Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Windhover]

You are being irrational here you can't both accept testable, repeatable facts and not accept them when you feel like it.

Wrong. I have explained the basis I have for rejecting, hypothetically, apparently repeated observational proof of the existence of God. If you wish to claim that rejection is irrational you need to break down my explanation. Sweeping it aside is just your emotional responsel.

Do you accept the testable, repeatable findings of science or are these delusions too? Do you realise that some sciences do not produce testable repeatable results - eg Geology, evolution? Do you accept the findings of these sciences?

Q 1 - Answer Yes I accept. [I would have thought from my previous posts this was obvious and query your capacity to comprehend].

Q2. - No. Your claim that geology and evolution is not supported by "testable repeatable results" reveals only your gaping ignorance. It is the sort of claim that "Creationist" make. If you are one of them I see no point in debating with you as a blinding and predetermined ignorance is the chief distinguishing characteristic of the creature. If you are not a Creationist I suggest you pick up any basic book on evolution or geology (i.e. Dawkins "the Greatest Show on Earth") and satisfy yourself of ridiculous nature of your claim.

Q3. Yes.

As for Russells teapot, it is a falsifiable claim, and so is God. Falsify away.

This statement does not respond to anything I have posted. I need not repeat.

 

[Father Jack]

Do you realise that some sciences do not produce testable repeatable results - eg Geology, evolution? Do you accept the findings of these sciences?

You, sir, have just forfeited your right to be taken seriously in this thread or even on this forum ever again.

 

[Pie eyed]

You, sir, have just forfeited your right to be taken seriously in this thread or even on this forum ever again.

There should be available on the forum an icon or tag which once earned by the poster remains forever on display under their username.
In this specific case a large behind possibly?

 

[cancat]

No worries. Let's take the case of child rape. Some people believe that having sex with children helps them become more healthy adults. In the case of our near relatives, the bonobos, child sex is all the go. Since children generally are thought not to be capable of "consenting" all child sex is rape.

Now I do not know whether any academic study has been done in relation to the effect on a child of being brought up in a close and loving environment in which sex is engaged in as normatively as eating. I do not even know if such a study is possible. So the claim (by pederasts) that child sex is a part of healthy development to adulthood is one that, as far as I am aware, cannot be rebutted.

Let's suppose that somehow an absolutely unbiased academic study of the effect of frequent child-adult sex were possible. Let's suppose that the study was able to conclude convincingly that the adults "cultured" from such a background had significantly lower depression, anxiety, were better motivated etc. etc. and were generally better balanced, happier and more successful people than the poor misfits brought up to believe "sex" was something special.

If I were satisfied that the conclusion of the study was correct, although I think I would have great difficulty myself being a "perfect parent" in that regard, I would certainly not claim parents who were able to set aside their taboo and engage in healthy sex with their children were doing anything morally wrong. I would, on the contrary, understand that those parents would be right to morally condemn me for the damage I know I would be causing my children by not having frequent sex with them. I would be in the same category as a parent who smokes or a parent who does not have their child vaccinated.

So Mojo, over to you. Why is child rape inherently morally wrong when, if we accept the hypothesised science on the subject, it leads to the children becoming healthier adults?

In regards to your statement 'Since children generally are thought not to be capable of "consenting" all child sex is rape'. If there were a society as you describe they would surely make a distinction between sex in a 'close and loving environment' and forced sex, the latter category being regarded as "child rape" and seen as abhorent.

In any case, such a society - where parents are morally condemned for the damage caused by not having sex with their children - does not exist. If it has ever existed it would have been an abberation in human morality. So your argument becomes a long winded straw man. You have invented the 'hypothesised science on the subject' like anyone could invent the hypothesised science on the sun not rising tomorrow. Your logic to disclaim that child rape is an objective moral value is flawed.

 

[Max zero]

In regards to your statement 'Since children generally are thought not to be capable of "consenting" all child sex is rape'. If there were a society as you describe they would surely make a distinction between sex in a 'close and loving environment' and forced sex, the latter category being regarded as "child rape" and seen as abhorent.

