus tallest, strongest and fastest) in their year.

That is not astrology. Birthsigns are just one facet of it, astrologers also claim that the current position of the stars and planets can affect your insignificant (compared to the cosmos at least) life.

It's more proof that man evolved, but it shows that we are still lacking a lot of information, so can we really claim to know the "truth"?

If your defining 'truth' as absolute knowledge (which is the impression I'm getting, then such 'truth' is impossible. There will always be errors associated with facts (dates in the above case).

Which is why few, if any, people believe in Odin any more. However, add to this the sum total of all evidence for all divinity and you have a small, but non-negligible amount.

Bearing in mind that all divinity disagrees with all other divinity, proof of islam is surely disproof of judaism (and vice versa)?
I don't think you can apply a term such as non-neglible here. Yes it's hard to quantify, but the sum of all data we have gathered shows no god(s) nor need for them. That's alot of data. We can discount 'revealed' testimonies because the evidence against them being legitimate is overwhelming.

Only today, I was reviewing a paper for a reference in my own, when I noticed a discrepancy in the calculation of a constant. That paper presented this constant as fact, without showing their derivations, and the paper has since been referenced by 45 others, who have subsequently (presumably) drawn erronous results, who have then been referenced by others.

I spotted a similar oversight in a paper a few days ago. Papers are just steps in the path of knowledge. Many papers have been wrong before, proving things wrong is just as good as proving them right (each 'no' takes us closer to a 'yes'). You should email the author of the paper and point it out. That's what we did.

The problem is that it is extraordinarily difficult to start with an objective viewpoint, as we have been influenced in our decisions by everything that has happened over our lives (this is particularly true of the God question). If you attach 20 years of being told "atheists are wrong and will burn in hell" or "religious people are delusional" and you will not have an objective viewpoint.

This is true. But my views are falsiable (as should everyones). For example, find me a rabbit fossil that dates to incontravertably to the pre-cambrian era and I'll throw my hands and say "we've got it wrong" (about evolution). I'm open to new evidence, and will change according to the new (better) theory, which is how it should be.

A statement should exist about your views which, if true, would falsify them. This is a cornerstone of science, not of religion surprisingly.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Frank from 00:45, 16th Aug 2007
Joke as you might, but this sensation isn't actually too far off what I actually feel at present (though, I do realise it has alot more to do with Gubbin's "20 years being told one thing vs objective viewpoint" problem.

That is, having been a Roaming Catholic for, essentially, the better(a curious phrase, eh?) part of 21 years, I realise a bit of difficulty facing an uncertain future: How do I propose to, if at all, celebrate Christmas/Holidays? What happens if I need to attend a wake? A funeral? A wedding? How do I propose to explain to friends and family that I've went from a fairly religious (given the traits of my friends and family) young chappie to some sort of atheist agnostic heathen infidel person.

Personally, such traditions (for lack of a better word) do not bother me as much people may think. If someone wants a jewish funeral/wedding etc then that's their perogative and who am I to disgaree? Sure I may disagree with what's being said or the significance of it all, but for the benefit of social cohesion, such disagreement should be kept away for that day. Live and let live.

Incidentally, as a catholic, would you have felt the same way at a jewish/muslim ceremony?

Indeed, I always did enjoy going to mass. Hell, and even praying. Yet every time I even consider it hypothetically I can't go through with it. Even trying feels extremely hypocritical and insulting, in a manner of thinking, given that I simply don't believe anymore.

We all had to pray in primary school. Though (thankfully) for some reason I never 'got it' and always saw it as just some wierd tradition.

If you got ten minutes, check out "The price of Atheism" on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk

Did you ever read the Penn essay? I'd be interested to know what you thought.

Develop your own void-filler. And market it as self-help. Become a millionaire. replace void-filler with money. Give up on happiness, just like everyone else?

Family Guy helps.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Gubbins]

Quoting Haunted from 11:45, 16th Aug 2007
[...] for example if you are born in september you are more likely to be a sporting person. [...] That is not astrology.

