Who Cares What Stephen Hawking Writes about God?
In logging onto the net this morning, I saw that Stephen Hawking supposedly wrote in his last book that God does not exist. I haven't read that book, and have no intention of doing so. I just find it humorous that Hawking could know whether a God exists and I'm also puzzled why anyone really cares what his thoughts on God are. After all, I personally don't care what a theologian who has no back ground in physics thinks about physics. A scientist's opinion on the existence of God seems to me to carry no special weight, as science does not address the issue of whether a God exists and merely concerns itself with the knowledge claims we can make regarding the material world. Yet, for some reason, people seem to be concerned with what scientists think about the existence of God.
Comments (204)
Plus they specialise in the way the world works; so their opinion carries weight. But intelligent people from other walks of life are perfectly capable of making up their own minds if God exists and have as valid opinions too .
Hawking makes a scientific case for there not being a god, which he is perfectly qualified to do so. Now, either you go with that or you posit god as magic that science cannot measure. If you do the latter then Hawking or anyone else is equally qualified to answer the question and whatever their answer happens to be, one (who posits god as something notknowable/measurable) has no valid way of rejecting the answer given.
There are no credentials or “background” knowledge that helps determine if there is a god at all in the latter case, so it shouldnt bother anyone for Hawking to say yay or nay.
...the phyisical world.
Quoting DingoJones
A nonsensical statement on the face of it.
There's no such thing as a "scientific case" in physics for a position on a matter not within physics' legitimate range of applicability.
Attempt to apply science outside of is legitimate range of applicability is pseudoscience.
There's nothing wrong with saying that you don't share someone else's worldview. But to say that everyone must share your Science-Worship world view, or else they're wrong, that's presumptuous.
Michael Ossipoff
What is important about Stephen Hawking, or Donald Trump, or the Pope and the Dalai Lama is that they are famous people who are readily recognizable by many people. That's why their opinions are reported -- not because they know more about it than anyone else. (well... I suppose the Pope and the Dalai Lama are thought to know more about it, at least.)
If you have in mind a materialist God, then science has a lot to say potentially about such a God. If you have in mind a non-materialist God, then by his works (the universe) shall we know him and science still has a role to play.
Agree. The idea that the existence of God is a question for science is indicative of a misunderstanding about the nature of the question.
But the idea that cosmologists ought to be able to provide such an answer has a pedigree. Newton had been convinced that at least some of the motions of the heavens could only be explained by invoking Divine command. Pierre Simon LaPlace - 'France's Newton' - famously replied, when asked by Napoleon whether God figured in his account of the movements of the heavens, that 'I have no need of that hypothesis'. Nowadays, of course, the 'motions of the heavens' still poses conundrums which are supposedly addressed by the postulations of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. But appealing to the science in respect of metaphysical questions still seems mistaken to me.
Interestingly, Vera Rubin, who was one of the originators of the concept of dark matter, was herself an observant Jew:
Quoted in Wikipedia.
Yes, science deals with physical world. Do I really need to specify that?
Don't you think that a theologian is more qualified to make statements about the nature of God than a physicist?
No its not, as someone pointed out if god is said to exist physically then science would have a role to play.
I do not worship science, this is a purely ignorant statement on your part. I also said nothing about everyone having to share my world view. Presumptious of me?! You sir, are the one being presumptious here. If you would like to know what I think, you are free to ask although now I might be hesitant to do so. Its not hard to tell which of us is the crusader here, you have shown yourself only too eager to operate from your own presumptions in service of your views on “science worship”.
Physics addresses the existence of everything. Do you think that the Pope has any better proof that god exists?
Most believers state that everything that exists is proof of god, so why would a scientist's evidence (after investigating the universe) that there is no god be viewed as less worthy than the Pope's evidence that there is one?
Tell that to Galileo.
Science has no fixed range of applicability. Everything anything can be investigated scientifically.
Most likely, but the question upon which Prof. Hawking expressed himself was "does god exist?", never mind what the nature of the existing god is. Everyone has to decide whether or not gods exist. Of course, theologians are likely to say that god exists -- that's kind of their bread and butter. Theologians are experts on the nature of the god idea, the history of the god idea, the consequences of the god idea, and so on -- but they, like everyone else, have to decide for themselves whether or not god exists. One can be a theologian and believe that god does not exist.
I don't find Prof. Hawking's pronouncements on the existence of god even remotely compelling.
Isn't the question of whether a specified thing exists or not a question concerning the nature of that thing?
You do, as evidenced by your response here.
So, wouldn't it be the specialists who are best qualified at determining whether the seam of gold exists or not? And if the specialists claim that it does exist, when they really believe that it does not, can't we say that they are for some reason acting to deceive the home owner?
The matter is not as simple as every person ought to decide for oneself whether or not to belief that God exists, it appears more like a question of whether these theologians, who are the specialists, are trying to deceive us.
Quoting StreetlightX
It may be quite unsympathetic to say "who cares" in response to someone discussing something which is of great importance to them. Don't you think that being unsympathetic is being selfish?
You're right: the seams of gold or oil wells analogy doesn't work, so I'll edit that out. One would need specialists for that sort of thing from the get-go.
Do theologians try to deceive? Well... I would think not. Not because theologians are always pure of heart, always honest, never deceptive, etc., but because they would have little to gain. As I see it, it isn't the job of theologians to convert anyone; that's the job of evangelists, missionaries, preachers. Theologians are academics, experts. Dishonesty would be no more welcome among theologians than it would be among physicists or medieval history scholars.
I will accept that theologians know more about god-concepts than laymen. That is their field of expertise. A theologian (faculty or field practitioner) can explain, bring understanding, make sense of god-concepts for believers.
Theologians are not of one mind on this point: Some think we are led, like horses, to water and are made to drink (by God); others take the view that we are more like horses and can be led to water, but can not be made to drink. On whatever basis, we have to decide to drink.
My god-concept is that god can pretty much do what he pleases. The horses will drink if that is on god's agenda, but the horses are also free to drink when they thirst, literally and figuratively. So it is that we are free to believe, or not -- until such time as time that god decides otherwise.
I didn't choose to acquire the set of god-concepts that I possess. It was handed to me as part of my childhood education and what followed from early instruction and the community intention that we would believe. I have found theologians very helpful in sorting out ideas about god and religion--because I was a believer in the first place.
I don't know anything about Stephen Hawking's early education. Perhaps he received no instruction then or later. He may have been a horse who never came close to the water trough, so never had to decide whether to drink or not. A theologian would be of little use to him. A theologian might say that "god didn't see fit to lead him to the trough, or god was fine with Hawking's disbelief, or Hawking is now rotting in hell, or Hawking was right and god doesn't exist." But that wouldn't help Hawking because he had no belief for a theologian to explain.
A specialist in French is of no use to someone who has never heard or read a word of French.
I've never heard of a materialist God.
...in the study of the physical world and the interactions of its parts.
Michael Ossipoff
No, it's common knowledge.
Michael Ossipoff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
God and Reason in harmony...
...and there is a door-to-door-promotion denomination that has asserted that God exists physically. But, if your objections only apply to religions that assert that God exists physically, then maybe you should clarify that when expressing your objection. When you do, specify the denomination.
