Theistic Scientists

[Iggy]

...and he was wrong too (hint: there's more than one criterion)

Well... he was a bit naive, but I wouldn't exactly call him wrong on the main point.

 

He changed the face of science. He redefined the scientific method. You've gotta give the guy his props.

 

Yes, yes it has. And it still is.

No... I think you're thinking of science being reproducible. That's fine. I can stick by that, but not "verifiable". Once you say that science is verifiable then all the sudden astrology becomes part of science. I can't do that.

[ydoaPs]

Well... he was a bit naive, but I wouldn't exactly call him wrong on the main point.

 

He changed the face of science. He redefined the scientific method. You've gotta give the guy his props.

Nope. He was dead wrong about verifiability not being a criterion of demarcation. He was wrong about probabilistic induction. He was also wrong about how falsification works. His main point was wrong.

 

 

No... I think you're thinking of science being reproducible. That's fine. I can stick by that, but not "verifiable". Once you say that science is verifiable then all the sudden astrology becomes part of science. I can't do that.

Nope, verifiability is indeed one of the criteria of demarcation along with falsifiability (not Popper's version), predictivness, explanatory power, reproducability. You don't get into the science club by just meeting one of the criteria. Interestingly enough, by your own position (that Popper was right about falsification being the criterion of demarcation), astrology is a part of science. Astrology is falsifiable. In fact, it's been falsified several times. You can even do it yourself with a classroom full of undergrads.

[Iggy]

Nope. He was dead wrong about verifiability not being a criterion of demarcation. He was wrong about probabilistic induction. He was also wrong about how falsification works. His main point was wrong.

 

 

 

Nope, verifiability is indeed one of the criteria of demarcation along with falsifiability (not Popper's version), predictivness, explanatory power, reproducability. You don't get into the science club by just meeting one of the criteria. Interestingly enough, by your own position (that Popper was right about falsification being the criterion of demarcation), astrology is a part of science. Astrology is falsifiable. In fact, it's been falsified several times. You can even do it yourself with a classroom full of undergrads.

Ok. Let's just agree that verifiability isn't the only demarcation. That should negate post 264 just fine, and we won't derail this topic any further.

 

BTW, you impressively know your stuff.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Iggy

[WWLabRat]

Heh! Funny.

 

 

Yeah, you're more right than you know. To be honest, that was the only sentence from that post I read, and I didn't even respond to it right... Embarrasing. You're right to call me out on that. Sorry.

 

 

I think I like you. LabRat is a terrible name, but despite that you seem alright. At least you're speaking up.

 

The broken record... did you notice iNow is just repeating himself in the last post? He claimed that god was equivalent to corndog pooping dragons and now he's endlessly beggaring everybody to prove his comparison. And, demanding people define his words for him. That doesn't sound like my problem.

 

He said that two things are equivalent, and I'm just standing here wondering how he's going to prove it. This isn't my problem.

 

If I sound like a broken record saying that, then fine... It's true.

 

 

By the way, Pears, verifiability hasn't been a demarcation of science since Popper. It doesn't enter into the discussion. It sounds like maybe you know that.

 

Thought you would like that.

 

That is where many arguments come. People don't bother to listen to more than a small portion of someone else's position and block out everything else, completely missing the important bits.

 

How is WWLabRat a terrible name? This may be a bit off topic, (sorry mods) But it comes from the fact that I work in a Wastewater Laboratory. And Labrat is a colloquial term for someone who works in a laboratory doing scientific work. Seems appropriate enough for me.

 

I did notice him repeating himself, but only because you had repeatedly stated the same thing without adding to the conversation any. iNow was at least contributing a bit each time there was a post. And they are equivalent in the fact that neither are verifiable/falsifiable. It takes physical, measurable, repeatable evidence to determine both. The dragon and god/God/deity have none of those. So by scientific standards they can't be tested to prove/deny their existence. And as doG said, one can be religious without it being attached to a deity of any sort. Take Scientology for instance. Not to knock on it, but it is based off a belief stemming from a book written in modern times. And just as ancient religions are unable to prove the existence of their deity, scientologists are unable to prove the existence of Xenu or the beings he brought with him.