It is not astrology as either the astrologers nor the social scientists would think of it, but it does have parallels. Things don't spring from nowhere: these oddities often have some truth in them, and this little kernel could be where the concept of astrology came from, in an attempt to understand why people born in September were better at goat herding, or whatever.

There will always be errors associated with facts (dates in the above case).

Ok, we can agree on this.

Bearing in mind that all divinity disagrees with all other divinity, proof of islam is surely disproof of judaism (and vice versa)?

Not necessarily. To draw parallels, recall the historical argument over the Hubble constant. One group said it was 50 +/- 20, the other said it was 100 +/- 20. The two are mutually exclusive (at least at the 1-sigma level), and "proof" of one would disprove the other, yet at the same time we can say that the value is unlikely to be of order 150000. There are enough parallels between Islam and Judaism that they can be likened to the "50" and "100", whereas atheism takes a completely different viewpoint, so is more akin to the "150000".

I don't think you can apply a term such as non-neglible here. Yes it's hard to quantify, but the sum of all data we have gathered shows no god(s) nor need for them. That's alot of data. We can discount 'revealed' testimonies because the evidence against them being legitimate is overwhelming.

You cannot say that the sum of all data shows no god(s). You can say that most of the relevant data shows that god(s) needs not exist, and by implication there are no god(s), but this is not the same thing. It comes back down to the weights one applies.

To take an example from astrophysics again, the age of some globular clusters has been consistently estimated to be greater than the age of the Universe. This can be counted as evidence against the Big Bang model and, by implication, evidence for the "God model". Realistically it most likely comes down to our errors in the cosmological parameters and stellar evolutionary theory, but you cannot say it is evidence against god(s).

You should email the author of the paper and point it out. That's what we did.

It's hard when they're dead - we're working on a note. My point is that our knowledge today is not absolute and is generally less certain than it is proported to be. (e.g. MOND theories are undermining dark matter with some limited success).

This is true. But my views are falsiable (as should everyones). For example, find me a rabbit fossil that dates to incontravertably to the pre-cambrian era and I'll throw my hands and say "we've got it wrong" (about evolution). I'm open to new evidence, and will change according to the new (better) theory, which is how it should be.

As are we all, I hope. Here, though, you presume that God(s) and evolution are incompatible. Many people believe in both. As long as you are not being hard-line about one particular religion, it's not hard to envisage a scenario where a god kickstarts the whole process and lets it run.

You will undoubtedly look on this as a "God of the gaps" problem, but that is only based on the evidence you have and the preconceptions that go along with both that and your own upbringing. We all suffer from this, hence why we are having this debate.

Again, I find myself looking for the kernel of truth in the God argument. It's comparable in some ways to the 19th Century "Ether" that permeated space, which was conceived on the basis that light must have a medium to travel in, based on the theoreticians' incomplete knowledge and preconceptions (the kernel in this argument being that it has been revived as a "fifth dimension" - see Michio Kaku's Hyperspace for a good read).

Now you can look at this two ways: either God was created by man in his own image, based on man's incomplete knowledge and preconceptions; alternatively, man was created by God and we don't see the evidence, again based on man's incomplete knowledge and preconceptions. Either way, (a) (wo)man cannot have an objective view. And either way, there may be some truth in the argument: even pathological liars construct their lies around base truths.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 12:47, 16th Aug 2007
in an attempt to understand why people born in September were better at goat herding, or whatever.

The reason for being better at sports was because of the UK policy of admitting children to school :S. Born in august you'll be youngest in your class, born in september you'll go in the year after and be the eldest.
The september/sport thing has only lasted as long as this policy (and even then, only in countries that adhere to it).

We can agree that it is not supernatural at least?

You cannot say that the sum of all data shows no god(s). You can say that most of the relevant data shows that god(s) needs not exist, and by implication there are no god(s), but this is not the same thing. It comes back down to the weights one applies.

