Theistic Scientists

[Iggy]

Wouldn't you have to search the whole universe to disprove that X does not exist as well?

No, no.

 

"Falsifiable" doesn't mean that you've proven something falsified. It means that something is capable (in principle) of being shown false. You don't (in principle) have to search the whole universe over to show "apple does not exist " is false. If you're eating one then you've already done a good job of that.

 

When we discuss the most popular religions, this is even more difficult because God X is outside of the reach of the universe and laws of the universe.

That's kind of a myth. And, maybe what I'm about to say will address Phi's question more precisely. The judeo-christian god is easily within the realm of testing as a google search for "elijah's altar" will show... which is to say, first kings 18 will tell you how to do it.

 

edit:

 

added "does not" to "exist"

Edited September 19, 2013 by Iggy

[Phi for All]

"X does not exist" is falsifiable. A verified observation shows it wrong.

That's where I see the problem. No god(s) are observable (by scientific standards), so how are you going to verify it even if you get a consensus definition?

[Euler's Identity]

No, no.

 

"Falsifiable" doesn't mean that you've proven something falsified. It means that something is capable (in principle) of being shown false. You don't (in principle) have to search the whole universe over to show "apple does not exist " is false. If you're eating one then you've already done a good job of that.

 

That's kind of a myth. And, maybe what I'm about to say will address Phi's question more precisely. The judeo-christian god is easily within the realm of testing as a google search for "elijah's altar" will show... which is to say, first kings 18 will tell you how to do it.

 

edit:

 

added "does not" to "exist"

 

Yeah that's what I meant (falsifiable meaning). Yeah, I have come to realize that in terms of the biblical god if taken literally you can show evidence (though short of scientific of course) to be false, or if not the actual biblical god themselves, the claims that the bible makes about this god. What you CANNOT do is show evidence that this actual god or any god doesn't exist at all.

[Iggy]

That's where I see the problem. No god(s) are observable (by scientific standards), so how are you going to verify it even if you get a consensus definition?

 

When Zeus meets Perseus, God is observed. Verified. Existing in the flesh. The concept "no god is observable" isn't making sense to me.

 

You know, they said the emperor of Japan was God for a long time. I can't tell you how observable that guy was.

 

A deistic god is a bit of a rarity... at least in the literature.

[ydoaPs]

I mean, in principle, "X exists" is not falsifiable (you'd have to search the whole universe over to show it wrong, as I think you previously pointed out to me). "X does not exist" is falsifiable. A verified observation shows it wrong.

That's not true. Once you ask "What do you mean X?", things change. All you have to do is show that one or more of the parts of what it means to be X is not instantiated by anything or is mutually exclusive with another one of the properties.

 

If you want to be able to say anything about what the world would be like if X exists, then "X exists" is falsifiable. How do you think science disproves things like "The Luminiferous Aether exists"?

[Iggy]

That's not true. Once you ask "What do you mean X?", things change. All you have to do is show that one or more of the parts of what it means to be X is not instantiated by anything or is mutually exclusive with another one of the properties.

 

If you want to be able to say anything about what the world would be like if X exists, then "X exists" is falsifiable. How do you think science disproves things like "The Luminiferous Aether exists"?

 

So, yeah.

 

I'm qualifying what I'm saying. In general "X exists" is not falsifiable. That is to say... if X is well defined. I think religion's god usually qualifies. The judeo-christian god is, in my opinion, not just falsifiable, but already falsified.

 

So, I agree with you, and I like what you're saying and how read up you are on this. But, I think my last post and this one makes my point stand just fine.

What you CANNOT do is show evidence that this actual god or any god doesn't exist at all.

 

Right, but that's where I sort of agree with Phi and Ydoa. I can show scientific evidence that the biblical god doesn't exist, and I can show scientific evicence that the god of the empire of Japan did exist, but between those two lines it gets fuzzy. You really do have to define God at that point.

 

Deism is a safe place to go if you want to run there. But, "a god who doesn't affect anything" isn't any sort of god by my standard.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Iggy

[iNow]

To say that belief in one is the same as belief in the other means that switching the beliefs doesn't change anything.

Again, you seem incapable of responding without the introduction of strawmen. I am talking about assertions of existence, not beliefs.

 

No, iNow. That is most definitely wrong. You aren't asking anyone to cite anything...

So, I ask a question about 20 times... A question that you and others continue to evade. I asked, "Besides popularity, in what way(s) do you think that claims that god(s) exist are functionally different than claims that dragons who shit corndogs exist?"

 

That is what I'm asking people to cite. I am asking people to cite at least one way that these claims of existence are different. You then began claiming my position was about impact to the world if people change their beliefs, and you then followed up by claiming I'm saying switching beliefs won't change anything.

 

Making matters worse, instead of answering the question put to you like 20 times, you are now trying to tell me that I'm not asking a question at all. To support this new assertion, you've quoted other comments I've made elsewhere in the thread. You're not arguing in good faith and frankly you're being a bit of a bag full of douche (although, you've at least been consistent throughout the thread in that latter behavior). You've contributed little more than emotive and venomous outbursts throughout this discussion.