 

I know the majority of the people here who are religious tend to follow the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindi) and some of the lesser religions (Buddhism, Paganism...in all its forms, etc), but for some reason we keep focusing on just Atheists vs Christians. Religions are a philosophy, not a science. This is why chemical formulas stay balanced regardless of which country you are in or which religion (or lack thereof) you follow. However, what works for a Christian in America may not work for a Muslim in Baghdad.

[iNow]

Well in fairness, scientific verification isn't the challenge to the idea of equating the two - but the nature of the idea itself, it's content and coherence.

By what metric... other than your personal opinion... are you measuring coherence? What is your scale, and how is it being applied?

 

Since this is a discussion rooted in reality and facts it's important to note that the nature and content of the idea is ultimately irrelevant until the idea itself can be shown to have any merit whatsoever. Until then, or until a relevant difference (other than popularity) is cited, then the ideas are functionally equivalent.

 

Look at it from another angle. It's relatively straight forward to see that it doesn't matter if someone claims that unicorns are pink or if someone claims unicorns are purple. They must first demonstrate the existence of unicorns and then follow-up by providing a method of testing their color. Without a real unicorn to actually reflect light into a measuring device of some sort we never get to that next level of arguing over their color. There is no functional difference or distinction between the pink unicorn and purple unicorn outside of someones imagination. We're talking about objective reality here, though, not what someone happens to imagine.

 

Likewise, it doesn't matter if someone claims that magical beanstalks grow in Transylvania or if someone claims that magical beanstalks grow in Pennsylvania until they first demonstrate the existence of magical beanstalks. Until they do, they're arguing over fictions and could equally be saying that the puppets from Fragile rock could kick the ass of the Smurfs. Similarly, it doesn't matter one bit in this instance if I say Harry Potter wears boxers or if I say Harry Potter wears briefs.

 

These are all equally hollow, equally baseless, and equally fictional assertions that have no foundation in reality against which to test them or validate their truth and validity. They are functionally equivalent.

 

However, based on your argument and stated positions these things ARE fundamentally different. You're here suggesting that in this reality we share there is some sort of relevant difference between a pink unicorn and a purple one, the ass kicking ability of a Fragile and a Smurf, the type of undies a wizard from a fictional series of books wears... even though there is no reason to assume any of these things even exist in the first place... and yet it's ME who people are calling silly? Hello, pot? Meet kettle.

---

Both claims lack any supporting empirical evidence whatsoever.

Yeah, but you've believed things in your life that lack supporting empirical evidence, so that isn't it.

This, in no way, changes the contention that the only relevant functional difference between those claims is their popularity. I could also demand you "prove it!!1!!2!one!*!" but have no need. Your reply was entirely tangential to the core point.

[pears]

OK I like your post. You make a good case for your view. I don't know how I can measure coherence. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps it is just my opinion. They still 'seem' different ideas to me, and I can't explain objectively why one is more coherent than the other, except that philosophical pondering can lead me to the one idea over the other. I'm not trying to be difficult or deliberately argue against you just for the sake of it. We have different outlooks. To me one idea seems more reasonable than the other and I don't know exactly how to defend that view. I'll go away and think about it. Thank you for your considered response.

 

Edit to add:

OK I think the point is this: coherence of an idea, or what 'makes sense' to someone, IS a subjective thing, therefore the idea of God makes sense to some people, not because it's validity can be objectively verified, but because the idea just subjectively 'makes sense' in a way that isn't measurable.

Note that my only assertion here is that belief in God is reasonable, in spite of a lack of any objectively verifiability or falsifability. I've also argued that one idea is more coherent than another. Again coherence here is a subjective term.

So I am using words like 'reasonable' and 'coherent' which are intrinsically subjective. To you, I presume, reasonableness and coherence depend on objective verifiablity. To many people they don't, including myself. I would say an idea can be coherent because philosophical intuition might get me there.

I probably need to think about this some more but at the end of the day what we have here is a difference of opinion. And we should probably just agree to disagree.