There is no proof that a god exists anywhere (with the exception of good o'l anecdotal evidence). If you can find some please share.
[/quote]

This can be counted as evidence against the Big Bang model and, by implication, evidence for the "God model". Realistically it most likely comes down to our errors in the cosmological parameters and stellar evolutionary theory, but you cannot say it is evidence against god(s).

It is perhaps evidence against the current established age of the universe, but not against big bang out and out.

My point is that our knowledge today is not absolute and is generally less certain than it is proported to be. (e.g. MOND theories are undermining dark matter with some limited success).

Of course our knowledge is not absolute, nor complete. There is still much to do. Personnaly I like the idea of MOND, dark matter always seemed a bit too fantastic compared to the evidence for it. Be nice to see how this one gets solved eventually.

As are we all, I hope. Here, though, you presume that God(s) and evolution are incompatible. Many people believe in both.

No that was not my intention. My point was here is an exmaple of a theory that can be falsified.

Again, I find myself looking for the kernel of truth in the God argument. It's comparable in some ways to the 19th Century "Ether" that permeated space, which was conceived on the basis that light must have a medium to travel in, based on the theoreticians' incomplete knowledge and preconceptions (the kernel in this argument being that it has been revived as a "fifth dimension" - see Michio Kaku's Hyperspace for a good read).

You could compare the Aether to Dark Matter today. It has been invented just to explain what has been observed, but it could just be a failing of general relativity. The point is, they are both theories that can be falsified (and indeed one has been) that help us on our way to understanding the universe.

Now you can look at this two ways: either God was created by man in his own image, based on man's incomplete knowledge and preconceptions; alternatively, man was created by God and we don't see the evidence, again based on man's incomplete knowledge and preconceptions.

This is just back to having absolute 100% knowledge, which is impossible. We can never rule out anything absolutely 100%, but we can make comments on their likelihoods, which is what we are doing when we say "I don't believe in anything supernatural for the odds against such things are so incredibly high that it is not worth entertaining".

Either way, (a) (wo)man cannot have an objective view. And either way, there may be some truth in the argument: even pathological liars construct their lies around base truths.

Of course there may be some truth (absolute knowledge again) but, like above, we can comment on the likelihood of that some.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Gubbins]

Quoting Haunted from 13:29, 16th Aug 2007
The reason for being better at sports was because of the UK policy of admitting children to school :S.

I was under the impression that it was also due to other factors (and presumably was more so historically), such as learning to walk during summer months (outside), or dietary differences during different months, etc.

We can agree that it is not supernatural at least?

Certainly we can.

There is no proof that a god exists anywhere (with the exception of good o'l anecdotal evidence). If you can find some please share.

There is no proof, but then again there is no direct proof that God doesn't exist. You can claim that you cannot prove a negative, but one can also claim on equal footing that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you have more than anecdotal evidence that God doesn't exist (perhaps a proof of M-brane theory, for instance?), then do share that too.

It is perhaps evidence against the current established age of the universe, but not against big bang out and out.

No, but it's as solid evidence for the existence of God as anything is against.

Personnaly I like the idea of MOND, dark matter always seemed a bit too fantastic compared to the evidence for it. Be nice to see how this one gets solved eventually.

I was never too happy with either, but I've always favoured dark matter. I think MOND is getting more solid evidence these days, though. It will be very interesting watching this unfold.

The point is, they are both theories that can be falsified...

"I don't believe in anything supernatural for the odds against such things are so incredibly high that it is not worth entertaining".

Of course there may be some truth (absolute knowledge again) but, like above, we can comment on the likelihood of that some.

Perhaps the "God theory" can be falsified, if we ask the right questions and define what God could be. Perhaps we currently lack the ability to do so, but will be able to one day. For the moment, at most we can make a reasoned assumption.

The key point in making this assumption is the likelihood we place on that "some". In doing so, we apply all our prejudices in a way we don't with any reasoned scientific theory (hopefully).

In many ways, this is why I call myself agnostic, rather than atheist. Internally, I have come to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that a God, in whatever shape or form, exists. However, I also recognise a conflict of interest, as I have been told this throughout my life and therefore start with the preconception that God does not exist, and inevitably end up forcing the data to fit my argument, rather than the other way round.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[Rilla]

You are all (mostly) missing a very important point.
Again, and again.