Michael Ossipoff
When someone tries to apply science to religious questions, or even metaphysical questions, that person is trying to apply science outside its legitimate range of applicability. That person is practicing pseudoscience, making science into a religion, and engaging in Science-Worship.
Quoting DingoJones
Good. Some aggressive Atheists, but not you, like to loudly and continually assert that that they know others' beliefs, and that those other beliefs are less justified than their own.
Note to anyone who isn't an aggressive Atheist:
There's no reason to debate their issue with them.
Michael Ossipoff
Galileo didn't try to apply science outside its legitimate range of applicability. He studied and advanced physics.
In fact, Galileo famously clarified and emphasized the inapplicability of science and religion to eachother.
Physical science's range of applicability is limited to the physical world.
But yes, the requirements and desiderata of metaphysics are similar to those of science, and so you could fairly say that metaphysics should be discussed scientifically. Avoid unnecessary assumptions and brute-facts, for example. Definitions should be clearly specified and consistently used.
But no, physical science doesn't apply to metaphysics or religion.
Michael Ossipoff
Well, they are interesting to the degree they illustrate a social phenomena. People like Hawkings are obviously very good at science. Some scientists, emphasis on some, make a leap from that fact to the theory that therefore they are experts at thinking, at reason. And from there it's just more leap to the idea that therefore scientists are experts at everything.
We're part of the problem. Scientists deliver goodies that we want, so we tend to treat them like gods. Some scientists, emphasis on some, fall victim to the very human tendency to believe what we want to believe. So if you tell me I'm a god, that sounds good, so about ten minutes later I decide it must be true.
Lol, so you felt the need to specify it because...?
Irrelevant sidestepping. I did not make a nonsensical statement, thats what I was addressing. Your suggestion that I should have clarified isnt even valid, you presumed I was using your own definition and took issue based on that. This is your mistake, not mine sir.
If God really is the father of creation then it is the natural philosophers and scientists that truely study his work. Theologians study man, believing man to be God.
You quoted me and then responded to the quote by addressing “aggressive atheists”. Was it not your intention to attach the behaviour you describe to me? Obviously you have retracted the labeling if that is the case, but note how that was a fairly confusing way to make your point.
How would you differentiate that from delusion?
And how do you do that? Thats the exact thing Im asking you about, and wonder how you differentiate between that feeling you have and delusion.
Objective corroboration.
In fact, it's even worse for you. Science is essentially concerned with epistemology --- what we can know, more so than about what is.
My brain doesnt always feed me the truth. Its functions can be quite deceptive, and quite easily deceived, so as I said I think objective corroboration is the tool used.
I would say the former, a function of the brain.
Do you know what the Law of Parsimony is? How about you do an empirical study and then apply the Law of Parsimony to your conclusions.
You obviously are not well informed or educated in the general philosophies of science and scientific investigation. Which means that you do not have a very solid position on which to assess the relation of science and God and instead it is you that does not understand the "scope of science".
The problem with this analogy, in my opinion, is that one can't be an expert on whether God exists in the same way that one can be an expert in physics or chemistry, say. Scientists and philosophers would be the closest we can get to experts on this, since they're dedicated to studying just what exists, just what the "nature" of various existents (and existence in general) are, etc.
All right, so you don't think that theologians are intentionally trying to deceive us, and they are the experts on this subject, so what do you think is going on here, why don't we listen to them and believe in God? Maybe it's not so clear, maybe we really do think, deep down inside, that they're trying to deceive us, maybe it's some sort of subconscious belief.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The theologians are the experts, they tell us we ought to drink, yet we refuse. But we're supposed to be rational beings, not horses. Is this a psychological problem, or are we just children, and refuse to do what we ought to do because we enjoy doing what we ought not do?
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is the part that makes me wonder about deception. The childhood mind is extremely malleable and easily taken advantage of. And the theologians like to impress their principles onto the very young minds. They might appear to be experts on God and religion, when in reality they are experts on deception. How could we know the difference?
What is True is that the story of the Creation, Garden of Eden, and the Flood are in the book of Genesis. The stories are not literally true (most theologians agree). What they mean figuratively is open to debate. It's open to debate because (most people assume) God did not sit down with pens and and a pile of goat skins to write his own story. At best, God inspired humans to write the story down. Many biblical scholars (another group of experts) believe that human writers compiled, elaborated on, and composed the stories from various sources. Whether God inspired their literary efforts is for the individual to decide, because there can be no proof of that.
The Bible is the authoritative source of information about God. It is authoritative, but many people do not believe it is "True." That is, it is not factually true about many matters--like the creation of the cosmos.
Theologians say that belief in God's existence, His infinite goodness, wisdom, authority, and power, depends on faith. (Some have claimed that God's existence can be logically proved, but never mind about that now. Someone else will have to rehearse scholastic logic.) If the Theogony in Genesis is not True, then faith is indeed required to accept the Bible as True.
I think we are horses that can be led to water but MUST decide whether it is fit to drink or not. No matter where we begin, I think we are going to come back to this point: The individual, be that you, me, or Stephen Hawking has to make that decision.
Claiming that God doesn't exist doesn't tread upon the toes of theologians. Theologians interpret the scriptures the best they can. They aren't responsible for the scripture's authorship or truthfulness. Do you understand the Doctrine of the Trinity? Ask a theologian. Do you think the Trinity exists (in any way, shape, manner, or form)? You have to decide that. What does the Resurrection mean? Ask a theologian. Do you believe it? You have to decide that.
There is another "layer" here to contend with. The Bible was not written, printed, and hidden away to be found by the Elect who would read it and believe. It was pretty much written by people who already believed the stories they were writing. This is even more true with the New Testament, which was compiled and edited by the church which was already in nascent form when the thing was put together and on the last page they wrote, "The End". The Church wrote its own founding documents. Nothing wrong with that, by the way. It's just a fact, not a criticism.
Children are dead wringers for deception and all sorts of deceptions are foisted upon them--various big lies and smaller ones. It's a Miracle that anybody escapes total entrapment in the snares and deceits of religion, but remarkably, some do.
According to the way of thinking in those days he was way out of line with what was acceptable. Both by the Scientific and religious leaders. The fact that he emphasized the in-applicability of science and religion to each other made him more unpopular.
But not being compatible does not mean that science does not mean that science can not try to scientifically explain god, after all religions have been trying for years to explain science religiously.
As far as I am concerned there is only one possible reason why a god could not be studied scientifically, the lack of existence. If there is any evidence for a god then eventually someone will find it. I wont be waiting around for that to happen though.
If God came down, introduced Himself, Stopped the world from spinning on its axis for a few hours, made unicorns appear in Piccadilly, and stopped Trump from lying. Then said, the love each other thing and promised eternal life, everyone would believe, but would it be as meaningful?
So some scientists comes up with a wonderful idea, from a mathematical equation it appears that there should be more mass in the universe than there is visible. "Let's look for dark matter" they say and start trying to prove it exists by designing experiments to detect it.
A lot of their work is trying to prove the existence of things. The cause of a rare sickness is unknown until they prove that a gene dysfunction that no one new existed was the cause.
There are plenty of examples of scientists trying to prove the existence of things.
If there is a god somewhere there must be evidence, lots of christian scientists try to find that evidence. Some religions use scientific knowledge to prove that god exists, how could that be possible?
It is only in philosophical think that they are kept apart.