Edited September 12, 2013 by pears

[Ringer]

OK I like your post. You make a good case for your view. I don't know how I can measure coherence. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps it is just my opinion. They still 'seem' different ideas to me, and I can't explain objectively why one is more coherent than the other, except that philosophical pondering can lead me to the one idea over the other. I'm not trying to be difficult or deliberately argue against you just for the sake of it. We have different outlooks. To me one idea seems more reasonable than the other and I don't know exactly how to defend that view. I'll go away and think about it. Thank you for your considered response.

They seem different because one probably has some emotional meaning and the other doesn't. It's like when you try to give a child a different blanket when they want their favorite blanket. It seems different to them, but objectively there is no difference.

 

Edit to add:

OK I think the point is this: coherence of an idea, or what 'makes sense' to someone, IS a subjective thing, therefore the idea of God makes sense to some people, not because it's validity can be objectively verified, but because the idea just subjectively 'makes sense' in a way that isn't measurable.

But that doesn't have any effect on the truth of the idea. Quantum mechanics don't make sense to very many people, but they are very real. Mind/brain duality makes sense to a lot of people, but it is very likely incorrect.

 

Note that my only assertion here is that belief in God is reasonable, in spite of a lack of any objectively verifiability or falsifability. I've also argued that one idea is more coherent than another. Again coherence here is a subjective term.

 

So I am using words like 'reasonable' and 'coherent' which are intrinsically subjective. To you, I presume, reasonableness and coherence depend on objective verifiablity. To many people they don't, including myself. I would say an idea can be coherent because philosophical intuition might get me there.

 

I probably need to think about this some more but at the end of the day what we have here is a difference of opinion. And we should probably just agree to disagree.

But by this logic anything can be considered reasonable because it's subjective.

[Iggy]

They seem different because one probably has some emotional meaning and the other doesn't. It's like when you try to give a child a different blanket when they want their favorite blanket.

Of course you make decisions based on emotion, Ringer. Of course you do. You can't say you don't.

 

You're calling pears out for doing exactly what you do every day. And, worse than that... it's really diminutive... you tell him he needs a kid's blanket? That's really cold and dismissive.

 

 

Don't give an inch, Pears. Your private beliefs are your own, and you have made quite clear you aren't making any arguments based on them. Good for you. You're doing better than two people I can spot from here.

 

Ringer can demand emotional meaning, and iNow can demand empirical evidence... but they are both exactly as guilty, and couldn't be more wrong. Don't give an inch.

[WWLabRat]

They seem different because one probably has some emotional meaning and the other doesn't. It's like when you try to give a child a different blanket when they want their favorite blanket. It seems different to them, but objectively there is no difference.

 

 

But that doesn't have any effect on the truth of the idea. Quantum mechanics don't make sense to very many people, but they are very real. Mind/brain duality makes sense to a lot of people, but it is very likely incorrect.

 

 

But by this logic anything can be considered reasonable because it's subjective.

Of course you make decisions based on emotion, Ringer. Of course you do. You can't say you don't.

 

You're calling pears out for doing exactly what you do every day. And, worse than that... it's really diminutive... you tell him he needs a kid's blanket? That's really cold and dismissive.

 

 

Don't give an inch, Pears. Your private beliefs are your own, and you have made quite clear you aren't making any arguments based on them. Good for you. You're doing better than two people I can spot from here.

 

Ringer can demand emotional meaning, and iNow can demand empirical evidence... but they are both exactly as guilty, and couldn't be more wrong. Don't give an inch.

 

Again, Iggy, I think you have misread a post. Ringer clearly didn't state that Pears needs a baby blanket. He was merely equating the idea that a person may find something easier to understand or believe because it just makes sense to them. Just like a kid wanting to sleep with one particular blanket or stuffed animal because that's what they always do, not because one is better than the other. It's also about the same as a person choosing a green paint over a blue one when painting a wall. One color isn't necessarily better than the other, but it is a preference. And I don't see anywhere in his post where Ringer has indicated that emotions or beliefs do not form a basis of his decisions.