When you talk about what "causes" people to be better at sports or whatever

ASSOCIATION IS NOT THE SAME AS CAUSATION.

The ONLY way you can establish causation is if you experiment. THIS is what Science is all about.

Sure, we can say that there is an *association* between birth dates and personality traits, say. But until we have some EXPERIMENTAL data, we cannot, as good scientists say what caused what. We can hypothesise and we can wonder, we cannot say anything has been proven until we do an experiment.
Without an experiment, we only have observed data, which can only display associations.

Did none of you take MT1007 or ID2003?



Observing things and forming hypotheses and looking for patterns are all very important and interesting and are the first steps in the scientific process.

However, we cannot prove or disprove *anything* just from these preliminary steps.



[hr]

Be good to yourself because nobody else has the power to make you happy.

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 15:04, 16th Aug 2007
I was under the impression that it was also due to other factors (and presumably was more so historically), such as learning to walk during summer months (outside), or dietary differences during different months, etc.

Well I had never heard that before but it certainly sounds plausible. Of course, as someone has just pointed out again, colleration is not causation.

There is no proof, but then again there is no direct proof that God doesn't exist. You can claim that you cannot prove a negative, but one can also claim on equal footing that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you have more than anecdotal evidence that God doesn't exist (perhaps a proof of M-brane theory, for instance?), then do share that too.

You'll notice throughout history that the idea of god gets gradually reduced and reduced as more evidence comes to light that processes are natural. Zeus = lightning and so on. And so god these days is now reduced to being the philosohpical 'first cause'. We can explain the formation of the solar system, god used to explain it. Evolution of life (and to some extent, the origin of it).
This I would argue is proof against the god theory. Basically we can explain almost all of nature, and so far, no god.
Yet the possibility can never be ruled out 100% (proving negatives etc).

No, but it's as solid evidence for the existence of God as anything is against.

I don't see this connection. Proving my car is 10 years old as opposed to 9 says nothing about god. But it says something about the theory of the creation of my car.

Perhaps the "God theory" can be falsified, if we ask the right questions and define what God could be. Perhaps we currently lack the ability to do so, but will be able to one day. For the moment, at most we can make a reasoned assumption.

This is what keeps happening. As soon as science proves god is not needed for something, the idea of god is redefined to avoid conflict (and keep followers one would imagine). "Oh that passage is only metaphorical", "god is outside time and space" etc.

The key point in making this assumption is the likelihood we place on that "some". In doing so, we apply all our prejudices in a way we don't with any reasoned scientific theory (hopefully).

To an extent I can see why you say this. Back to basics though. Before I believe in anything supernatural I will need to see evidence that can never be accounted for by natural laws. For example, before you believed that I had a delorean that could travel through time, you would need evidence. And you would be quite right to take a position of A-deloreanism until I had proved otherwise. Technically you could be agnostic about it, but is it even worth entertaining the possibility (considering how ridiculously remote and silly it is)?

I have come to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that a God, in whatever shape or form, exists. However, I also recognise a conflict of interest, as I have been told this throughout my life and therefore start with the preconception that God does not exist, and inevitably end up forcing the data to fit my argument, rather than the other way round.

I see no conflict here. You show a willingness to change your position given the right evidence. This is exactly the way to be.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Campbell]

Quoting Senethro from 22:42, 15th Aug 2007

I can only believe in stuff that is fact.

do you believe in anything else?

