Theistic Scientists

[ACG52]

Actually, it may.

If science can prove that God is an illusion or a product of a glitch in the brain, then clearly that's "something to say"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

http://eugrafal.free.fr/Dewhurst-Beard-2003.pdf

I'm not aware of anything that is "supernatural"

Can you provide an actual example

If not, does that mean that religion deals only with things that don't exist?

The supernatural does not exist..All that does exist lies within the physical universe, and hence is 'natural'. Religion is a brain fart, a primitive longing for simple answers which do not require intelligence to accept.

[pears]

Ummmmmmmmm....no. Opinion doesn't make anything true. That someone has an opinion that something is credible doesn't make it credible.

That someone has an opinion that something is incredible doesn't make it untrue.

[John Cuthber]

OK, If science can prove that God is an illusion or a product of a glitch in the brain, in at least some cases then clearly that's "something to say".

 

That someone has an opinion that something is incredible doesn't make it untrue.

The fact that it's not really evidence (in the case of the Bible, for example, it's hearsay) makes it not just "not credible" but not evidence.

[doG]

That someone has an opinion that something is incredible doesn't make it untrue.

You're missing the point. Just because someone has an opinion that something is credible doesn't mean that it is.

[pears]

OK, If science can prove that God is an illusion or a product of a glitch in the brain, in at least some cases then clearly that's "something to say".

I can accept this statement more readily than the last, but I don't believe science deals in proof, only evidence.

[iNow]

I said, "I might add that my acceptance of scientific findings is itself provisional and subject to change in the face of new information."

 

And you replied:

 

As are mine, both in science and in religion.

Can you please cite a single example of a time when new information caused you to change your mind about your religious beliefs?

(other than abandoning theism in favor of atheism)

[Moontanman]

Which is what I have said before (in other threads). However, many people on here require physical, measurable data to decide matters of faith. Or rather, they don't view faith as having any basis and as such dismiss it as being inconsequential and pointless in life due to the disconnect between science and religion.

 

 

How does religious faith have any basis? What is it's basis other than faith?

There is ZERO scientific evidence for the existence of deities.

I would say there is zero empirical evidence for god...

 

You're dismissing personal and historical testimony including eye-witness accounts and personal experience.

There is personal experience of alien abductions, literally millions of them, does that make aliens abductions credible?

 

I don't think there is any evidence for leprechuans, unicorns, pegasus', SAnta Claus, the tooth fairy or the sandman which is probably why I've never heard anybody (save small children) profess to believe in them.

Obviously you don't know many Pagans... There are still people who worship Thor, believe in faeries, elves, the green man, Adrianna...

[pears]

There is personal experience of alien abductions, literally millions of them, does that make aliens abductions credible?

 

Are you saying all personal experience testimonies must always be discounted because sometimes some personal experience testimonies seem incredible? A form of evidence is not discounted because there are bad examples of it.

 

Obviously you don't know many Pagans... There are still people who worship Thor, believe in faeries, elves, the green man, Adrianna...

 

OK - you can remove leprechauns from the list if you like then. I didn't know Pagans believed in them.

Edited September 1, 2013 by pears

[Moontanman]

Are you saying all personal experience testimonies must always be discounted because sometimes some personal experience testimonies seem incredible? A form of evidence is not discounted because there are bad examples of it.

No, the personal experiences of alien abduction are no better or worse than the personal experiences of god, neither have any credible evidence.

 

 

OK - you can remove leprechauns from the list if you like then. I didn't know Pagans believed in them.

Don't forget faeries and trolls as well, there is quite a long list by the way of entities various people believe in...

[pears]

No, the personal experiences of alien abduction are no better or worse than the personal experiences of god, neither have any credible evidence.

 

The personal experiences ARE the evidence. Whether you find it credible evidence is another matter.

 

Don't forget faeries and trolls as well, there is quite a long list by the way of entities various people believe in...

 

OK fine, but you can give me Santa Claus and the tooth fairy can't you? Trolls weren't on the list

Edited September 1, 2013 by pears

[ACG52]

 

 

The personal experiences ARE the evidence.

It's not verifiable, it's not replicatible, it's strictly anecdotal and subjective.

 

That's not evidence.

[Iggy]

[science has NOTHING to say about the existence of a deity...] Which is what I have said before (in other threads).