 

It's impossible for someone to not make decisions based on their beliefs or emotions. One of the two is always involved in the decision-making process. Example: When it comes to killing someone. First thing anyone will say is that it's wrong. Why is it wrong? Some will answer by saying that God has said that it is wrong to kill. Others will say that killing others of your species goes against evolution and the need for the species to survive. Either way, the topic of murder is a subjective one. Even when it comes to the law, it's not entirely without either of these two. A court will generally rule in favor of a defendant if he killed someone who broke into his home or was assaulting a family member. Nothing is completely objective. Even scientific data isn't. We can make predictions on what will happen when a glass beaker falls to the floor because we believe that time after time of beakers falling has provided sufficient physical evidence that it will break. Your belief and faith has been put into the constant laws of physics. But there may come a time when those laws must change. At that time your belief may change as well.

[Iggy]

Again, Iggy, I think you have misread a post. Ringer clearly didn't state that Pears needs a baby blanket

You and I were reading a different post. Do you need me to quote the part about the kid's blanket? Do you need me to point you to it? What are you talking about.

 

Again, I can only say... Pears... don't give an inch to this type of ?#@!.... whatever, just don't give an inch.

[WWLabRat]

You and I quoted the same line from Ringer, therefore, one can only assume that we did, in fact, read the same post. And again, you missed the rest of what I had said. For your benefit, I'll go ahead and highlight what you need to focus on in regards to the blanket. Please be sure to read it in full so that you understand it all.

Again, Iggy, I think you have misread a post. Ringer clearly didn't state that Pears needs a baby blanket. He was merely equating the idea that a person may find something easier to understand or believe because it just makes sense to them. Just like a kid wanting to sleep with one particular blanket or stuffed animal because that's what they always do, not because one is better than the other. It's also about the same as a person choosing a green paint over a blue one when painting a wall. One color isn't necessarily better than the other, but it is a preference. And I don't see anywhere in his post where Ringer has indicated that emotions or beliefs do not form a basis of his decisions.

 

I hope this clears up your confusion.

[Iggy]

You and I quoted the same line from Ringer, therefore, one can only assume that we did, in fact, read the same post. And again, you missed the rest of what I had said. For your benefit, I'll go ahead and highlight what you need to focus on in regards to the blanket. Please be sure to read it in full so that you understand it all.

 

 

I hope this clears up your confusion.

No, I read it this time. Now I've read it a second time.

 

I'm going to ignore it again. The green color was nice though. Threw some red in. Looked like christmas.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Iggy

[pears]

They seem different because one probably has some emotional meaning and the other doesn't. It's like when you try to give a child a different blanket when they want their favorite blanket. It seems different to them, but objectively there is no difference.

 

Why do you think subjective judgement is necessarily emotional? Take three ideas, a multiverse, God and a pink unicorn. Why do you think the perceived coherence of these ideas is based on emotion? Si het hercocne fo hist netsenec faftecde yb oteimno?

 

But that doesn't have any effect on the truth of the idea.

I'm not saying coherence has an effect on the truth. But it has an effect on perceived plausibility, which has an effect on belief.

 

Quantum mechanics don't make sense to very many people, but they are very real.

 

But quantum mechanics can be backed up by scientific evidence, which is another factor in plausibility. We are talking about areas where there isn't that luxury. Also isn't quantum mechanics largely mathematical? That would seem to make it internally coherent almost by definition.

 

Mind/brain duality makes sense to a lot of people, but it is very likely incorrect.

 

In what sense are you using the word 'likely' here? Likely to you? Because you perceive it that way? This itself appears to be a subjective judgement. This is also a gross oversimplification of the whole mind/body debate.

 

But by this logic anything can be considered reasonable because it's subjective.

 

But this is the question. How do you measure coherence or plausibilty? Just because a group of ideas are subjective why does that make them necessarily equal in every aspect? If we define these terms as subjective, i.e. as functions of human minds then perhaps we need to look at human minds in order to measure them. One could argue that one measure of the plausibility of an idea might be the number of minds prepared to believe it.