In any case, such a society - where parents are morally condemned for the damage caused by not having sex with their children - does not exist. If it has ever existed it would have been an abberation in human morality. So your argument becomes a long winded straw man. You have invented the 'hypothesised science on the subject' like anyone could invent the hypothesised science on the sun not rising tomorrow. Your logic to disclaim that child rape is an objective moral value is flawed.

So it would be an abberation? According to who? It just does not count?

The whole point of the example is that morals, no how strongly you hold them, are purely subjective.

I have yet to see anyone show a 'objective' moral that couldn't be 'discovered' through a basic cost benefit analysis.

Is it really divine inspiration to hold the belief that killing/abusing the next generation of your species is not a good idea? Or do you think most sentient species would come to that realisation on thier own?

 

[DerpWerls]

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

 

[sighclone]

Jesus might heat the Burrito and eat the microwave...who knows, who really cares?

 

[cancat]

So it would be an abberation? According to who? It just does not count?

The whole point of the example is that morals, no how strongly you hold them, are purely subjective.

I have yet to see anyone show a 'objective' moral that couldn't be 'discovered' through a basic cost benefit analysis.

Is it really divine inspiration to hold the belief that killing/abusing the next generation of your species is not a good idea? Or do you think most sentient species would come to that realisation on thier own?

I wasn't making a case for objective morality here. I was just pointing out that his argument to disprove it was flawed.

I have made a case for a form of objective morality earlier in the thread without reference to divine inspiration.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Wrong. I have explained the basis I have for rejecting, hypothetically, apparently repeated observational proof of the existence of God. If you wish to claim that rejection is irrational you need to break down my explanation. Sweeping it aside is just your emotional responsel.

Eh? I just took your response to it's logical conclusion. If you are rejecting repeatable, observational evidence as a 'delusion' then you are rejecting all science. That's what science is!

Q 1 - Answer Yes I accept. [I would have thought from my previous posts this was obvious and query your capacity to comprehend].

Ok, how do you know this stuff you believe is true and not a delusion?

Q2. - No. Your claim that geology and evolution is not supported by "testable repeatable results" reveals only your gaping ignorance. It is the sort of claim that "Creationist" make. If you are one of them I see no point in debating with you as a blinding and predetermined ignorance is the chief distinguishing characteristic of the creature. If you are not a Creationist I suggest you pick up any basic book on evolution or geology (i.e. Dawkins "the Greatest Show on Earth") and satisfy yourself of ridiculous nature of your claim.

Your condecending manner is noted. It simply constitutes an ad hom, a logical fallacy, and does not advance your case. Both evolution and Geology make claims about the distant past which are by definition not repeatable. Thats why they are both known as 'historical sciences'. I have not said whether I accept these claims or not. As it happens I do! However this begs the question of whether you can accept these findings. If you are unable to separate repeatable experimental results from fantasy what would you think of the evidence underpinning these sciences?

This statement does not respond to anything I have posted. I need not repeat.

Wern't we talking about Russell's teapot? I see you again you fail to respond adequately to my argument.

 

[Loose Cannon]

You, sir, have just forfeited your right to be taken seriously in this thread or even on this forum ever again.

lol whether or not you take me seriously is of little interest to me TBH. Why should I take you seriously? As far as I can see you are adding nothing to the debate on this thread merely making superficial quips.
I explained what I was talking about in my response to Windy, above.

 

[Father Jack]

lol whether or not you take me seriously is of little interest to me TBH. Why should I take you seriously? As far as I can see you are adding nothing to the debate on this thread merely making superficial quips.
I explained what I was talking about in my response to Windy, above.

Evolution may make claims about the distant past, but that does not mean you cannot test it, as evolution is ongoing, observable and testable, from which we can discern certain things about the past. Quite simple really.

 

[Windhover]

In regards to your statement 'Since children generally are thought not to be capable of "consenting" all child sex is rape'. If there were a society as you describe they would surely make a distinction between sex in a 'close and loving environment' and forced sex, the latter category being regarded as "child rape" and seen as abhorent.

This is a fair point. The question is "How far does it get you?" Remember it was Mojo's claim that child rape was inherently (objectively) wrong. Now I do no know about you but I think Mojo and I would both agree that a pederast who claimed the child "consented" to, say, anal penetration had no defence to the charge of rape and, more importantly, had committed a moral wrong (whiether we consider the wrong to be objective or subjective).