But until we know everything, literally everything, there's no room for science to say without a doubt that there is no existence of a deity.

Follow me (no pun intended). I'm going somewhere with this...

 

 

Until we know everything, and search everywhere (literally everywhere), there is no way for science to say without a doubt that perpetual motion machines do not exist. I don't mean that God is a perpetual motion machine. I'm just using an example. Stick with me.

 

The law of conservation of energy says "all isolated systems conserve energy". That is what philosophers call a universal statement -- meaning it applies everywhere (any isolated system). Through predicate logic we know that a universal statement is equivalent to the negation of an existential statement, so these two sentences mean exactly the same thing:

• all isolated systems conserve energy
• there does not exist an isolated system of non-conserved energy

It's just two different ways of saying the first law of thermodynamics (aka conservation of energy). The definition of perpetual motion machine is "an isolated system of non-conserved energy", therefore these two statements mean exactly the same thing:

• all isolated systems conserve energy
• there does not exist a perpetual motion machine

So... it is impossible for science to know without a doubt that perpetual motion machines do not exist. They would have to search the whole universe for one. Like you said: they would have to know everything.

 

However, the most trusted scientific law on the books says exactly that. It says "perpetual motion machines do not exist".

 

Likewise, there is no reason why "there does not exist a god" couldn't be a scientific law. It is perfectly formatted to be one. All you would have to do is define "God". Let's do that now... and let's make it simple. Let's say God = 'supernatural'.

 

Start with the negation of the existential statement:

• There does not exist a God.

Use our definition:

• There does not exist a supernatural

and the logically-equivalent universal statement:

• Everything is natural

Bingo! We have a scientific law that means the same thing as "god doesn't exist". You can do the same thing with any definition of God you want, but...

 

The point is that "God does not exist" is a perfectly good and scientific hypothesis (assuming that 'God' is well-defined). It would make a perfectly good scientific law. It is falsifiable (which is something science puts a high price on).

 

"God exists", on the other hand, is *not* properly formatted to be a scientific law. It is not falsifiable.

 

 

 

 

I'll do the same as above for "god exists". I should say, sorry for the tediously long post... ok... "God exits" is existential:

• There exists a God

And... let's define God as 'immortal' since I was forced to watch president Lincoln kill vampires last night. Subbing the def:

• There exists an immortal being

An existential statement is the same as the negation of a universal statement:

• Not all beings are mortal

 

So then; how would a person prove false the statement, "not all beings are mortal"? Trying to kill every being in the universe is guaranteed to fail. The cops from the delta quadrant would catch us eventually. No. It's impossible to falsify, and the sign of really bad science -- of pseudoscience -- of non-science, is unfalsifiability. "God exists" is unfalsifiable, but "God does not exist" is ideally formatted to be a scientific law.

 

I find that fascinating.

 

[John Cuthber]

The evidence shows that eyewitness evidence isn't as reliable as people suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification#Known_cases_of_eyewitness_error

And the gorilla crossing the basketball game shows that people don't always "see" what they see

together with false memories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

show that testimony isn't that great as evidence.

 

So, what of "Whether you find it credible evidence is another matter." ?

Well, it's evidence of something, but there's no way to know if it's evidence of aliens or mistakes.

There is plenty of evidence of mistakes, and no objective evidence of aliens.

Which should I believe?

[pears]

It's not verifiable, it's not replicatible, it's strictly anecdotal and subjective.

 

That's not evidence.

It's not empirical evidence. This is exactly the point I am making. Perhaps you missed my initial post on this.

Edited September 1, 2013 by pears

[doG]

It's not empirical evidence. This is exactly the point I am making. Perhaps you missed my initial post on this.

The point you're missing is that evidence is not subjective....

[pears]

By that reasoning you could say that subjective experiences don't exist because there is no evidence for them.

[doG]

By that reasoning you could say that subjective experiences don't exist because there is no evidence for them.

That looks to be intentionally obtuse.

[ACG52]

By that reasoning you could say that subjective experiences don't exist because there is no evidence for them.

Show me your subjective experience. How can I know it even existed? On the basis of your statement?

[iNow]

At best, one could show there is neural activity when one claims a subjective experience, but to claim the individual's description of the experience is anything more than subjective or hallucination they would need to offer some objective corroborating evidence.

[overtone]

The definition of perpetual motion machine is "an isolated system of non-conserved energy",

Detail: Not quite. Perpetual motion is compatible with conservation of energy, if a certain minimum fraction of the energy in the isolated system is somehow continually or continuously maintained in the form of motion.

 

You need the 2nd Law, or Great Law, to forbid that possibility.

 

 

 

Likewise, there is no reason why "there does not exist a god" couldn't be a scientific law.

there is: no adequate and exclusive definition of "a god" exists.

 

Science cannot deny the existence of something it cannot define, describe, or even characterize. As the Dalai Lama was not the first to observe, the variety and profundity of even the existing concepts of Deity is beyond the capability of science to explicate - let alone the possible ones.

Edited September 2, 2013 by overtone

[Iggy]

 

The definition of perpetual motion machine is "an isolated system of non-conserved energy",

Detail: Not quite. Perpetual motion is compatible with conservation of energy,

 

I'll quote wikipedia:

 

Classification:

 

One classification of perpetual motion machines refers to the particular law of thermodynamics the machines purport to violate:

• A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces work without the input of energy. It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy.

Wikipedia -- Perpetual motion -- Classification

 

Clearly that is the type of perpetual motion machine about which I was speaking. The post was long enough without writing "perpetual motion machine of the first kind". Sorry if that distracted you.

 

there is: no adequate and exclusive definition of "a god" exists.

It is up to a religious person to define their God, not me, which is why my post said "You can do the same thing with any definition of God you want".

 

Different scientific theories use different definitions for things like "time". Time in relativity is not the same as time in quantum mechanics. The definition of time doesn't have to be exclusive, as long as it is well defined in the theory. Likewise in my post I was very clear that any definition could be used as long as it is given. My point didn't hang on the definition.

[iNow]

But since there's no shared definition, nor even a reasonable consensus, science cannot explore the question. Wasn't that the point? He was responding to your suggestion that "god does not exist" could be some sort of scientific law. You've essentially agreed with this now by saying basically that god can mean any silly thing one wants it to mean.

Edited September 3, 2013 by iNow

[Iggy]

But since there's no shared definition, nor even a reasonable consensus, science cannot explore the question. Wasn't that the point? He was responding to your suggestion that "god does not exist" could be some sort of scientific law. You've essentially agreed with this now by saying basically that god can mean any silly thing one wants it to mean.

 

I just addressed this. There is no reasonable consensus in science as to the definition of "time". Time in relativity is substantially different from time in QM which is one reason the two theories are incompatible. What is important is that time is well-defined in each theory.

 

I didn't say anything close to "god can mean any silly thing one wants it to mean". I said that my post was correct regardless of the definition of God (so long as a definition is given).

 

The particular definition is irrelevant to my post.

[Villain]

At best, one could show there is neural activity when one claims a subjective experience, but to claim the individual's description of the experience is anything more than subjective or hallucination they would need to offer some objective corroborating evidence.

 

...so that the other/s could have a neural activity?

[pears]

The point you're missing is that evidence is not subjective....

 

By that reasoning you could say that subjective experiences don't exist because there is no evidence for them.

 

That looks to be intentionally obtuse.

 

I'm not trying to be intentionally obtuse. If someone goes to the doctors complaining of a pain, the doctor does not insist on a brain scan to see if they are indeed having that subjective experience. But it is taken as a piece of evidence that something is wrong with the patient. The doctor may or may not go on to carry out further tests. Sometimes a diagnosis is made purely on the basis of dialogue with the patient. I am not saying testimony of personal experiences is conclusive proof. I am not even saying that such evidence has to be believed. That is a judgement call. The doctor could accuse the patient of imagining things, or exaggerating. (Perhaps they are a known hypochondriac). All I am simply saying that empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence. I don't think it's that controversial.

 

Show me your subjective experience. How can I know it even existed? On the basis of your statement?

 

You cannot. You have to take my word for it on trust. It's not empirical evidence.

 

At best, one could show there is neural activity when one claims a subjective experience, but to claim the individual's description of the experience is anything more than subjective or hallucination they would need to offer some objective corroborating evidence.

 

But the patient is not expected to provide a brain scan to prove they are experiencing pain. Their word is good enough in this context.