I am asking people to cite something... That's precisely what I'm doing when asking, "Beside popularity, in what way(s) do you think that an assertion that god(s) exist is functionally different from an assertion that corndog shitting dragons exist?"

[Iggy]

Again, you seem incapable of responding without the introduction of strawmen. I am talking about assertions of existence, not beliefs.

Yeah, I welcome you to assert some evidence.

 

So, I ask a question about 20 times... A question that you and others continue to evade. I asked, "Besides popularity, in what way(s) do you think that claims that god(s) exist are functionally different than claims that dragons who shit corndogs exist?"

Right, you asked "how are they different" after you said they are equivalent.

 

I'm gonna fall for that. Sure.

 

You said it. You freakin prove it. Your kicking and screaming about it only makes it look worse.

 

Just say "God isn't equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons". I won't even point out your hypocrisy if you do that. Just say what I just said and we'll be behind this. Nothing more said.

 

But, you don't get to say "I'm glad to show how they are equivalent" then beggar everybody else with 20 questions to show you their differences. I won't do that.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Iggy

[iNow]

Just say "God isn't equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons".

Besides popularity, in what way(s) do you suggest claims of their existence are functionally different?

[Iggy]

I'm glad to show how they are equivalent.

Please do.

 

You said it before I confronted you in the least. You're glad. Please do. Please do so in your next post. Please don't ask someone 20 questions before you get on with it.

 

Your next post, do what you said you would, or admit you can't.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Iggy

[iNow]

I summarized my position for you in post #353 and also several before it. I won't do it again.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78072-theistic-scientists/?p=767672

[Villain]

 

Why do so many religions treat their teachings as Truth? Christianity even went so far as a branding campaign, making scripture synonymous with it ("The Gospel Truth!"). This alone has caused many science-minded people to avoid it.

 

 

Many people/religions/insert whatever might claim to have a belief that they have truth but evidence of truth as dog put it is clearly not possible within the constrains of being human.

[Phi for All]

 

Many people/religions/insert whatever might claim to have a belief that they have truth but evidence of truth as dog put it is clearly not possible within the constrains of being human.

 

I'm totally willing to admit that my personal experiences with Christianity may not be typical, but the majority of the most devout people I know, those who are held up as shining examples of the faith, ALWAYS talk about God and Jesus as fact. Unalterable, undeniable, unquestionable Truth.

 

Even among those who will admit that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, faith in the concept is supposed to be as strong and abiding and unflagging as possible, isn't it? Doubt is to be erased; see your pastor, start praying immediately so it can be removed.

 

I think quite a few theists think science is here to provide proof. And when they perceive a threat to their beliefs from science, they try to counter with proof of their own. Then things go bad quickly.

 

So how can we make (shape, nurture?) theistic scientists out of people who probably avoid studying very much of it? When we say "There is no evidence that will prove our explanations as Truth, that's why we work with theory", it gets thrown back at us as weakness, a sign that faith in God is stronger than trust in theory.

 

We have this problem everywhere strong opinion is present. People with strong opinions (at least in religion and politics) tend to listen to supporters and talk over detractors. I think the scientific community would be willing to let folks have any opinion they want about theism, but they'll never be able to stand by while opinions, misinformation and flat-out wrongness gets labeled as Truth.

 

OR...

 

Is it the non-theist scientists who need to change? Can they afford to ignore it when a theist misinterprets something they can correct? Science doesn't work in a vacuum, it needs funding. Much of the basic core research funding that doesn't generate profit comes from public funds. Theism, especially in the US and Australia, is heavily influencing the allocation of those funds, so it's important that EVERYONE knows why such funding is critical.

 

Can non-theist scientists allow that something supernatural could be behind everything we know to be real and natural, but also allow that such a being can't be defined or observed by science so It's not within their purview? IOW, just don't make assertions about your god, leave science to us and you can have all the faith you want, we won't bother you. Could scientists do that and would theists accept it?

[Iggy]

I summarized my position for you in post #353 and also several before it. I won't do it again.

Yeah, I read it. Twice now. I didn't see you show that God is equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons. Nor did I see you say that you were wrong in that assumption.

 

You could say anything else in the world to me, but those really are the only two things I'm looking for. You said that God is equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons, and before that you compared god to pixie farts, and before that it was leprechaun erections. It's dirty every time. I get that you're trying to drag religion through the mud. You're trying to be smutty. I get it. I don't exactly disagree with your desire to do that.

 

It's just that your attempt to do it is so crude and wrong... "God is equivalent to pixie farts"... I mean... it's laughable. You're making us look bad.

[iNow]

It's just that your attempt to do it is so crude and wrong... "God is equivalent to pixie farts"... I mean... it's laughable.

I'm still waiting for a response to this, an explanation of why specifically you think it so laughable. Other than popularity, in what way(s) do you suggest claims of their existence are functionally different?

[Iggy]

I'm still waiting for a response to this...

I know how you feel.

 

I'm glad to show how they are equivalent.

Please do so. Thanks.

[iNow]

As has been shared already, I responded to your request and have shared why I believe they are equivalent. Repeating your request over and over again implies only that your are ignoring my response, unnecessarily perpetuating a disagreement that simply isn't there, or not approaching this discussion as a reasonable partner in good faith. Perhaps you could instead share in what way do you feel my previously offered response is flawed?

 

Please also provide a response to the question I keep asking. That truly is at core of this issue. You continue to suggest that assertions of the existence of god(s) are in some way functionally different than assertions of the existence of corndog pooping dragons, or assertions that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns. Sure, one is more popular, common, and socially accepted than the others, but when it comes to demonstrating the validity or truth value of the claims, in what way(s) do you suggest they are different?

 

Your refusal to answer this basic question, your decision to continue calling the comparison silly without ever explaining why, and your continued evasion of the question implies rather strongly that the comparison is actually quite valid. Show us why it is not a valid comparison, or stop suggesting that it's not. Will you do that, or do you prefer to continue playing games that do nothing to advance the discussion?

[Iggy]

As has been shared already, I responded to your request and have shared why I believe they are equivalent.

You "believe" they're equivalent, but you can't in the least explain or show why.

 

This is like someone believing that God exists but can't in the least explain or show why.

 

You don't get to do that!

 

Your refusal to answer...

We are both refusing to answer. You said it first. You said god is equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons. You said it. I'm not going to be dragged into proving your private beliefs for you. Either show they are equivalent, or admit they aren't, or shut the hell up with that particular claim.

 

Equivocation fallacy 101. Embarrassing!

 

You're above this.

 

You're smart enough to tap Tar on the shoulder when he says "God is equivalent to child's dreams and all kinds of lovely things", or whatever he says, but you can't see exactly the same thing when you do it? It's disgusting. Hypocritical and disgusting.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Iggy

[John Cuthber]

All unsupported statements are equivalent.

Assertions of the properties or existence of God or dragons are unsupported.

The two ideas are, in that sense, equivalent.

So, Iggy,

if you want to show that they are not equivalent, it's perfectly simple- you just have to point out the difference.

Please do so.

[Iggy]

All unsupported statements are equivalent.

 

Exactly.

 

iNow, your unsupported statement that God is equivalent to dragon poop is no different from a claim "my father raped me in the bathroom". Your announced claim of the former does nothing to address the latter.

 

I welcome any evidence I can find, But, the unevidenced nature of both those make them exactly in kind. I couldn't agree with you more, John.

 

Honestly, iNow.... did your father rape you in the bathroom?

 

Realize... I'm going to ask this question 20 more times while you refuse to answer. And, in the mean time, you can't show that God is equivalent to dragon poop. Because... these unsupported claims are equivalent. Just like John said.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Iggy

[John Cuthber]

Thank you for making it clear that you are unable to show that there is a difference between God and the dragon because there is no difference.

We can move on now.

[WWLabRat]

 

Trying to prove that a deity exists is the same as trying to prove that dragons exist. There is insufficient physical data to prove the existence of either.

Neither exists because you haven't provided evidence to show that they do.

Lather, rinse, repeat for seven pages

 

This is getting rather repetitive seeing the two of you go back and forth yet accomplishing nothing. This is why you haven't seen me post on here in a few days despite keeping an eye on it all.

 

Now that we are here, can we please get back on topic, the topic that was posted in OP? Is it possible for a theist to have a scientific mind despite the belief in a deity?

[Moontanman]

Now that we are here, can we please get back on topic, the topic that was posted in OP? Is it possible for a theist to have a scientific mind despite the belief in a deity?

Yes it is possible as I pointed out at least twice in this thread, the last time on post #295...

[iNow]

Now that we are here...

Your paraphrasing is inaccurate. That doesn't come across as a valid summary of the thread, IMO, but given the refusal of Iggy or anyone else to answer the simple question it really doesn't matter.

[WWLabRat]

Your paraphrasing is inaccurate. That doesn't come across as a valid summary of the thread, IMO, but given the refusal of Iggy or anyone else to answer the simple question it really doesn't matter.

 

From an outside perspective, that's what it seems your/Iggy's argument boils down to.

 

 

Yes it is possible as I pointed out at least twice in this thread, the last time on post #295...

My view is that it is possible too. I've pointed it out as well. I believe that I operate with a scientific mind, yet I also believe in a "higher being" (post #126). Seeing that science is a process, not a belief system, the two are able to be possessed by the same person. Science is a method by which we can observe the physical world. Religion/spirituality is a way by which to understand things greater than ourselves.

 

Obviously not everyone is going to take the same stance on any one religion or spiritual viewpoint. In the same way, not every scientist interprets data the same way. The key difference is that science doesn't wage wars over the centuries over these views. Both sides take the data and test it on their own to see if everything checks out. The problem is that with spirituality, you can't test the views in a laboratory or draw up mathematical proofs to show that one religion is closer to the Truth than the other.