 

 

Iggy thanks for your support. And by the way I'm a she not a he

 

Edited September 13, 2013 by pears

[Ringer]

Of course you make decisions based on emotion, Ringer. Of course you do. You can't say you don't.

Personal decisions I make on emotion (else I doubt I would be married), but factual information cannot be judged based on emotion. Also, using the qualifier of making decisions changes the goal posts and is fallacious.

 

 

You're calling pears out for doing exactly what you do every day. And, worse than that... it's really diminutive... you tell him he needs a kid's blanket? That's really cold and dismissive.

 

No I didn't, I made an analogy to help him see why one idea seems different to him subjectively. Obviously you didn't see the word 'like' in that sentence which qualified the statement as an analogy between two similar things.

 

 

Don't give an inch, Pears. Your private beliefs are your own, and you have made quite clear you aren't making any arguments based on them. Good for you. You're doing better than two people I can spot from here.

 

Ringer can demand emotional meaning, and iNow can demand empirical evidence... but they are both exactly as guilty, and couldn't be more wrong. Don't give an inch.

 

I didn't demand emotional meaning. I was giving a probable explanation to his feelings that the comparison iNow drew wasn't equatable. I have no emotional connection to either idea, nor due I care what the beliefs of others may be. In all honesty I define myself as apatheistic, meaning that I don't care at all if there is a deity or not and it's really pretty pointless to discuss if there is or not.

 

 

Why do you think subjective judgement is necessarily emotional? Take three ideas, a multiverse, God and a pink unicorn. Why do you think the perceived coherence of these ideas is based on emotion? Si het hercocne fo hist netsenec faftecde yb oteimno?

Two are the ideas from stories, one is a probable consequence of physics as we know them. Emotional meanings aren't just based on the emotions people think of like anger, love, happiness, etc. Any drive or subjective feeling can be considered emotional.

 

And the coherence of that sentence can be affected by emotion; the drive to decipher it, frustration if you can't, joy when you solve puzzles, etc. But that's a false analogy, the sentence is merely a a scramble of known words that follows the rules of language. Ideas, in and of themselves, don't need to follow rules yet they can still be coherent. A unicorn grants immortality, but it only shows itself to virgins. Both ideas are pretty ridiculous and don't really follow any rules we know the world to follow, but they are coherent.

 

 

I'm not saying coherence has an effect on the truth. But it has an effect on perceived plausibility, which has an effect on belief.

 

We are agreed on that to an extent. But there are many other factors that go into belief. Many of the ideas or beliefs of religions that people aren't raised around don't seem coherent or at all believable. But just being raised in that environment facilitates belief. An example is the idea that breaking a mirror bring bad luck, with thought the idea isn't coherent because it doesn't neither follows the rules of the world nor is there a reason or meaning that most know of associated with that idea. But since one may have heard it since childhood it isn't really questioned or thought about.

 

 

But quantum mechanics can be backed up by scientific evidence, which is another factor in plausibility. We are talking about areas where there isn't that luxury. Also isn't quantum mechanics largely mathematical? That would seem to make it internally coherent almost by definition.

 

We aren't talking about internal coherency of theories, we were talking about coherency for people looking at the system. Also, the description of QM theory is mathematical, like any physics theory, but it has real world consequences that can be seen.

 

 

 

In what sense are you using the word 'likely' here? Likely to you? Because you perceive it that way? This itself appears to be a subjective judgement. This is also a gross oversimplification of the whole mind/body debate.

 

Because there is no evidence for duality and much evidence against it. I say likely because, with most ideas that involve non-material processes, dualists can always find a work around the evidence against it so there is no real way to falsify the idea. It's just most any duality theory that holds up to evidence causes the duality ideal to be redundant.

 

But that's a whole separate discussion, and if you would like to discuss it you can open a new thread and I would happily participate.

 

 

 

 

 

But this is the question. How do you measure coherence or plausibilty? Just because a group of ideas are subjective why does that make them necessarily equal in every aspect? If we define these terms as subjective, i.e. as functions of human minds then perhaps we need to look at human minds in order to measure them. One could argue that one measure of the plausibility of an idea might be the number of minds prepared to believe it.