Now, given that I've rejected atheism what should I believe in, given my terrible disease? Please fill the void in my life kthx

that sounds kind of like you just called atheism a 'belief'

LOLZ

[novium]

You assume that all theists believe in the "god of the gaps". This is not, nor has it ever been the case. Yes, some people see things that way... people who are unable to seperate the mechanics of the material world from the capital T Truth in their philosophies and religions.
This is not new. As is brought up in pretty much science vs religion debate, you just have to look at Augustine's criticisms.
For example, the all famous
"Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Quoting Haunted from 15:29, 16th Aug 2007
This is what keeps happening. As soon as science proves god is not needed for something, the idea of god is redefined to avoid conflict (and keep followers one would imagine). "Oh that passage is only metaphorical", "god is outside time and space" etc.
[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[novium]

I thought you were going to avoid this thread

Quoting Rilla from 15:10, 16th Aug 2007
You are all (mostly) missing a very important point.
Again, and again.

When you talk about what "causes" people to be better at sports or whatever

ASSOCIATION IS NOT THE SAME AS CAUSATION.

The ONLY way you can establish causation is if you experiment. THIS is what Science is all about.

Sure, we can say that there is an *association* between birth dates and personality traits, say. But until we have some EXPERIMENTAL data, we cannot, as good scientists say what caused what. We can hypothesise and we can wonder, we cannot say anything has been proven until we do an experiment.
Without an experiment, we only have observed data, which can only display associations.

Did none of you take MT1007 or ID2003?



Observing things and forming hypotheses and looking for patterns are all very important and interesting and are the first steps in the scientific process.

However, we cannot prove or disprove *anything* just from these preliminary steps.



[hr]

Be good to yourself because nobody else has the power to make you happy.

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 16:26, 16th Aug 2007
You assume that all theists believe in the "god of the gaps". This is not, nor has it ever been the case. Yes, some people see things that way... people who are unable to seperate the mechanics of the material world from the capital T Truth in their philosophies and religions.
This is not new. As is brought up in pretty much science vs religion debate, you just have to look at Augustine's criticisms.
For example, the all famous
"Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Had science proven that there was indeed a god (e.g. if that recent study about prayer power had shown an incredible positive effect), i.e. proven that there was a gap that only god could fill, do you think the pious would be so quick to say it was irrelevant anyway?


[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Gubbins]

Sorry, Rilla, I guess I should be more careful in picking my wording.

Quoting Haunted from 15:29, 16th Aug 2007
You'll notice throughout history that the idea of god gets gradually reduced and reduced as more evidence comes to light that processes are natural.

Reduction is not necessarily the right word. The apparent influence gets reduced, but the issue of control does not necessarily. This is more "God of the gaps" stuff, admittedly, but to misquote Einstein: "God does play dice". We have no good reason to suspect that the Universe and the forces within it were not engineered by some consciousness, nor that such a consciousness could not exert their own control using random fluctuations prescribed in quantum mechanics. At this point Occam's razor comes into play, but it can only tell us what is more likely, thus the issue of personal decision comes in again and atheism is no longer the only viable option.

I don't see this connection. Proving my car is 10 years old as opposed to 9 says nothing about god. But it says something about the theory of the creation of my car.

Exactly - it says nothing about a god. It says something about the creation of the car, but it does not say what was behind the creation: the engineer who designed the car. To find the engineer, we would look up historic literature. To find the god, we would... but then one attaches a higher weight to the historic literature than you would like.

This is what keeps happening. As soon as science proves god is not needed for something, the idea of god is redefined to avoid conflict (and keep followers one would imagine). "Oh that passage is only metaphorical", "god is outside time and space" etc.

So the concept of god adapts, as does science, to new information.

Before I believe in anything supernatural I will need to see evidence that can never be accounted for by natural laws.

Quite. Before I accept fully that there is no god(s), I will need to see evidence that the Universe and its creation can be fully accounted for and explained using only natural laws. This is not (yet) the case.

To your Delorean example, this is again a matter of weighing evidence. If you were brought up in a society where your superiors (i.e. parents and other influential figures) told you time travel was happening all around us, you might believe it, as you would attach a greater weight to the possibility of time travel.

I see no conflict here. You show a willingness to change your position given the right evidence. This is exactly the way to be.

But I do not wish to adopt a definite position unless my hypothesis becomes conclusively testable, as 24 years of being told God doesn't exist clouds my judgement on the issue.