What follows from this is that, if child rape is inherently wrong it doesn't matter what "distinctions", as you put it, are made. What is inherently wrong is wrong irrespective of distinctions. That you are actually prepared to draw distinctions shows how subjective the whole subject of morality is.

In any case, such a society - where parents are morally condemned for the damage caused by not having sex with their children - does not exist. If it has ever existed it would have been an abberation in human morality. So your argument becomes a long winded straw man. You have invented the 'hypothesised science on the subject' like anyone could invent the hypothesised science on the sun not rising tomorrow. Your logic to disclaim that child rape is an objective moral value is flawed.

This is an unfair response. First, as Max Zero has pointed out, who are you to claim it is this society that is morally abberrant. Cart before horse?

Secondly you reject my argument on the basis that I invented "hypothesised science". Of course I did. My point is obviously not that the hypothesised science is true. It is that we can imagine that the hypothesised science could be true. Your inability to deal with the hypothesis is merely a demonstration of the degree to which you are caught within the cultural norms you have been exposed to.

Finally, except in the minds of the emotionally forlorn*, there is no known basis upon which the sun will not rise tomorrow (or more precisely, that the Earth will stop rotating about its axis). Even so, we can both imagine what such a Mercury-like Earth would be like if there were no longer day and night. And, on that basis, we could say things about the Earth that would, on that ridiculous hypothesis, be true and things that would be untrue. So your analogy is no good, but if it were it wouldn't matter.

* [As in the song "The Sun ain't goin to rise any more"]

 

[Windhover]

Eh? I just took your response to it's logical conclusion. If you are rejecting repeatable, observational evidence as a 'delusion' then you are rejecting all science. That's what science is!

First, in taking "my response to its logical conclusion" you did not explain how you got there nor what logical error I made. That was and is my on-going complaint.

Secondly, here is a little paradox for you. For God to "prove" its existence by repeatable observational evidence, God would have to demonstrate "things happening" that were inexplicable according to the laws of physics. In other words God would have to show that scientific theories like the conservation of energy no longer held true. In other words a belief in a God that sought to prove its existence would involve "rejecting all science".

But, as you say, if having excluded all possible explanations for my observations other than the hypothesis that God exists, I reject God's existence, then I am acting contrary to scientifc method itself.

My "way out" of this paradox is to say that if all else fails there will always be at least one possible explanation for my observations that enable me to continue to accept validity of scientific method. That "way out" is to admit that it might be me who is delusional. And I can happily make that admission in the knowledge that thus far, as far as I am aware, of all the many people who have been "convinced" of scientific evidence for the existence of God not one has produced a peer-reviewed paper supporting their convictions. So, on the evidence, that it is me who is delusional is highly likely to be the right answer. So I am still true to scientific method, I just apply it to exclude me as a serious contributor and otherwise stand mute.

Ok, how do you know this stuff you believe is true and not a delusion?

Have a look at my post at 328.

Your condecending manner is noted. It simply constitutes an ad hom, a logical fallacy, and does not advance your case. Both evolution and Geology make claims about the distant past which are by definition not repeatable. Thats why they are both known as 'historical sciences'. I have not said whether I accept these claims or not. As it happens I do! However this begs the question of whether you can accept these findings. If you are unable to separate repeatable experimental results from fantasy what would you think of the evidence underpinning these sciences?

"Distant past"? No. It is astronomy that makes claims about the distant past, you know, 13 B years ago. I suppose astronomy is also one of those "historical sciences" where experimentation is not possible.

If I said that unicorns and dinosaurs existed at one time on Earth do you think we could conduct experiments now to test those two theories? I say we can and, on the basis of those experiments we can conclude there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of unicorns and quite alot of scientific evidence to support the existence of dinosaurs. The "scientific evidence" to support the hypothesis that there were once dinosaurs comes from the finding of bones, footprints etc. Each time a dinosaur bone is found it is a testable observation that again confirms the hypothesis that once were dinosaurs. We also have birds, explained as being descendents of dinosaurs. So each bird is capable of being proof of the existence of dinosaurs.

Now, turning to unicorns, we can conduct an easy repeatable experiment every day to support our hypothesis that they never existed. Every time we look to see where we postulate we might find their remains (near waterholes or whatever) and do not find evidence of their remains it makes us more sure that they never existed.