Physics addresses many "supernatural" claims. Are ghosts really nothing more than the energy leaving the body at the moment of death? The claim was investigated and the results were never neither for or against the idea, mainly because they have not figured out the way to investigate it properly. But they did find that there was a certain loss of bodily wait a short while after death.
https://futurism.com/the-physics-of-death/
Oh dear and then there is this guy Sir Roger Penrose that claims to be a physicist,(one of those people that studies physics I think) making these weird claims about supernatural things called souls. The actual article about his ideas is sort of beyond my idea of reading for pleasure so this a fun SUN version.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2123380/researchers-claim-that-humans-have-souls-which-can-live-on-after-death/
There have been many scientific studies on morality.
https://www.edge.org/event/the-new-science-of-morality
Quoting LD Saunders
Physics is the science of matter and energy and their interactions. That covers everything in the universe and quite a lot of what is thought to be outside of it, other universe maybe.
Science itself has no limit to what it can investigate, but neither general science nor physics in particular go about making any claims about anything unless it has been investigated first.
PERIOD.
I apprehend some inconsistency in your reply. How is it that theologians interpret the Bible as "not literally true", yet they also believe it? If you know something is not literally true, you would never believe it. You might recognize some other purpose to the writing, other than to speak the literal truth, and instead of believing it, you "believe in it", but what would be that other purpose? To deceive?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Take this passage for example. Let's assume that Genesis is not true. You say that we are still supposed to accept (on faith), that the Bible is true. This implies two distinct meanings of "true". We know that it is not rue, yet we may still accept on faith, that it is true. What could this second sense of "true" mean, in relation to the sense of "true" (literally true) by which we reject Genesis as not true? Is this "true" in the sense of honest? This is the only way I see to avoid the conclusion of deception. If the people who wrote the material truly believed it, at the time, as the truth, then they were being honest and true, despite the fact that we see it now as untrue. That doesn't seem to be likely in some instances, so deception seems probable.
Quoting Bitter Crank
If the theologians are training preachers to deceive children, then you can't really say that the theologians are not deceiving children. They are guilty through complicity.
Quoting LD Saunders
Show me the books you have read, from primary school on up, on the scientific method and maybe I will consider answering any further posts as long as you use the "quote" function so that I you you have replied.
Can't speak for all, but a Catholic theologian would say the Bible is inerrant in its purpose which is the salvation of souls. The purpose is not to be historically or scientifically accurate.
Blue team says; religious leaders are allowed to and able to opine on god but have no proof of its existence.
Most scientist really don't have strong opinions that they want to share, so a ban on them saying things would be basically worthless. And time is not up yet to prove there is no god, maybe someone will one day take a shot at it.
If red team comes up with proof of existence it might change the game, but I wont wait around for that to happen.
Red team has to lose.
One almost inevitably generates inconsistencies when talking about religion. If one dismisses the whole thing out of hand, announce that it is all hogwash, then one can avoid inconsistency. When one tries to make sense of the whole thing, one is bound to fall down the rabbit hole, at least for a while.
I have a feeling that some theologians actually don't believe much of what is in the Bible.
A Catholic theologian would say the purpose of genesis is to speak to God as creator, and in that purpose it in inerrant. The purpose was not a scientific explanation of how creation happened, or historical in its timing. So they may say the differences between today's understanding of the science of creation and an account of creation written 2000 years in no way effect the purpose of presenting God as creator.
It seems I'm in the rabbit hole right now. So. referring to those inconsistencies, would you think that they are honest mistakes, or a tactic which Plato described, and is now called a "noble lie"? I would think that there is some of each, but we're discussing the principal point here, God Himself.
If we judge theologians as not telling us the truth concerning the existence of God, then there ought to be a reason why they are not telling the truth. And I believe, that what is important here, is not the fact that they are not telling the truth, but the reason why they are not telling the truth, because this is what will influence our attitude toward them. Either we think of them as having made an honest mistake, or we think of them as deceitful.
Notice how "deceitful" implies unfaithful, so those who preach faith are practising unfaithfulness, if this is the case. But the unfaithfulness demonstrated is an unfaithfulness to us, their fellow human beings. Why would they be unfaithful to us, and seek to deceive us, do they hate us? If we are pawns in their game, which includes "God", then doesn't that imply that they actually believe in God and they are not really deceiving us?
Quoting Rank Amateur
But the question is, is "God as creator" itself an untruth? Stephen Hawking is a renowned physicist, he knows a lot about the physical world. If he says that it is highly improbable that the physical world was created by God, one might be inclined to believe this. Then what does this say about the catholic theologians who are speaking to God as creator? Is it the case that they are mistaken, and when they thought they were speaking to God they were really speaking to something else, or are they acting deceptively? Or could a renown physicist mistake the physical world?
Not sure truth is the right concept.
One can believe something is true and act accordingly thorough either fact, reason or faith.
No one can state as a matter of fact that God is, or that God is not
It is both reasonable to believe God is or God is not
One can, on faith alone believe that God is or God is not.
Stephen Hawkings, or a theologians expertise should color there view of the above - but neither changes anything. We all know exactly what they know - that this whole existence that we are aware of either ends with God or a big black whole. We all get to decide for ourselves.
Certainly. no scientist to date has ever devised an experiment to falsify God existing. What would that experiment even consist of? It's nonsense that you are advocating, and it's certainly not science. When I was studying for my physics degree in college, I never once dealt with the issue of God or anything supernatural. It simply falls outside the scope of science. The only people who suggest otherwise are following a religious dogma -- typically new atheist scientism -- to distort science to promote their dogma. I'm an atheist who is perfectly fine with real science, and I see no need to twist and distort science, like creationists do, in order to promote atheism. The creationists and new atheists are two groups who are closer to each other than they imagine --- they both distort science to promote their religious views. Both groups are full of junk-thinking as far as I'm concerned, as well as every science textbook writer used at every major western university's science departments.
Scientists are specially-qualified to study and describe the physical universe and the relations among its constituent parts. That's all.
Philosophers? The soundness of what they say about "existents" and "existence" depends on how sloppy the are, and on how committed to their prior beliefs they are. In other words, doen't expect much here.
Michael Ossipoff
The "magical being" that you refer to is your God. So you attribute belief in your God to others, and criticize a belief that is posited only by you and other Fundamentalists and Biblical Literalists.
Michael Ossipoff
The notion of provable assertions about the nature and character of overall Reality is hilarious.
It shows the incredible pretentiousness of Aggressive-Atheists.
Michael Ossipoff
As I've said, the only word for that statement is "hillarious". It's a really silly thing to say, given that science can, and is intended to, only study and describe this physical universe (and maybe any physically-inter-related multiverse of which it's a part) and relations among its constituent parts.
...unless you're referring to a religious denomination (and there is sat least one) that claims that God exists physically. ...in which case you'd need to say so, and specify that denomination.
Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Sir2u
Evidence doesn't mean proof. Merriam-Webster defines evidence as "outward sign". Evidence therefore doesn't prove an assertion, and doesn't conclusively win a debate. You don't know what every Theist's belief is, or what outward-sign they have for it.
You can say that if no Theist has given you a good argument regarding the existence of God, then you win your argument or debate. That's alright. As far as I'm concerned, if you want an argument or debate, then congratulations--You win your argument or debate by default.