If we're looking at this scientifically, we should consider it as a bias. This acts on both a personal and global level. Personally, I have a bias against a god's existence, since this is what I have always been told. Others will have the opposite bias. Globally, there is a historical bias towards belief in a god that perpetuates into today's society. A combination of these biases makes a conclusive decision on God's existence extremely difficult, if not impossible.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[novium]

It's a moot question. As I've said time and time again, there's no way for science to prove interpretation.
The god of the gaps is a mistaken "defense" against atheism by people who don't have the theological or philosophical knowledge to argue properly...and the extreme version, the hysterical anti-science attitudes of creationism, is the "offense" of people who never really understood that interpretation cannot be proven (otherwise, we'd have no concept of "faith").

Imagine that one day the stars themselves spelled out, "Hi there! Love, God" (which I think is the sort of thing you were suggesting). Believers and non-believers of a scientific bent would be in a frenzy of trying to see how it worked. The non-scientists would find it interesting, and debate over it. the people that didn't get the whole "Can't prove interpretation" thing would argue endlessly that it "proved" God - i can see it now* - while the people who did understand the difference between science and interpretation would see it in the same terms they saw everything else.

The truth is, in the end, because we are talking about interpretation here, it wouldn't matter. For believers - all types- it would just be yet another sign. I should amend that. For *everyone* it would just be another sign of what they already believed.
Yes, some people who had been atheists would probably become theists...but they're the same as people who become atheists because of Dawkins et al. They're the ones who never really question what they believe, and pin it on "proof".



*T:It quite clearly is god talking to us!
A:It can be rationally explained! It's just like the "canals" on mars. Why would an all-powerful being chose to write such an idiotic message in the stars...in English no less? It's like when people see Jesus or Elvis on a piece of toast. Plus, the scientists have discovered ___________.
T:that just proves it! The wonders of the universe, how well everything fits together, proves that God must exist...

Quoting Haunted from 16:32, 16th Aug 2007

Quoting novium from 16:26, 16th Aug 2007
You assume that all theists believe in the "god of the gaps". This is not, nor has it ever been the case. Yes, some people see things that way... people who are unable to seperate the mechanics of the material world from the capital T Truth in their philosophies and religions.
This is not new. As is brought up in pretty much science vs religion debate, you just have to look at Augustine's criticisms.
For example, the all famous
"Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Had science proven that there was indeed a god (e.g. if that recent study about prayer power had shown an incredible positive effect), i.e. proven that there was a gap that only god could fill, do you think the pious would be so quick to say it was irrelevant anyway?


[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

quem neque periculi tempestas neque honoris aura potuit umquaum du suo cursu aut spe aut metu demovere.

[Haunted]

Quoting Gubbins from 16:44, 16th Aug 2007
Reduction is not necessarily the right word. The apparent influence gets reduced, but the issue of control does not necessarily. This is more "God of the gaps" stuff, admittedly, but to misquote Einstein: "God does play dice". We have no good reason to suspect that the Universe and the forces within it were not engineered by some consciousness, nor that such a consciousness could not exert their own control using random fluctuations prescribed in quantum mechanics.

We have a perfectly good reason to suspect that a supreme omnipotent intelligence did not engineer the universe, there is no proof!
Like I have said, the only place left for god to hide is in the creation of the universe, admittedly this is pretty good place to exist if you are a god, but since we have looked for god everywhere and found him nowhere, we must suspect that there isn't one.

The old of point of god 'setting everything in motion' is also an often used but flawed arguement. Quantum mechanics involves information that can never be known. It is not that we are simply not advanced enough or don't know the initial conditions, it is a fact that this information is impossible to know. God could not know the position of every electron otherwise all our electron double slit experiments would fail (since the electron would definitely known to be somewhere at all times). There are some things god (indeed, anything) cannot know.
I just thought of this particular example, so if theres holes (or cheeky cop outs) please point them out.

Exactly - it says nothing about a god. It says something about the creation of the car, but it does not say what was behind the creation: the engineer who designed the car. To find the engineer, we would look up historic literature. To find the god, we would... but then one attaches a higher weight to the historic literature than you would like.