You are even more foolish (if that were possible) as to your assertion that we cannot conduct experiments now to confirm hypothesese as to the Earth's surface in the past.

Wern't we talking about Russell's teapot? I see you again you fail to respond adequately to my argument.

What you "see", fortunately I am not responsible for. If you do not tell me how I have failed to respond to your argument your claim is untestable.

 

[Loose Cannon]

First, in taking "my response to its logical conclusion" you did not explain how you got there nor what logical error I made. That was and is my on-going complaint.

Secondly, here is a little paradox for you. For God to "prove" its existence by repeatable observational evidence, God would have to demonstrate "things happening" that were inexplicable according to the laws of physics. In other words God would have to show that scientific theories like the conservation of energy no longer held true. In other words a belief in a God that sought to prove its existence would involve "rejecting all science".

But, as you say, if having excluded all possible explanations for my observations other than the hypothesis that God exists, I reject God's existence, then I am acting contrary to scientifc method itself.

My "way out" of this paradox is to say that if all else fails there will always be at least one possible explanation for my observations that enable me to continue to accept validity of scientific method. That "way out" is to admit that it might be me who is delusional. And I can happily make that admission in the knowledge that thus far, as far as I am aware, of all the many people who have been "convinced" of scientific evidence for the existence of God not one has produced a peer-reviewed paper supporting their convictions. So, on the evidence, that it is me who is delusional is highly likely to be the right answer. So I am still true to scientific method, I just apply it to exclude me as a serious contributor and otherwise stand mute.





Have a look at my post at 328.



"Distant past"? No. It is astronomy that makes claims about the distant past, you know, 13 B years ago. I suppose astronomy is also one of those "historical sciences" where experimentation is not possible.

If I said that unicorns and dinosaurs existed at one time on Earth do you think we could conduct experiments now to test those two theories? I say we can and, on the basis of those experiments we can conclude there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of unicorns and quite alot of scientific evidence to support the existence of dinosaurs. The "scientific evidence" to support the hypothesis that there were once dinosaurs comes from the finding of bones, footprints etc. Each time a dinosaur bone is found it is a testable observation that again confirms the hypothesis that once were dinosaurs. We also have birds, explained as being descendents of dinosaurs. So each bird is capable of being proof of the existence of dinosaurs.

Now, turning to unicorns, we can conduct an easy repeatable experiment every day to support our hypothesis that they never existed. Every time we look to see where we postulate we might find their remains (near waterholes or whatever) and do not find evidence of their remains it makes us more sure that they never existed.

You are even more foolish (if that were possible) as to your assertion that we cannot conduct experiments now to confirm hypothesese as to the Earth's surface in the past.



What you "see", fortunately I am not responsible for. If you do not tell me how I have failed to respond to your argument your claim is untestable.

I replied to this but the system lost it. Sorry.

Anyway to summarise: If a scientist found experimental evidence of God he would have to accept it assuming God was the best explanation.

Historical science is a legitimate term.

I made a similar argument to WLC re the teapot. It is a falsifiable claim. No-one has attempted to answer it.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Evolution may make claims about the distant past, but that does not mean you cannot test it, as evolution is ongoing, observable and testable, from which we can discern certain things about the past. Quite simple really.

Fine, but historical sciences rely on careful observations of the natural world fitted to a model. If the model makes accurate predictions it is strengthened otherwise it is modified. They don't rely on experimentation to make their claims.

In the experimental sciences models are also used but these stand or fall by the use of controlled experimentation.

With historical sciences no direct observation of the process can be made. Because like history it can neither be directly observed or repeated. That does not mean that valid claims cannot be made by this method. I was not trying to imply otherwise.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Secondly, here is a little paradox for you. For God to "prove" its existence by repeatable observational evidence, God would have to demonstrate "things happening" that were inexplicable according to the laws of physics.

This is a testable hypothesis. Let's say God proved his existance by doing things like this. What would you expect to find?

 

[Pie eyed]

Fine, but historical sciences rely on careful observations of the natural world fitted to a model. If the model makes accurate predictions it is strengthened otherwise it is modified. They don't rely on experimentation to make their claims.

In the experimental sciences models are also used but these stand or fall by the use of controlled experimentation.

With historical sciences no direct observation of the process can be made. Because like history it can neither be directly observed or repeated. That does not mean that valid claims cannot be made by this method. I was not trying to imply otherwise.

Sorry but what are these historical sciences?

History is not a science.
Cosmology can and does directly observe early universe processes as do Geology and Palaeontology, Genetics etc etc.

These are not just best guesses you know?
All are based on hard evidence

 

[Father Jack]

Fine, but historical sciences rely on careful observations of the natural world fitted to a model. If the model makes accurate predictions it is strengthened otherwise it is modified. They don't rely on experimentation to make their claims.

In the experimental sciences models are also used but these stand or fall by the use of controlled experimentation.

With historical sciences no direct observation of the process can be made. Because like history it can neither be directly observed or repeated. That does not mean that valid claims cannot be made by this method. I was not trying to imply otherwise.

Scientists are directly observing the processes involved in evolution right at this very moment. Are we to assume that life radically altered the way it operates at some point in the past? Even when all the historical evidence indicates that it didn't? Is that what you are implying?

 

[Loose Cannon]

Are you guys trying to tell me prior to my post, that you had never heard the term 'historical science'? You sure have your knickers in a twist about something anyway, although it is hard to figure out what. My posts are as plain as I could make them.

 

[Windhover]

This is a testable hypothesis. Let's say God proved his existance by doing things like this. What would you expect to find?

What is "a testable hypothesis"? I have already told you that I would find I was delusional if she sought to prove her existence to me.

 

[Windhover]

Are you guys trying to tell me prior to my post, that you had never heard the term 'historical science'? You sure have your knickers in a twist about something anyway, although it is hard to figure out what. My posts are as plain as I could make them.

I have heard of it LC, but not used in your ridiculous way. "Historical science" to my mind is science as it was practised at some prior time or, alternatively, was a theory that was accepted in the past but has now been superceded, like Newton's Laws of Motion.

Would you regard astronomy as "historical science" because it "observes" events that happened very shortly after the big bang? Observations I might add that are made on the basis of hypothesis and repeatable testing that can and is done now.

Not every "experiment" is conducted in a laboratory you know, or perhaps you don't.

 

[Windhover]

I replied to this but the system lost it. Sorry.

Anyway to summarise: If a scientist found experimental evidence of God he would have to accept it assuming God was the best explanation.

A "scientist" will only accept "X" as a conclusion if all other explanations for the results of the experiment are capable of being excluded. Because experimental error is insidious it is necessary to repeat the experiment many times and to have independent verification of the experiment and its results.

Since one's own delusions are always capable of being an explanation for an experimental result they can never be absolutely excluded.

Now imagine a world where everyone "tested" for the existence of God by jumping off high buildings and yelling "Save me God". [Please note I am not suggesting that if such people died it would "prove" God did not exist.] If everyone survived who so yelled out and everyone who did not so yell out crashed to an unpleasant death it would be difficult to conclude that God did not exist.

The "problem" with the results of that experiment is that they are completely inconsistent with our understanding of the predictable nature of the laws of physics. With such a conflict my "delusional" hypothesis - that I am deluded in thinking that such a repeatable experiment has been conducted - seems a very sound conclusion.

I made a similar argument to WLC re the teapot. It is a falsifiable claim. No-one has attempted to answer it.

It is very hard to attempt to answer an argument that, a bit like God herself, isn't there.

 

[Father Jack]

Are you guys trying to tell me prior to my post, that you had never heard the term 'historical science'? You sure have your knickers in a twist about something anyway, although it is hard to figure out what. My posts are as plain as I could make them.

Are you still not convinced that you can test the various aspects of evolution via experimentation? Not sure what you are going on about in this post, are we meant to let your incorrect assertions pass without comment?

 

[Pie eyed]

Are you guys trying to tell me prior to my post, that you had never heard the term 'historical science'? You sure have your knickers in a twist about something anyway, although it is hard to figure out what. My posts are as plain as I could make them.

No.
You are inventing a field of science to support your flawed opinions.

 

[Monniehawk]

I think you'll find history is sometimes classified as a branch of the Social Sciences.
If that makes it science !
Then again, it is generally classified in the Humanities.