Subjective coherence and plausibility you can't measure, that's why mathematics are used. They are coherent, which is part of the probability. That's why scientifically you don't measure what is true by how easy it is to understand.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Ringer

[Iggy]

No I didn't, I made an analogy to help him see why one idea seems different to him subjectively. Obviously you didn't see the word 'like' in that sentence which qualified the statement as an analogy between two similar things.

Yeah, you compared what he did to a kid needing a blanket. That's what you did, and it's really cold. What part of that is so hard for everyone to understand?

 

All of you are cutting that guy down for having a personal belief that he refuses to publish on a science site. Good for him.

 

You could benefit from taking a page from his book.

 

And you... whoever you are (I'm not willing to look up at your name again... that sounds nauseating)... comparing him to a kid needing a blanket... you should be disgusted with yourself.

 

Baboonery. Not worthy of science. I'm going to step out of the thread for a while. I can't deal with this level of ignorant hostility.

 

Saying you're going to "help him". Disgusting! You need help!

[Ringer]

Yeah, you compared what he did to a kid needing a blanket. That's what you did, and it's really cold. What part of that is so hard for everyone to understand?

Two things:

One, the comparison I used was used because it is a common experience to see children acting in this manner. It is not necessarily childish. I could have also used the fact that many athletes will have a certain pair of socks (or underwear or whatever) every time they play. But that is a less common experience so I didn't use that analogy. To summarize, I used the analogy because it was easy to understand, not to 'put down'

 

Two: You really don't pay attention to what is posted do you? Read the post above mine, we are talking to a her not a him.

 

All of you are cutting that guy down for having a personal belief that he refuses to publish on a science site. Good for him.

I, nor none of the others I have seen, have personally attacked her. I also have not made any attempt to put her down, and she doesn't seem to feel that we have.

 

You could benefit from taking a page from his book.

And do what?

 

And you... whoever you are (I'm not willing to look up at your name again... that sounds nauseating)... comparing him to a kid needing a blanket... you should be disgusted with yourself.

I'm not, I actually feel more disgusted with myself for still answering your posts with the hope that you actually understand what is being said, assuming you're even trying which is becoming more and more doubtful.

 

Baboonery. Not worthy of science. I'm going to step out of the thread for a while. I can't deal with this level of ignorant hostility.

I feel that statement won't quite get the reaction you hope for.

 

Saying you're going to "help him". Disgusting! You need help!

Alright, now I'm going to help you. The word 'made' in the sentence you quoted indicates past tense. You are using the verb 'going to' which indicates future tense. So you already have a problem in meaning by switching tenses. There is your grammar help for the day.

 

You're also trying to make the idea of helping someone seem to be negative, which doesn't even really make sense. Then you say I need help, which means that you want someone to do something disgusting to me since it was disgusting if I helped someone. So within the logic of your post you are making a personal attack, which is against forum rules. I'll let this one slide, but any more of those cleverly hidden personal attacks I may have to report you to the authorities.

[WWLabRat]

I hate having to say this yet again in the same thread, but can we please keep everything in this discussion on topic, ffs? It's turning into yet another pissing contest without anything being added to what the OP intended this thread to cover. In case any forgot, this discussion, as it states in the title is about "Theistic Scientists". For those who don't understand what that means, it's a scientist whose believes are that of a higher power despite lack of physical, measurable, and observable scientific data to support the existence of a deity.

 

Iggy, please, for Pete's sake, stop pulling the discussion off topic by acting as if statements made by a member is a personal attack on a different user. First of all, this is against the religion forum rules. I've already posted about that before. Second, if anyone should be offended or to take it as a personal attack, it's the person at whom it would have been aimed, which was not you. That I have been able to discern from her posts, Pear doesn't think that Ringer was attacking her.

 

Also, when quoting anyone, read their entire post to make sure you have a firm grasp of what they are saying before you assume you know what it is by just reading the first sentence or two. Reading these posts isn't a speed race. You won't get a prize by being the first to reply to a post at the cost of retarding the discussion. And no, retarding isn't meant as an insult. I'm using it in the sense of

 

 

To Retard:

 

: to slow down the development or progress of (something)

transitive verb

1: to slow up especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment : impede

2: to delay academic progress by failure to promote

It would be nice for this discussion to be able to continue forward, full force without any need for intervening from the Mod squad. So, in the interest of this, please keep things on topic, everyone.

[pears]

one is a probable consequence of physics as we know them.

 

This sounds like a faith statement.

 

An example is the idea that breaking a mirror bring bad luck, with thought the idea isn't coherent because it doesn't neither follows the rules of the world nor is there a reason or meaning that most know of associated with that idea. But since one may have heard it since childhood it isn't really questioned or thought about.

 

You don't give people much credit do you?

 

Because there is no evidence for duality and much evidence against it. I say likely because, with most ideas that involve non-material processes, dualists can always find a work around the evidence against it so there is no real way to falsify the idea. It's just most any duality theory that holds up to evidence causes the duality ideal to be redundant.

 

 

Again this seems like a gross oversimplification. Are you talking about substance dualism or property dualism?

 

But that's a whole separate discussion, and if you would like to discuss it you can open a new thread and I would happily participate.

You're right it is a separate discussion. If you want to discuss it you start a thread. You're the one making the claim.

 

Subjective coherence and plausibility you can't measure, that's why mathematics are used. They are coherent, which is part of the probability. That's why scientifically you don't measure what is true by how easy it is to understand.

 

My point is that to claim two ideas are identical in their possibility because of their scientific verifiability when the content of the ideas is clearly different doesn't seem right. Just because we don't know how to measure coherence or plausibility of ideas, it doesn't necessarily mean that all ideas are equally plausible, even in the absence of scientific verifiability.

 

Comparing a corn-dog shitting dragon to God is clearly a rhetorical device aimed at deriding the idea of God in a childish way. I could do the same to the multiverse. Believing in a multiverse is like believing in dragons that piss coco-cola.

 

[iNow]

Comparing a corn-dog shitting dragon to God is clearly a rhetorical device aimed at deriding the idea of God in a childish way.

Besides popularity, in what way do you propose they are functionally different?

 

 

I could do the same to the multiverse. Believing in a multiverse is like believing in dragons that piss coco-cola.

 

I don't "believe" in the multiverse. I accept that it is one of many reasonable possibilities given our current understanding of physics, and any acceptance I offer is itself provisional. I suspect nearly all other scientists who are not blinded in a god-fog feel the same way, but faith never enters into the mix. Your comparison and attempt to conflate a provisional acceptance of the multiverse conjecture with a faith based conclusion that god(s) exist fails.

Edited September 14, 2013 by iNow

[Moontanman]

Can you at least have some respect to theists who have a scientific mind?

 

I may be a Christian/Catholic, but I base scientific conclusions on scientific observations. Have some leniency here.

 

Moderator note (swansont)

I have split this off from the science's purpose is to explain God's creations thread as it ended up being a pretty sharp break from the other discussion, but was not clear exactly where the best split point was. Further, this is moved to Religion, since the basis of the discussion is not a claim consistent with Speculations

 

I think I pretty much showed that scientists can be theists and still be effective scientists in post #199, Robert Bakker is a Bible thumping Pentecostal Preacher and is arguably the most famous paleontologist in the world. He is obviously able to separate out his theism from his science. He does this by interpreting Genesis somewhat differently than most but he obviously is a theist and a Pentecostal as well. So far no one has commented on this preferring to go with the god isn't real aspect which is off topic.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker

 

I know this is a surprise coming from me but I think this example pretty much blows the argument out of the water that theism somehow prevents a scientist from doing science... The reason this is possible is that theists interpret the bible the way they want instead of reading what it actually says...

[Ringer]

This sounds like a faith statement.

Wrong, it's a probability statement.

 

You don't give people much credit do you?

Not many people deserve much credit. Though, to be fair, I held many superstitions when I was younger for the very reason I gave.

 

Again this seems like a gross oversimplification. Are you talking about substance dualism or property dualism?

Either, neither has evidence and doesn't follow the principal of parsimony.

 

You're right it is a separate discussion. If you want to discuss it you start a thread. You're the one making the claim.

I was answering a question about an analogy.

 

My point is that to claim two ideas are identical in their possibility because of their scientific verifiability when the content of the ideas is clearly different doesn't seem right. Just because we don't know how to measure coherence or plausibility of ideas, it doesn't necessarily mean that all ideas are equally plausible, even in the absence of scientific verifiability.

But you have yet to demonstrate that they are in any way different in an objective matter. How can you say they are different without giving any difference except popularity?

 

The point of verifiability is that in the natural world if it can't be verified and replicated than it doesn't have enough of an impact on anything to be useful. Therefore its plausibility doesn't matter when explaining or understanding anything about the natural world.

 

 

Comparing a corn-dog shitting dragon to God is clearly a rhetorical device aimed at deriding the idea of God in a childish way. I could do the same to the multiverse. Believing in a multiverse is like believing in dragons that piss coco-cola.

The difference is one is a probable consequence of what we know is possible, the other is a story that has been told to people. This works on both the dragon and God so far as science and everything we know about the natural world. There is no argument against the dragon that would not similarly work for God, in fact there are more arguments against God than there are for the dragon because the concept of God makes more claims, as well as claims that are not internally consistent.

 

So again, using the multiverse is a false analogy, and the dragon is not.

[pears]

I accept that it is one of many reasonable possibilities

 

Like some people accept God as a reasonable possibility.

 

Wrong, it's a probability statement.

 

So how are you calculating this probability?

 

But you have yet to demonstrate that they are in any way different in an objective matter. How can you say they are different without giving any difference except popularity?

 

OK.

 

Let's consider the two ideas side by side.

 

God: let's define this as a mind that isn't part of the physical universe, that is moral in character, and is the mind which is responsible for the laws of physics and the existence of the physical universe.

 

Inows dragon: an invisible dragon who shits corn dogs living in his garage.

 

Let's look at the features of each.

God:

A mind that is not part of the physical universe.

Not subject to the laws of physics but rather their source and therefore one possible explanation for the existence of a coherent universe.

Moral in nature therefore one possible explanation for the existence of moral ideas in humans.

 

Dragon:

A creature that is part of the physical universe with a particular location and biological functions.

Physical in nature therefore should obey the laws of physics.

Provides no explanation for anything.

 

There is no known mechanism in physics where biological creatures can be invisible. There is no known mechanism in biology where creatures can shit corn-dogs.

 

A physical biological creature that doesn't obey physics or biology is internally incoherent.

 

The difference is one is a probable consequence of what we know is possible,

 

This just sounds like an opinion. What is this probability? 10% 50% 90%? How is is calculated?

[John Cuthber]

If God could create an invisible cor- pooping dragon then it's every bit as possible as God.

 

On the other hand,

"God: A mind that is not part of the physical universe."

Not part of the universe- so, not actually real then?

Seems legit.

 

"Moral in nature"

Not according to any of the accounts I have read.

 

Anyway, the point remains that both God and the dragon are extraordinary and so, to convince me of the existence of either you would need exceptional evidence.

Can you cite evidence for God that is so robust that comparable evidence for the dragon would convince you that the dragon is real?

If not, do you see the problem?

There's no more reason to believe in one than there is to believe in the other.

[pears]

I'm not trying to convince you of the existence of either. I am showing that the ideas are different.

[iNow]

I'm not trying to convince you of the existence of either. I am showing that the ideas are different.

 

This has already been addressed. Functionally speaking, they are not. This point is reinforced once you realize that there is no consensus on a definition for god. God means something different to everyone. It's little more than an ill-defined three letter word. Not only are they not functionally different, but the idea of god is so ambiguous and amorphous that you have zero hope of showing it to be different than anything else.

 

I could equally say the dragon is from outside the universe. I could equally say that his corn-dog defecations are moral in nature. None of that matters though, because it's something I just made up, just like your god concept.