And this is where this analogy fails. We know an engineer built the car because we see engineers building cars all the time! We can go and speak to them too! We don't need to rely on divinely revealed testimony or badly translated books about sun gods.

So the concept of god adapts, as does science, to new information.

I had anticipated this point coming. Another similarity suggesting that science is just another religion?
Look a little deeper.
The concept of god doesn't adapt, it gets weaker. By proving god cannot be responsible for something we limit his supposed power/influence. God retreats when science conquers. What used to be explained by god is now explained by knowledge and understaning. God can be thought of as ignorance in this context.

I accept fully that there is no god(s), I will need to see evidence that the Universe and its creation can be fully accounted for and explained using only natural laws. This is not (yet) the case.

Will you continue to accept Santa until I can completely disprove him?
If you cater to accept the unlikely possibility of god then you must accept similarly unlikely possibilities.

If you were brought up in a society where your superiors (i.e. parents and other influential figures) told you time travel was happening all around us, you might believe it, as you would attach a greater weight to the possibility of time travel.

I was brought up being told all about Santa being true. It didn't take much investigating to prove that this wasn't the case. I'd imagine the same would happen to the kids who'd been brought up about time travel (since there would no proof for it).

But I do not wish to adopt a definite position unless my hypothesis becomes conclusively testable, as 24 years of being told God doesn't exist clouds my judgement on the issue.

Nothing is technically conclusive remember. God will always exist as a possibility since "you cannot prove a negative".

If we're looking at this scientifically, we should consider it as a bias. This acts on both a personal and global level. Personally, I have a bias against a god's existence, since this is what I have always been told. Others will have the opposite bias. Globally, there is a historical bias towards belief in a god that perpetuates into today's society. A combination of these biases makes a conclusive decision on God's existence extremely difficult, if not impossible.

The evidence also has a bias against god, should we discount it?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 17:38, 16th Aug 2007
Imagine that one day the stars themselves spelled out, "Hi there! Love, God" (which I think is the sort of thing you were suggesting). Believers and non-believers of a scientific bent would be in a frenzy of trying to see how it worked. The non-scientists would find it interesting, and debate over it. the people that didn't get the whole "Can't prove interpretation" thing would argue endlessly that it "proved" God - i can see it now* - while the people who did understand the difference between science and interpretation would see it in the same terms they saw everything else.

The truth is, in the end, because we are talking about interpretation here, it wouldn't matter. For believers - all types- it would just be yet another sign. I should amend that. For *everyone* it would just be another sign of what they already believed.
Yes, some people who had been atheists would probably become theists...but they're the same as people who become atheists because of Dawkins et al. They're the ones who never really question what they believe, and pin it on "proof".



*T:It quite clearly is god talking to us!
A:It can be rationally explained! It's just like the "canals" on mars. Why would an all-powerful being chose to write such an idiotic message in the stars...in English no less? It's like when people see Jesus or Elvis on a piece of toast. Plus, the scientists have discovered ___________.
T:that just proves it! The wonders of the universe, how well everything fits together, proves that God must exist...

No! You missed my point. I think you made a straw man even.
Proof of god would be something that had no rational explanation. Take you star example, if it then suddenly reconfigured to say "No, really, it's me." And this was observed by countless millions and observatories.
There is proof of god!
Such motions could never be accounted for by rational explanation!

With your canals and toast examples you refer to apophenia. The 'seeing' of patterns where there aren't any. Think of all the toast that has ever been made, and all the possible canal configurations on Mars. Of course you will find things that your brain will interpret as faces or whatever. Just look at the clouds even.

With scientific proof of God (for which there is no possible rational explanation) how many people do you still think would maintain that such proof was irrelevant? Whereas with all the proof we have against god, it doesn't matter one bit because god exists outside of science (or insert whatever reason here).

And for someone who still hasn't read The God Delusion (I presume, or indeed any of his works) you still presume to know all about it and conclude that it's rubbish.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn