Theistic Scientists

[Iggy]

 

More definitions problems. Scientific evidence is different than legal evidence, so while eye-witness testimony is admissible in court (if the witness is credible), it's not enough on its own to support a theory. If Einstein had claimed to witness something in his lab that he couldn't reproduce for colleagues to verify on their own,..

 

 

I want to agree with you. I agree with you in principle, but I don't know where to draw the line.

 

I mean... you just contradicted yourself. You just said "eye-witness testimony is admissible in court (if the witness is credible), it's not enough on its own to support a theory" then you said "If Einstein had claimed to witness something in his lab that he couldn't reproduce for colleagues to verify on their own"... so...

 

First of all: Einstein didn't reproduce the 1919 eclipse for his colleagues.

 

But, that isn't important... more than that... Religious people are verifying on their own what others see. Someone like Francis Collins hears his whole life that Jesus is real and all that BS, and he doesn't believe. Then one day he sees something that makes him believe. He independently verifies it in his own mind.

 

How is that different from what science does every day? I honestly think there is an answer but I'm struggling to find it. If I hear my whole life that the earth is round then one day I take a trip on orbit then I'm going to believe too.

 

I can't find the demarcation.

[Moontanman]

Then it's probably a semantics issue if you feel anyone here is attacking your stance undeservedly. Personally, I wouldn't use the word "evidence" in anything but a scientific context, just like I don't use the word "theory" when I mean "an idea I've pondered whilst showering". Precise terminology is something a theistic scientist would have to be more than normally attentive to.

 

[iNow]

White noise.

 

Please do.

 

Please do so in your next post. Please don't ask me any questions first. Please prove to me that pixie farts and dragon poop are equivalent to god.

We cannot deal in proof. Science, at best, deals in evidence and internally consistent positions, but proofs are for maths and that's not what we're doing here. This is not even science, so I can lay out my position and you can take from it what you will. If you disagree with my position and you have an alternative opinion, that's fine, but I'd like you to explain why and in what ways you see the claims as functionally different.

 

Ultimately, I just want an answer to my core question. In hopes of getting that answer, I'll repeat the comments I've made previously in response to your request above, but again... Proof is for math and your request is consequently unreasonable:

 

 

More specifically, I said that the only difference between claims that god(s) exist and claims that corndog shitting dragons exist is that one is more popular and more accepted socially than the other. Beyond that difference in popularity, each claim rests on the same complete absence of empirical and corroborating evidence. I then followed up by repeating the self-evidently true statement that popularity and number of believers is neither relevant nor pertinent to demonstrating the truth of a claim, which is why I am able to validly assert their equivalence.

 

As doG mentioned, claims of the existence of corndog shitting dragons don't become any more valid just because more people believe it to be true... whether it's ten people, ten thousand, or ten million or several billion. The same applies to claims regarding the existence of god(s). Those claims of existence rest on nothing more than faith, and their truth is not somehow bolstered just because lots of people happen to share that faith. Faith doesn't demonstrate truth. It demonstrates belief. That's an important distinction.

 

Again, claims of the existence of god(s) are in no way functionally different than claims that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns, and are in no way different than claims that corndog shitting dragons exist. The ONLY difference is the popularity and commonality of the belief, but they are still little more than beliefs. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, truth is not determined by popularity nor is it determined by the number of believers or people of common faith. Neither faith alone nor the popularity or commonality of that faith serve as acceptable evidence to the validity of a claim, especially one so extraordinary and outrageous as the claim that god(s) exist(s).

Both claims lack any supporting empirical evidence whatsoever. Both claims appear to be complete fabrications of human imagination. What more proof are you seeking? Your request is unreasonable and little more than an evasion of the core point.

 

Besides mere popularity and social acceptance, can you cite a single way in which the two assertions are functionally different (in context of demonstrating their validity and truth)?

In terms of demonstrating existence or validity, a single relevant difference between god(s) and corndog shitting dragons would shut me up. It would answer my question and demonstrate my point to be fallacious. However, none have been offered, and there's good reason you and others cannot provide one. It's because there almost certainly aren't any relevant differences that can be offered.

In what way(s) other than popularity do you suggest they are different? Why specifically do you suggest it's such a "stupid thing to do?"

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.

Functionally speaking, [these ideas] are not [different]. 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.

When we're dealing with things not based on empirical evidence, any claim I make is equally plausible. This same problem applies to the god conjecture. It's based on faith, and faith can underlie whatever silly thing you want.

 

Now, back to my core question.

 

Besides popularity, in what way(s) are assertions that god(s) exist functionally different from assertions that dragons who poop corndogs exist?

[Euler's Identity]

 

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

You're trying to argue that having faith in God is wrong, based on how irrational it is. Faith is NOT a rational belief to begin with. "Faith is wrong" is not an argument you can support in any way with regard to a personal belief or opinion.

 

I've tried to show, in other threads, that faith isn't as strong as most people think. I tried to show that it's actually the weakest form of belief. But I can't say it's wrong, not until it's used to support an assertion and then is subject to all the rigor reasoned thought can bring to bear.

 

Again, as long as faith isn't expressed as fact, it's a personal opinion. You don't get to tell me my logic is flawed because I think chocolate is the best flavor in the world, until I say "Chocolate IS the best flavor and I have evidence to prove it!" At least for our purposes of discussion here, trying to convince someone their faith is misplaced is every bit as much preaching as those who're trying to convert you to their faith.

 

Without something strong to influence you personally as I stated, blind faith based on nothing makes no sense whatsoever. You're belief that chocolate is the best flavor is not flawed logic, because its a matter of how you receive each flavor in particular and is a matter of opinion and PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, not to mention that your opinion that chocolate is best doesn't break multiple well established laws of nature. The existence of some deity which breaks all of the laws of nature and is the supposed creator of all things, on the other hand, is on a different scale. With NOTHING to support such a claim and it being based on blind faith alone, how does this belief make any sense? Matter of personal belief or not without something extraordinary it seems to make 0 sense.

[Iggy]

We cannot deal in proof. Science, at best, deals in evidence and internally consistent positions, but proofs are for maths and that's not what we're doing here. This is not even science, so I can lay out my position and you can take from it what you will. If you disagree with my position and you have an alternative opinion, that's fine, but I'd like you to explain why and in what ways you see the claims as functionally different.

 

Ultimately, I just want an answer to my core question. In hopes of getting that answer, I'll repeat the comments I've made previously in response to your request above, but again... Proof is for math and your request is consequently unreasonable:

Nope. Prof isn't just for the math. It's for you as well, and I don't think asking for it is unreasonable as well.

 

You said that god is the equivalent to corn dog shitting dragons, You aid... "I'm glad to show how they are equivalent". You said that. Ether do it or admit you can't! There is no other option!

Edited September 18, 2013 by Iggy

[Euler's Identity]

Nope. Prof isn't just for the math. It's for you as well, and I don't think asking for it is unreasonable as well.

 

You said that god is the equivalent to corn dog shitting dragons, You aid... "I'm glad to show how they are equivalent". You said that. Ether do it or admit you can't! There is no other option!

 

I haven't been here the whole thread but I BELIEVE he is asking you to demonstrate how they are different.

[Iggy]

I haven't been here the whole thread but I BELIEVE he is asking you to demonstrate how they are different.

I realize you haven't been, and I guess I should explain.

 

There was somebody here (named Pears) who said some things. She made no arguments based on region. She made no arguments based on religion. But, nevertheless, some people around here decided to ask her "how are your beliefs different from dragon poop".

 

It seems a bit odd to me. Dragon poop is a bit different from God, but that isn't just what they asked, it's what they claimed. They said "god is equivalent to dragon poop".

 

And, of course they can't prove anything like that.

 

So here we are.

[Moontanman]

I realize you haven't been, and I guess I should explain.

 

There was somebody here (named Pears) who said some things. She made no arguments based on region. She made no arguments based on religion. But, nevertheless, some people around here decided to ask her "how are your beliefs different from dragon poop".

 

It seems a bit odd to me. Dragon poop is a bit different from God, but that isn't just what they asked, it's what they claimed. They said "god is equivalent to dragon poop".

 

And, of course they can't prove anything like that.

 

So here we are.

 

Not really both are indeed equivalent, neither has any empirical evidence of it's existence..

[Phi for All]

I want to agree with you. I agree with you in principle, but I don't know where to draw the line.

 

I mean... you just contradicted yourself. You just said "eye-witness testimony is admissible in court (if the witness is credible), it's not enough on its own to support a theory" then you said "If Einstein had claimed to witness something in his lab that he couldn't reproduce for colleagues to verify on their own"... so...

Sorry, I don't see the contradiction. A court of law has different methodology than a science lab. An eye-witness (which is what many people claim the writers of the Gospels were) can sway a jury or a judge, especially a highly credible witness like a policeman. But it's not enough for even Einstein to simply witness something and use that in support of his theory. Even Einstein would need to show his peers his evidence.

 

That's why biblical accounts aren't credible by themselves as scientific evidence. It's anecdotal at best.

 

Religious people are verifying on their own what others see. Someone like Francis Collins hears his whole life that Jesus is real and all that BS, and he doesn't believe. Then one day he sees something that makes him believe. He independently verifies it in his own mind.

 

How is that different from what science does every day? I honestly think there is an answer but I'm struggling to find it. If I hear my whole life that the earth is round then one day I take a trip on orbit then I'm going to believe too.

 

I can't find the demarcation.

The demarcation is in the rigor. Humans are notoriously HORRIBLE witnesses. We see what we want to, or what we think should be there. Seeing something isn't enough, unless you can recreate the event so everyone can see it the way you did. That's why the methodology works on natural phenomena, and fails when applied to the supernatural.

 

Without something strong to influence you personally as I stated, blind faith based on nothing makes no sense whatsoever. You're belief that chocolate is the best flavor is not flawed logic, because its a matter of how you receive each flavor in particular and is a matter of opinion and PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, not to mention that your opinion that chocolate is best doesn't break multiple well established laws of nature. The existence of some deity which breaks all of the laws of nature and is the supposed creator of all things, on the other hand, is on a different scale. With NOTHING to support such a claim and it being based on blind faith alone, how does this belief make any sense? Matter of personal belief or not without something extraordinary it seems to make 0 sense.

No one here but you is claiming that a personal belief in God is wrong or nonsensical for everyone. They're explaining why THEY don't believe in any gods. Ask them. You're falling into the same bad arguments you claim to be against. "It makes no sense" is an argument from incredulity, unless you can provide some evidence that God doesn't exist.

 

You can decide not to believe for yourself if you like; it's an opinion and everyone has one. And as long as the person who believes in God isn't trying to insist that there's scientific proof for him, or try to attribute to God something more easily explained by nature, their belief isn't wrong, not for them it isn't.

 

You can't prove God exists and you can't prove he doesn't using science. It's a concept outside nature and not for science to explain. And just like trying to prove God's existence is like trying to prove Orville Dragonbacher's^TM existence, you'll end up with nothing but bad arguments and popcorn farts.

[Euler's Identity]

No one here but you is claiming that a personal belief in God is wrong or nonsensical for everyone. They're explaining why THEY don't believe in any gods. Ask them. You're falling into the same bad arguments you claim to be against. "It makes no sense" is an argument from incredulity, unless you can provide some evidence that God doesn't exist.

 

You can decide not to believe for yourself if you like; it's an opinion and everyone has one. And as long as the person who believes in God isn't trying to insist that there's scientific proof for him, or try to attribute to God something more easily explained by nature, their belief isn't wrong, not for them it isn't.

 

You can't prove God exists and you can't prove he doesn't using science. It's a concept outside nature and not for science to explain. And just like trying to prove God's existence is like trying to prove Orville Dragonbacher's^TM existence, you'll end up

 

I never claimed that science can disprove the existence of a god as you seem to believe I have, I claimed (multiple times) that without anything pointing you to the belief it makes no sense. Neither did I say that "Believing in god is wrong", i cannot prove that because the existence of a god IS possible. But as I have also stated in the past it makes no sense to believe this with absolutely nothing in the way of an experience to make you believe so. I've heard a million times that it is outside the realm of science and believe so, I don't need you to repeat that back to me as its obvious. Completely blind faith makes absolutely no sense at all, it has never shown any results to people that rely on it. Yep a god is possible, never claimed it wasn't, but again without anything that gives you the impression that one does exist, why would you worship and put your life in the hands of this possibly imaginary being?

Edited September 18, 2013 by Euler's Identity

[Phi for All]

Nope. Prof isn't just for the math. It's for you as well, and I don't think asking for it is unreasonable as well.

Actually, iNow is right, science doesn't deal in proof. Proof is really only available in math, because we can't test for everything, everywhere. For science, it's usually a preponderance of evidence, so we use theories instead. Proof signals the end of the search, and we really don't want that to happen. Proof makes us stop looking.

 

And this is another example of misunderstood definitions. We say, "Prove it!" but really mean, "Sway me with a preponderance of evidence!"

 

But as I have also stated in the past it makes no sense to believe this with absolutely nothing in the way of an experience to make you believe so. I've heard a million times that it is outside the realm of science and believe so, I don't need you to repeat that back to me as its obvious.

Who claimed their belief in God was without any experiences to make them believe? I don't recall anyone claiming that, unless you're talking about you. How would that even work?! This is probably where Iggy's strawman complaint comes from.

 

I'm still unsure whether calling it "blind" faith is moving the goalpost or not. I've used that term before in the context that faith often overlooks reality in favor of spirituality. But you seem to be using it to mean "believing in God without having a miraculous experience". How on earth are you supporting THAT?!

 

Wait, don't answer that. This thread isn't about whether believing in God is right or wrong.

[Euler's Identity]

Actually, iNow is right, science doesn't deal in proof. Proof is really only available in math, because we can't test for everything, everywhere. For science, it's usually a preponderance of evidence, so we use theories instead. Proof signals the end of the search, and we really don't want that to happen. Proof makes us stop looking.

 

And this is another example of misunderstood definitions. We say, "Prove it!" but really mean, "Sway me with a preponderance of evidence!"

 

Who claimed their belief in God was without any experiences to make them believe? I don't recall anyone claiming that, unless you're talking about you. How would that even work?! This is probably where Iggy's strawman complaint comes from.

 

I'm still unsure whether calling it "blind" faith is moving the goalpost or not. I've used that term before in the context that faith often overlooks reality in favor of spirituality. But you seem to be using it to mean "believing in God without having a miraculous experience". How on earth are you supporting THAT?!

 

Wait, don't answer that. This thread isn't about whether believing in God is right or wrong.

 

I would be willing to estimate that at least 80% of those that believe in a god have never experienced anything miraculous to sway them in that direction, but I'm not those people and I wasn't there so I could never say that for sure of course. Blind faith is used in the context that you don't really know why you believe it and you don't question it, just believe it.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Euler's Identity

[Phi for All]

 

I would be willing to estimate that at least 80% of those that believe in a god have never experienced anything miraculous to sway them in that direction, but I'm not those people and I wasn't there so I could never say that for sure of course. Blind faith is used in the context that you don't really know why you believe it and you don't question it, just believe it.

 

OK. So, knowing that your stance requires guesswork, assumptions and estimates about people you don't know, are you at least willing to stop asserting that faith, blind or not, makes no sense at all? Perhaps the claim can be amended to "Faith makes no sense to me"?

[Euler's Identity]

 

OK. So, knowing that your stance requires guesswork, assumptions and estimates about people you don't know, are you at least willing to stop asserting that faith, blind or not, makes no sense at all? Perhaps the claim can be amended to "Faith makes no sense to me"?

 

Actually that's incorrect, my stance does not rely upon this assumption. The idea that a huge majority of peoples faith is baseless relies upon this assumption. My stance is that completely blind faith makes no sense, which relies upon common sense, rather than assumptions.

[Phi for All]

 

Actually that's incorrect, my stance does not rely upon this assumption. The idea that a huge majority of peoples faith is baseless relies upon this assumption. My stance is that completely blind faith makes no sense, which relies upon common sense, rather than assumptions.

 

So, "a huge majority of peoples faith is baseless" is now a fact? So much that it's considered "common sense"?

 

Citation needed, please.

 

How can you really assert that this huge majority of religious people never had any experiences they considered sufficient enough to make them believe? Does it have to be miraculous or just seem miraculous? I've never met anyone who really believed that didn't have a good reason for it, even if the reasoning wasn't up to scientific rigor.

[Moontanman]

I have had a "special experience" and I still see no evidence to base belief on... I am well aware of how the brain can fool you when close to death...

[iNow]

...nevertheless, some people around here decided to ask her "how are your beliefs different from dragon poop".

 

It seems a bit odd to me. Dragon poop is a bit different from God...

Besides popularity, in what way(s) do you suggest they are functionally different from one another?

[Phi for All]

I have had a "special experience" and I still see no evidence to base belief on... I am well aware of how the brain can fool you when close to death...

 

Not the same though. We're talking about personal faith. It needs no evidence until it's used to make assertions. Then it fails, but that's because it's defined as belief without evidence.

 

If you're willing to defend the "special experience" prerequisite for faith, are you willing to assert that a huge majority of people never had any kind of special religious experience that cemented their belief, that formed the basis of their faith? Couldn't such an experience happen when reading the Bible or having a loved one survive cancer after they prayed for it? Does it have to be a lightning-strike or NDE-type of thing before it's valid for that person?

 

Believe me, I think faith in gods is irrational, but I'm not willing to assert it's irrational for everyone. I don't care to guess at motives, or whether or not someone had a special enough experience to make them believe what they do.

[John Cuthber]

As has been stated, we are not talking about mathematical proof of God.

Perhaps we should be prepared to accept the lower standard of proof used in court.

Is there proof of God "beyond reasonable doubt"?

Clearly the answer is no, because there are lots of reasonable people who strongly doubt there's a God.

Since the believes can't even manage this lesser standard, they clearly won't be able to reach the "gold standard" of a mathematical or scientific proof.

 

Nor will the dragon fans.

From that point of view, the undemonstrable God is equivalent to the undemonstrable dragon.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

There does appear to be a whole history of evidence of nations of people who have existed and based their lives on a God.

 

* The Jews from Abraham to the modern day have a history of interaction and physical evidence of contact with a GOD.

* The early Christians had supernatural, well documented experiential evidence of many such contacts.

 

Since then whole nations have built their existence , constitution and a mode of operation based on the principles coming from those Experiences of contact with the SUPERNATURAL

 

Such Nations As USA, UK EUROPE.etc

 

If ALL these are to be dismissed as NOT SCIENTIFIC enough , surely we are trying to dismiss or discount much of our history as NOT VALID EVIDENCE ( this could be a trgjic mistake ).

 

What if we are wrong ? In the face of so much of our history ? Are we to deny so much of our history, the very history which gave birth to Science itself.

 

That is surely a bit of a dangerous sweeping step. Dangerous to dismiss so much evidence on a very recently proposed THEORY that " There is NO SUPERNATURAL EXISTENCE and contact ".

 

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Some men of science have embraced the thoughts of Karl Popper that a theory , not only needs to be VERIFIED but also FALSIFIABLE. .

 

If that is the case. Then it is beholden on those who have a modern Theory

 

" There are no gods, There is No GOD " attempt to falsify, in order to make the theory a valid theory..

 

This would surely only be possible if the Proponents of this theory were to prove they have searched EVERYWHERE , rattled a stick around in EVERY corner and say " There ! " "There is no one there ! I have demonstrated I have been EVERYWHERE , checked for ALL manner of existence. Nothing there." Search has been made for life elsewhere, so far, no signs of life. However the surface of ALL places has barely been touched among normal matter , let alone Super Natural domains .

 

Clearly, we are no where near looking at, detecting, going everywhere everything, every time. So at the moment this Theory that " There are no gods, There is No GOD " is currently not barely touched as being falsifiable .

So by Karl Poppers' standards the Theory" There are no gods, There is No GOD " is NOT VALID at this time .

 

On the other hand the two civilizations mentioned earlier have produced some Evidence , by way of Contacts, Words, demonstrations of a whole series of superhuman, supernatural, acts, to the contrary. History is not "empty" of such evidence.

The evidence 'though old' stacks up far more on this side of the theories of ", gods or GOD " than the fairly recent counter theory which is pretty well "Empty of falsifiable evidence" on the " No gods, GOD " side, apart from the simple local searching on nearly planets etc .

 

Is this not so ?

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Iggy]

 

It seems a bit odd to me. Dragon poop is a bit different from God

Besides popularity, in what...

 

Popularity works for me.

 

Were you getting around to addressing your equivocation fallacy?

Actually, iNow is right, science doesn't deal in proof. Proof is really only available in math, because we can't test for everything, everywhere.

Heh

 

That's why mathematicians say physics is too important to be left to the physicists.

 

Too funny.

 

 

[doG]

Popularity works for me.

 

That's like saying popular myths are not myths because they are popular. Popularity IS NOT evidence of truth!

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

WHAT IF ?

 

What happens if " gods or GOD " turns out to be some Super composite Civilization of super Scientists, super Engineers, super social Philosophers, who existed billions of years ago. that took part in a major project.

 

A Project of which we are a part. Then, They left us,a while, to get on with it.

 

Do we understand it is a project ? Do we understand what we are supposed to do within the project ? Have we made a good job of it ?

Edited September 19, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Iggy]

 

That's like saying popular myths are not myths because they are popular. Popularity IS NOT evidence of truth!

 

I don't follow. Evidence of what truth? What truth do you think I'm trying to evidence?

[Villain]

 

That's like saying popular myths are not myths because they are popular. Popularity IS NOT evidence of truth!

 

Why must religion live up to truth, what, besides deduction, is truth bound?