But you can't validly say that you know everyon'e believe and their outward-sign in support of it. You can say that you don't know of any evidence or other reason to believe that there's God. No one will argue with you or criticize that position.
And don't show the astounding pretensiousness and conceit of claiming to know, or have a sound argument about, overall Reality as a whole.
Assertion, proof, argument and debate are irrelevant, inapplicable and meaningless for matters involving the character and nature of overall Reality as a whole.
Michael Ossipoff
You, not I, posit a magical being. The magical being is your God.
Maybe you define as "magical" all that isn't physical. Then presumably the word "which" is magical, as is the square root of 2. My, the world is full of magical things :D
I don't use the word God, unless replying to people who do, due to its anthropmorphic connotation.
You're exemplifying what I said about attributing belief in your God to others.
Michael Ossipoff
Nope, I was talking about your god(s). That is whatever silly nonsense you are hiding and too scared to say aloud.
I can't accept that, that we all know exactly what they know. Every person's knowledge is unique and specific to that individual.
.
"Whatever silly nonsense..."? But if you don't know the specifics of my impressions on such matters, then how can you know that they're "silly nonsense"?
Because it doesn't agree with what you believe, or isn't Materialism? :D
If you want to ask about God, if you want religious-instruction, then I recommend that you contact a church or a divinity-school.
(But ask them with much more humility and much less conceit than you exhibit now. I don't know if anyone will consider talking to you while you're conceitedly and namecallingly asserting your sureness that you're right and characterizing them or their beliefs. Why should anyone then be motivated to devote time to you? Of course there might be church-people or other Theists who are more behavior-tolerant than i am.)
As for my religious impressions and beliefs and reasons for them, they aren't secret. They're all over these forums, in various threads. But in a conversation with you? .... :D
As I said, if you want an argument or debate about whether there's God, then congratulations--You win your argument or debate by default. The nature or character of overall Reality as a whole isn't a matter for assertion, argument, debate or proof.
To anyone else: I point to Jeremiah's language. It's typical that conceited bigots commonly express their bigotry in a loud namecalling manner.
Michael Ossipoff
Characterizing a whole group on the perceived actions of one individual you assume to be a member of the larger group, is the very heart of prejudice and bigotry. It is commonly called stereotyping. So point away, as not only have you just displayed your own bias, you have also displayed, by using one sample as representative of a whole, your scientific ineptitude.
However, if it makes your feel any better I think "materialist" are just as big of idiots as believers. This whole idea of division of ideologies is a form of compartmentalization people use to engage in various forms of false equivalence in order to feel a sense of justification in beliefs they know don’t measure up. Which is why people so desperately build these subjective walls between empirical/rational investigation and “spiritual/religious” beliefs. As they know, on some level, that their fiction would fail to stand up to such scrutiny, so their next best option is to maintain certain beliefs are exempt from such standards. Some people also engage is semantic shifting in order to feel unique in their beliefs, which is where I suspect you fall in.
No I do not, I said that there is no reason why science should not be able to investigate the existence of things. Including gods, ghost and a host of supernatural things. And I have also said that there are scientists that do try to explain them and therefore have to study them.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/
Quoting LD Saunders
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/10/22/the-top-8-paranormal-scientific-studies-what-we-can-learn-from-them/
Some one had better tell these guys about that. We would not want them to look silly would we?
Please give me the names of these typical text books as I have looked in those on my shelf and none of them do that. I also looked in several sociology, psychology and a couple of physics text books and none have that disclaimer either. Sounds like BS to me. I have worked in education for almost 30 years and have never seen that written in any book.
Quoting LD Saunders
How sure are you of this statement? Many scientist have tried to explain god in other ways from the common image of it. And many have used scientific data to reason their way to the conclusion that there is or is not a god.
https://kenboa.org/apologetics/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/
http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn5bKALeSyM
But all they have done is to say that science does not prove that gods don't exist, they cannot say that that it never will. The simple fact that they are investigating the workings of the universe might mean that at any time they could find proof of its existence or lack of existence. The book is not closed yet.
Quoting LD Saunders
Sixty years ago quantum physics was not in many physics courses either, go figure. Maybe it did not exist back then. Or maybe they had not researched it enough to include it.
And I find it strange that a person with a college degree in physics has not figured out how to use the "QUOTE" function on a Philosophy Forum.
Quoting LD Saunders
That would mostly be because I never claimed that they existed so why should I even bother to try and cite them. But by the same standard you have failed to cite any of the textbooks used at any of the major western universities that you talk so much about.
Quoting LD Saunders
Neither do you, so I guess that makes us even.
Quoting LD Saunders
So you cannot find anything of value to say, so you start insulting people. Typical of your type of bullshitter.
Quoting LD Saunders
How do you know this? How do know that I do not have a reasonable basis for what ever claim you think I made. I would like to know exactly what claim you think I made as well.
Quoting LD Saunders
What evidence? How can you rationalize nothing? It seems to be nothing more than a whim that you have become a non believer because there is exactly the same amount of evidence on both sides of the debate. Did you flip a coin to decide.
Quoting LD Saunders
And where exactly did I make that statement?
Quoting LD Saunders
The only limits that sciences has ever had are the ones put on it by religious views. Where would we be now if the church had not screwed up the beginnings of the scientific endeavor with the inquisition.
Only those that have religion have beliefs, the rest of us reasoning folks have educated opinions.
Period
And I guess I mistakenly thought that science was about investigation in search of new information. But just one question, how do you know that god is not part of this physical universe? Could you maybe cite some articles to back up your statements. You seem so sure of these "facts" that I an really interested in seeing what you base your conclusions on.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
No I do not mean "...lack or physical existence". I meant exactly what I said, that if something exists it can be studied, therefore the only reason anyone could not study it is because it does not exist. Try studying the dragons, or the leprechauns. Not going to get very far are you?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
It also has several other definitions, selective use of definitions is childish.
Evidence ; Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief : An indication that makes something evident :
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
But which ever definition you want to use makes no difference to what I said. If there is evidence anywhere, eventual someone will find it. And if there is no evidence then, obviously, it will never be found. And that statement is true for both sides, believers and non believers.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I have no idea why you are blathering on about what every Theist's belief is, or the rest of this for that matter, I never mentioned it. I have no idea what their beliefs.
Proving God's existence is incredibly easy. The vast majority of people are desperate for God (or the like) to be real and are ready to gobble any proof given no matter how erroneous it is.
Proof is in the eye of the beholder?
Exactly.
Michael Ossipoff
Why would anyone be desperate not to believe in God? A another fine example of the engagement in a false equivalence. Believing something without evidence is not the same as not believing in something that lack any evidence. They are two very different things.
You might be desperate to not believe in god if you were living through the horrors of religion run amok, wouldnt you? If the idea of, in the words of Hitchens, a celestial dictatorship is horrifying to you then I could see a certain desperation there.
Other than that, I think I agree with the sentiment that it would be odd to be desperate to not believe in god, especially a very benign version. I suppose it depends on how a person comes to such beliefs in the first place.
.
An excusable error. Don’t feel bad.
.
Science is about “investigation in search of new information” about this physical universe and the interactions among its constituent parts.
.
But you almost got it right.
.
.
Dream on.
.
What did I just finish saying in my previous reply? I said that if you want religious instruction, then I refer you to a church or a divinity-school.
.
And I’ll repeat, yet again, that my comments on the subject are all over these forums, at various threads.
.
But, due to your conceited namecalling bigotry, your thoroughgoing sureness that you’re right, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong—Those attributes of yours make nonsense of any notion of a worthwhile conversation with you. Believe what you want. Declare yourself the winner of your debate.
.
You want to search for a God that’s part of this physical universe? Go for it.
.
What he meant (or would have meant if he knew what he was saying) was:
.
If something exists physically then it can be studied by science, and therefore the only reason anyone could not study it by science is because it does not exist physically.
.
Sir2u is making the common Science-Worshipper assumption that Science (capitalization intentional) applies to all of reality.
.
.
They’re fiction, like Materialism’s objectively, independently, fundamentally existent physical universe, the supposed ultimate-reality and the basis of all else, on which all else supervenes.
.
Anyway, science doesn’t apply to Robert’s Rules of Order either, but you can discuss them. …just not with physics.
.
.
There is, and they have.
.
Remember that evidence doesn’t mean proof. And no, instead of asking me, do a little reading. In matters relating to the nature or character of Ultimate Reality as a whole, evidence is subjective and individual. Logic, argument and physical science have nothing to do with it.
.
.
1. “Outward sign” is the first definition stated in the Merriam-Webster edition that I looked at.
.
2. It’s a concise statement of what “evidence” means to me and to most people. In particular, it expresses the difference between evidence and faith, by being what faith isn’t based on. Faith is trust without or in addition to outward sign.
.
.
Wrong. Belief can be based on faith. No, don’t ask me how. There’s no way you could benefit from the discussion.
.
Anyway, you already know all about these matters, and so there’s no reason for you to be asking questions, is there.
.
Anyway, that distinction is why Merriam-Webster said “outward sign” instead of the more general “basis for belief or disbelief”.
.
Your other definitions are re-wordings of the one that I stated, if it’s understood that it’s based outward sign, an effect or result on something external to what the evidence is for.
.
.
There is, and they have.
.
Remember that evidence doesn’t mean proof. And no, instead of asking me, do a little reading. (and, as I said, I’ve discussed these matters throughout these forums). Also, remember that, in matters relating to the nature or character of Ultimate Reality as a whole, evidence is subjective and individual. Logic, proof, assertion, debate, argument and physical science have nothing to do with it.
.
And, aside from that, faith isn’t about evidence anyway.
.
If you don’t like that, then maybe it would be better if you chose a different topic.
.
One comment that I’ll make is that our Aggressive-Atheists seem to share an astounding delusional belief that they understand or know reality, and can authoritatively say that all of Reality consists of the physical word (and maybe what supervenes on it), and that they’re qualified to rule on the validity or justification of others’ beliefs about the nature and character of Reality.
.
Reality isn’t describable.
.
Write down a complete description of the smell of mint, or how it feels to step on a tack.
.
As I often point out, no finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words. But you still think that Reality is describable?
.
Get a little humility and modesty.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
I think that I made it very clear that I was not looking for religious instruction, having had way to much of that is why I am a non believer. What I asked for if you read it carefully is the proof that you have that god is not part of the physical world. You are insisting that you are right and that I am wrong even though I have not stated the there is a god that is part of the physical world.
It seems as though everyone else has to provide text book evidence but we have to accept your word for it there it is impossible. I have admitted that I do not believe that god is within the physical world or that there is even a god. I also admit that I do not believe there is a god, even though I have no proof of it.
You on the other hand are insistent that even thinking about such things being possible is irrational.
So what do you know that can prove that there is no god in the physical universe?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
If, from the beginning you had tried to understand what I said instead of inventing your own versions you would know that I have no interest in winning any of your silly competitions. I have stated so in many of my posts here. You are the one that is being competitive and trying to force people to agree with you by making silly childish remarks about their posts.
If you want a worthwhile discussion then you have to put your part into it. Making claims about textbooks and telling others their ideas are absurd will not get you anywhere at all.
If you really think that science can only study the physical world the explain the following.
How can you prove something is of the physical world? Try it with thought if you want or dreams.
Why are scientist studying the possibility of existence of the souls after death?
Why are some scientist religious?
“Perhaps even atheism versus theism is an example of this principle that an apparent either/or can really be a both/and. For I suspect that the God you insist does not exist is probably a God I also insist does not exist; and perhaps the God I maintain does exist is a God you have never denied.”
? Peter Kreeft
One can by faith alone choose to believe what one wants. So long as that belief is not in conflict with fact or reason. Theism is not in conflict with fact or reason.
Would however be interested in engaging any supported argument that ends in a proposition that says
Therefore theism is not a reasonable position
If one finds theism reasonable then they don't need faith to believe, they have reason. Genuine faith is believing when you know it is unreasonable to believe.
I ripped it off from Soren Kierkegaard.
I got tons of opinions if you want more.
I many plenty of arguments, clearly ones you didn't understand.
I have made several valid arguments against your silly position.
Faith consists of trust without or aside-from evidence ("outward-sign", as Merriam-Webster, in their definition #1, concisely stated what we all mean by "evidence").
That doesn't require belief known to be unreasonable.
Michael Ossipoff
No one's saying that you should believe what you don't know of any reason to believe (...whether it be evidence, or justification for faith).
Many Theists have evidence. That includes the various kind of evidence, and justifications for faith, that the Scholastics have cited.
As I've said before, Jeremiah might want to do a little reading. (But maybe not.)
Remember that evidence needn't be proof, and, that even in mundane matters of the physical world, the convincingness of evidence is subjective, individual, and not objectively quantifiable.
But, especially, in a non-logical, subjective matter like the nature and character of Reality, it's naive in the extreme for Jeremiah to presume to authoritatively objectively evaluate others' evidence by his own feeling or opinion about, or agreement with it.
...or to expect proof.
...or to continually engage in assertion.
Michael Ossipoff
Answer: There are two possibilities:
Either :
1 - Your consciousness or self awareness ceases to exist after bodily death, which indicates you are the sum total of your brain/body.
Or :
2 - Your consciousness or self awareness continues to exist after bodily death, which indicates you are not the sum total of your brain and body, that your existence is independent of your brain and body.
You have two choices:
1 - Decide that the first scenario is true.
2 - Decide that the second scenario is true
If you go for either option but the first option is the truth, then after death you will be none the wiser whatever your beliefs.
But if after deciding the first option is the truth and it turns out, after bodily death, that you were mistaken and that the second option is the truth then you will have missed the opportunity of a ‘lifetime’ to prepare yourself for that.
I told him that, he did not seem to understand the concept.
There is faith and then you have a knockoff and the knockoff is actually just sloppy reasoning mistaken for faith. Most people go with the knockoff, since it is the simpler of the two.
True faith is having my level of doubt and still holding faith.
You claim that scientists study supernatural claims? Bull. They may study such things as the psychology for why people hold such beliefs, but they most definitely do not study such claims directly. If I tell you that there is at least one angel in your home right now, then we know the answer is either yes there is an angel, or yes, there is more than one angel, or no, there is less than one angel in your home right now. How can any scientist investigate such a claim? They can't. They can state, as any layperson can, that there is no reason to hold such a belief, but that is far different from stating that science can answer the question of whether an angel is in your home right now. Savvy? I doubt it.
Does God act in the world or not? and if so how?
.
.
You asked me a question about religion. Oh, alright, so you’re saying that you didn’t ask to find out something, but instead were just asking in order to prove that you’re right, as a matter of debate (which you deny later in the posts I’m replying to). Can you understand that not everyone is interested in your debate or inclined to cooperate?
.
.
Yes, and that’s an example of the astounding naiveté that I referred to. …your persistent, unshakable belief that matters of God or ultimate Reality can be proved, or even meaningfully asserted.
.
Sorry--I (and you too) can’t prove anything about God.
.
But I can say this much: It’s just that I don’t know of any reason to believe that God is part of the physical world. And, last I heard, physicists hadn’t reported about that.
.
.
No, I don’t assert on such matters.
.
.
…so only you know why you wanted me to prove that there isn’t.
.
.
I don’t assert on such matters. Believe in a physical God if you want to.
.
.
…and that’s why you want me to prove it for you—to confirm your belief.
.
.
That’s nice.
.
1. You don’t believe that there’s God.
.
2. You don’t know of any reason to believe that there’s God (…such as evidence, or justification for faith).
.
3. In fact, of course it isn’t possible for you to even know what each one of all the Theists believes, and you sometimes admit that.
.
All those statements are true.
.
Your nuisance results from your inability to leave it at that.
.
You assert that people who don’t share your beliefs about the character and nature of Reality (in regard to Theism, for example) have an unreasonable belief. You (loudly) believe that you can authoritatively make assertions about that matter, and imply (except when you recant it) that you know enough specific details about every Theist to assert the unreasonable-ness of their belief.
.
You see, that’s where your naïve delusional conceit comes in.
.
.
You mean your issue about God being physical?
.
What seems a bit irrational about that is your great concern about it and demand for a proof about it.
.
.
I don’t know of any reason to believe in that belief that you keep promoting. Sorry to dash your hopes.
.
And I don’t agree with your belief that matters regarding God or ultimate Reality can be proved.
.
But I’m not even sure what you mean when you propose a physical God. Your notion about that is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far.
.
.
You didn’t call me a name. Your namecalling consisted of calling some unspecified belief of mine “silly nonsense”. Namecalling.
.
People motivated by dogmatic bigotry are always the loudest people. The typical loud, sloppy Internet abuser.
.
.
The Theism vs Atheism threads are nearly always started by the loud aggressive Atheists.
.
Aggressive Atheists are the ones who feel a need to evaluate the beliefs of others.
.
No, it’s your issue, not mine.
.
If it weren’t your issue, you wouldn’t complain about my not answering you about it. (…because I don’t regard Theism vs Atheism as a debate-issue)
.
.
Science (by which I mean physics, chemistry, biology in all its branches, etc.) doesn’t study thought and dreams. But scientists can study the anatomy and physiology of humans and other animals.
.
…and can try to study the physical, biological, basis of anything about humans or other animals. Some such studies might be a bit too ambitious, but, in principle any such study can be tried by specialized biologists, including anatomists and physiologists, including specialized anatomists and physiologists.
.
The studies that I referred to in the previous two paragraphs are of things of the physical world.
.
As I’ve often said, humans are animals, which are biologically-originated purposefully-responsive devices, part of the physical-world, which can be studied by sscientists.
.
They aren’t.
.
But, if any are, that means that a very few scientists are trying to apply science to something that there’s no reason to expect science to apply to. As for why, you’d have to ask them. Maybe because people like you demand proof that there isn’t a physical God.
.
Because they don’t agree with you that science applies to religious matters, and therefore they don’t regard it as able to contradict religion?
.
If you’re a shoemaker and religious, that doesn’t mean that shoemaking has to apply to religion.
.
Why should that be surprising, given that science and religion have nothing to do with eachother?
.
By the way, several aggressive Atheists have criticized my refusal to answer their questions about Theism. So let me be a bit more explicit about why I refused:
.
There are two reasons why someone might be inclined to answer you:
.
1. Debate Issue:
.
1a) I’m not going to debate Theism vs Atheism with you, because, as I’ve said before, I don’t regard that as an issue for assertion, argument, debate or proof.
.
1b) It’s obvious that you’re so dogmatically-wedded to your beliefs, and so dedicated to promotion of your position, to the complete detriment of honest discussion (and probably not consciously aware of that attribute), that you, and others of your aggressive-Atheist persuasion, don’t listen, and nothing anyone said would have any effect on you.
.
2. Helping you:
.
2a) This might come as a shock, but your manners, behavior and aggressive namecalling attitude aren’t a good way to ask for help.
.
2b) Obviously, thoroughly and dogmatically convinced that you’re right, you’re quite beyond help anyway.
-------------
So I have no reason to answer you on your (yes your) Theism vs Atheism issue. And I have a good reason not to: To discuss it with an aggressive attack-Atheist would amount to nothing other than arguing or debating the matter (Is there some other nature to your discussion?). I’ve clarified that I don’t regard the matter as a matter for debate or argument. No, I’m not going to debate your issue with you. But I’ve been discussing it peripherally in these threads, by questioning your authority to assert about Reality and about the unspecified beliefs of many people whom you haven’t met, talked with, or heard from.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Too bad that so many have turned their backs on philosophy and basic logic to promote whacked out claims about science. Science is great and wonderful and our best way of knowing about the physical world, but it does not address any supernatural claims, it does not tell us what is moral or immoral, it does not provide our only source of knowledge, etc., etc.
You keep repeating that "no evidence" assertion like a parrot.
Evidence needn't be proof.
Evidence is an individual matter (Someone's reason to believe something based on outward-sign) and needn't be liked by you, and doesn't need your agreement that it's evidence.
Many Theists have evidence, and some have even stated it. ...such as the Scholastics.
Aside from that, Faith isn't about evidence. Many Theists have justifications for faith, and some have stated them, such as the Scholastics.
Another reason why you can't validly make your blanket evaluation of evidence for Theism is that you don't even know what each one of all the Theists believes.
Michael Ossipoff
This is absurd and we cannot accept these conclusions lest we omit pschology.
"And something is true of the end of philosophy and metaphysics: not that the old questions which are coeval with the appearance of men on earth have become "meaningless," but that the way they were framed and answered has lost plausibility."
"What has come to an end is the basic distinction between the sensory and the suprasensory, together with the notion, at least as old as Parminides, that whatever is not given to the senses--God or Being or the First Principles and Causes (archai) or the Ideas--is more real, more truthful, more meaningful than what appears, that it is not just beyond sense perception but 'above' the world of the senses. What is "dead" is not only the localization of such "eternal truths" but also the distinction itself."
With regard to the death of God... God is dead in that the traditional thought of God, the legitimate psychological function, and its sociological function, has deteriorated and lost its motivating power and emphasis.
"If we were to admit that the self, one's identity, personality, etc., were not dependent on the existential determinants of the world then we would readily admit that we have absolutely no real knowledge of what constitutes someone's identity or personality. If we were ready to seriously consider something of ourselves, something maintaining ourselves in its extraordinary complexity, existing after death then we would consequently be admitting that a non-material soul contains the character of a person...
This is absurd and we cannot accept these conclusions lest we omit pschology"
Unless character is a product of brain/body, just as the handling characteristics of a car are the result of the cars inbuilt design. If so then the non-material soul would be our real and eternal identity, psychology would then just concern itself with the material brain and character, as it already does.
As far as your statement God is Dead, while some people no doubt agree with you on the nature of theistic beliefs today, it's also true that many disagree with you, as there are millions of believers in God across the globe, and some take a very literalist view of God based on such things as Christian Scripture. I'm an atheist myself, and did was merely focusing on the scope of science when it comes to addressing supernatural questions. We can say that people who believe in God, as a supernatural being, are irrational in the sense that there is no good scientific reason to hold such a belief, but we cannot say that they are wrong, which is somewhat ironic, but definitely true.
And yet, despite your claim of an education, you keep demanding proof of this non-existence; showing how little you actually understand the scientific process. It is like those people who demand science prove that vaccines never cause autism. It is an impossible standard and it cannot be done. Science can show that there is no evidence of a link, and it is on the lack of evidence where we draw our conclusion. Science is an evidence based methodology, which often also includes making conclusions on a lack of evidence. So much for your college degree, as in this area it seems to be worthless.
Scientist absolutely have studied supernatural claims, they have just failed to prove any of them. Science is not about studying only that which can be proven, as we don't know if it can be proven until we study it.
At any rate this thread is not about science, it is about a scientist and there is nothing in the world which bars a person, on the sole condition that their profession is science, from calling BS on the God theory.
QED, Check mate, etc., etc.
You are absolutely demanding proof of the non-existence. I quoted you doing it right in that post, it has been your entire argument this whole thread. My point is that you don't have a clue what that means in respect to science. I don't care if you believe in God or not, or whatever you want to call it, your personal beliefs are not what I have an issue with.
Quoting Jeremiah
I think the only thing science would claim due to a lack of evidence, is there is a lack of evidence.
Quite literally just about everything you would consider scientific evidence for anything - was not evidence - until it was.
for example:
there was no evidence of cells - until there was
there was no evidence of black holes - until there was
etc etc etc
there was no evidence a wheel would work - until there was
Lack of evidence means only 2 things, i - there is no evidence, or we haven't found it yet.
I have no issue at all with anyone's choice to " let go " - Would just enjoy the same courtesy to those of us who hold on to something instead.
I don't care what you believe. Feel free to think whatever you want; however, that is not going to stop me from expressing what I think about those beliefs.
Some I am curious.
Most of the discussions about God just assume God as a supernatural being with qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresent. Some assume the Bible as literally true, and the usual supernatural miracles like virgin birth, incarnation and atonement.
Science can tell us that the earth was not created 5,000 years ago.
Science can tell us that humans (like all other life forms) evolved and were not specially and individual created by supernatural interventions.
Science can thus pretty much exclude some forms of God claims from the realm of reason, experience or logic.
The question is can or does, science exclude all versions,notions, and concepts of the divine and holy from being held by rational and informed people.
Philosophy of religion gives us many versions and concepts of God not all of which involve supernatural or miraculous clams.
There are concepts in which God does not work through supernatural means but instead through nature and the processes of nature.
There are concepts in which God is not omnipotent (any actual entity has independent power), not omniscient (the future is open and cannot be known) and is not anthropomorphic or a being.
These concepts virtually never get discussed. So are you saying every single notion of the divine is contrary to science and to reason or just those commonly presented and discussed.
Scientists and philosophers study any and everything that there's any good reason to believe exists. That would include nonphyhsical existents if there would be any way to make the idea of nonphysical existents coherent.
I have written on a sheet of paper 100 different versions of a flying pink elephant. Until you address and disprove all 100 version this is proof flying pink elephants exist. Unless at that point I just come up with another 100 versions. It really is an absurd argument for the existence of something.
Science is about making evidence based conclusions, and not the type of evidence that only you can see, there are commonly accepted standards of what counts as evidence. Like being demonstrable and repeatable.
I think you are making a lot of false assumptions about me. I never said it is all about science and I never said science is without limits. Those are assumptions you made about me completely off the top of your head without any evidence. As I have said several times, I don't care what you believe and I don't need to justify my participation in this thread either.
No I did not. I quite simple asked you how you know there is no god in the physical world. That is not a religious question, but an inquiry about your knowledge. You have said several times that scientist do not study things like god because they only study physical things, how do they knew that god is not part of the physical world?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I am not trying to prove anything, I have made no claims that need to be proven.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
So why do you keep answering me if it is not to try to prove that you are right? And it is not my debate, I just gave my opinion and then you jumped all over it try to tell me I am wrong.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
So you cannot and no one else can prove anything about god, yet you insist that god cannot be studied by science. Again, how do you know that? I thought that you wanted a discussion, so let's talk about that.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Where did I state my views about the character and nature of reality? Please, if nothing else, answer this question.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I have no issue with non existing things being physical. It does not make sense that after I tell you (several times) that I do not believe that there is such a thing as a god that you keep on mentioning this.
It is not the god that I am interested in but your absolute certainty and confidence that there is no way that a god can be studied by scientists. How can you be so certain?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I am not promoting any belief, why should I? I ask only that you share the reasons for your beliefs. If that is too much then I am sorry for bother you.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I am not a rude person no matter what you think, so I will not stoop to answer.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Even though you are not sure what I mean, I am wrong. That is fantastic.
I do not propose a physical god, I ask you how you know that one does not exist. And there are so many things that go against what is suggested by physics so far, for the simple reason that physics has not gotten very far explaining the universe.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Actually, if you read the thread properly, I did not. Even though I do agree with Jeremiah when he calls you names.
But lets look at the gentle slurs and put downs you like to throw around shall we.
astounding naiveté
your naïve delusional conceit
a bit irrational
dogmatic bigotry
loud aggressive Atheists
dogmatically-wedded
aggressive-Atheist persuasion
An excusable error. Don’t feel bad.
Dream on.
What he meant (or would have meant if he knew what he was saying) was:
You called dragons fiction, but they have found fossils that quiet easily could have been the base for those ideas.
Some scientist think that all of the wonderful things they discover show the work of god and that by studying them they are learning more about god. Are they wrong?
Without noncircular definitions, how would you expect words to be able to describe reality? And, if they can't, then maybe you need to be a bit more modest and less assertive.
Michael Ossipoff
Yes, that's a standard requirement, that an assertion should be accompanied by proof, or at least evidence. But, as it has been necessary for me to repeat so many times, I don't regard Reality's nature or character as an issue for assertion, argument, proof, logic, or debate.
In other words, there's no such thing as "proof" regarding the nature or character of Reality.
You keep demanding evidence for a matter on which I haven't asserted.
As I've said several times before, many Theists have evidence, and some, such as the Scholastics, have written about it. Evidence needn't be evidence that you like or accept.
I'm not at all interested in convincing you that there's evidence (of what I haven't asserted to you). Can you get that?
As I've said, Congratulations, you win your debate.
Even in mundane worldly matters, the convincingness of evidence is a subjective matter of opinion and a matter of degree. Evidence needn't be evidence that you like, agree with or acccept. That's even moreso for the matter of the character or nature of Reality.
But I've already given these answers. Like a parrot, you're repeating the same words that I've already answered.
I realize that namealling is against the rules here, but I'm not namecalling your beliefs...only your parrot-like behavior.
Michael Ossipoff
Maybe Terreapin mean to say "pseudoscientists".
Michael Ossipoff
We are not talking about a word. We are talking a multicultural theological and philosophical concept and if you think a brief colloquial summary in a dictionary is sufficient to span that entire scope then I think that shows how limited your reflections are in such things, and it speaks volumes about your lack of insight into religious faith.
I have not called you any names. You have accused me of name-calling, but it not actually something I have done; however, I do recall you calling me a bigot. I'll consider this proof to the subjective nature in which you try to bend reality. So yes, to substantiate your position you need to clarify it and support it, as you clearly lack objectivity in these matters.
All I have asked you to do, is make your argument and give your proof and that is not an unreasonable request.
.
As has already been pointed out to you, you talk a lot about science, but seem to have no idea what it is.
.
Physicists’ theories and evidence-suppored laws are based on their observations. They don’t have a theory about a physical god, because they don’t have observations about it.
.
Alright?
.
.
Very good. You’ve got it.
.
.
Science studies and describes this physical universe and the inter-relations of its constituent parts. Physicists have no observations about a physical god, and therefore no theory about one. How would you like them to study God?
.
See above. Stop embarrassing yourself.
.
.
See above.
.
.
You express your view that Theists believe something for which there’s no evidence, and that Theism requires proof. Those are views about the nature and character of Reality.
.
.
…having no experimental evidence of a physical god, and none that even suggests one?
.
In fact, only you know what you mean by a physical god..
.
.
See above. And, as I suggested above, you might want to stop embarrassing yourself.
.
[i]”What seems a bit irrational about that is your great concern about it and demand for a proof about it.
I don’t know of any reason to believe in that belief that you keep promoting. Sorry to dash your hopes.” — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
.
I’d be glad to give a reason for any assertion that I’ve made to you.
.
(…or at least I would have been willing to do so until exiting this conversation with aggressive attack-Atheists. And I’m exiting that conversation as of the posting of this last reply on the topic.)
.
.
As I said in your quote of me, directly above, Your notion is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far, and is something regarding which physicists have no evidence whatsoever, and therefore is of great interest only to you.
.
.
They’re certainly learning more about physics. If you want to say that they’ve made discoveries about God, then go forth and preach it to the multitudes. (Excuse me—You already are.)
------------------------------------------------
You ask why I keep replying to you. Good question. This will be my last reply to you, because I’m tired of answering the same repeatedly-parroted words.
.
In fact, in general, this “conversation” with aggressive attack-Atheists is getting too time-consuming again.
.
I hereby sign out from it again. This time with finality. Aggressive attack-Atheists will always keep attacking. It’s what they do and what they are. I don’t have time to continue to answer them every time they trot out their same arguments, always singing from the same hymn-book.
.
Michael Ossipoff
No, we were talking about your apparent belief that words can describe Reality
Michael Ossipoff
I've already explained to you that I don't regard the character or nature of Reality to be a matter for or argument, assertion, logic, proof or debate.
I've already declared you to be the winner of your debate.
Michael Ossipoff
It isn't about how sufficient dictionaries are. It's about whether words can describe Reality.
I made no claim that dictionaries are sufficient in such matters.
It isn't just that dictionaries are insufficient in such matters. Words themselves are.
Alright, I don't have time for any more of this.
Conversation concluded.
When I don't reply to Jeremiah, or to other similar to him, in this or other threads about Theism vs Atheism, or anywhere else that aggressive attack-Atheists pop up (as they always will), that doesn't mean that he's said something irrefutable. It's just that I don't have time for any more of this.
Michael Ossipoff
And there you go again, missing the point entirely and continuing to harp on about your assertions that you have never made that science cannot study god.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Which is what I asked for.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
The "suggested so far" of the statement is the key there.
And no one has any evidence to the contrary either. And it is not of great interest to me. I could not care one way or the other. But you appear to be most sure of what you say.
Compared to a few years ago the knowledge that science has acquired is astounding, but science still knows so little about our own planet that there are new animals, plants, and sicknesses being discovered almost daily.
Science studies black holes, or so they say.
Along with that they study the background radiation that they say is the remains of the BIG BANG.
Science studies germs and microscopic little beasties that are too small to see.
Science studies thought processes through the use of electronic brain scans.
Plants and animals are being genetically engineered.
And a whole load of other things that were unknown and even unimaginably at one time.
This is just the science of today, what will the science of tomorrow be like? What might be "suggested" by the science of the future?
Many people got laughed at and ridiculed because of their ideas. It was not so long ago in the history of mankind that if you talked to people that were not present you could be in for problems, nowadays almost everyone does it.
Science is full of discoveries made by accident but a lot of discoveries have come from small bits of information or ideas about what to look for. Not all of them had been observed before the theory about them appeared.
The "god particle" had never been observed but mathematics said it might be there. So they devised a plan to find it.
Neutrinos are something else that science has spent lots of time trying to detect, but they only have the results of them passing through other mediums to show their existence as they are not in any way visible.
To say that science only studies and creates theories about what can be observed is naive. Sometimes theories about something are what leads to an experiment that leads to a discovery. If it were true that science only studies and creates theories about what can be observed we would still be living in caves.
But back to the point you missed. The question I asked you was.
How do you know there is not a material god?
It has nothing at all to do with science studying god, it has nothing to do with whether you believe in god and it is certainly not a religious question. It is just a simple question about something you know.
But please don't spend any of your time trying to answer, it would be better spent doing some reading of scientific journals.
[s]And yes, I accept your apology for confusing me with someone else and for the insulting behavior you used.[/s]
Oh sorry, forget that last line.
Dont feed the Bridge Troll ;)
Now then it is you who needs to learn how to read, and not me, as I never claimed that science functions by proving things, although it most certainly does do this, despite people's love affair for Popper. After all, we know for a fact the Earth is not in the shape of a square, and never can be, as it is a three-dimensional spatial object, and it can never be described as a two-dimensional shape, and that is a fact, a proven fact,. and it won't change. We also know such other facts as an instantaneous velocity, where the velocity is not constant, can not be directly calculated algebraically, but has to be approximated through a limit process, and this fact will never change either.
What I stated, however, was that science cannot be used to determine that no God of any kind exists, as claimed by Hawkins, and that scientists have no special knowledge on this issue, because science does not address the issue, at all. You are also not able to read my numerous comments where I have stated I do not believe in any God, I am an atheist, however, unlike you, I know science, have a physics degree I earned long ago, and am planning to attend grad school in the next couple of years in applied mathematics. I love science so much that I refuse to stand by why anyone, whether creationists or atheists, distort it to serve their ideological views.
If someone does not try to feed them, they will die of [s]ignorance[/s](sorry) hunger.
Please learn to use the "QUOTE" function that is incorporated in the forum.
When you select the text that you desire to quote, a little black box should appear on you screen with the letters QUOTE in it. Just click on it and the text will appear like magic in the reply box at the bottom of the page.
If for some reason clicking on the box does not work, try right clicking on it. I have to do that with one of the computers I use.
Regards
You do need to learn how to read, as you have missed my point since the very start, and you still clearly don't get it.
I am saying this statement here:
Quoting LD Saunders
Carries no significance, it is pointless and moot. You have not been able to grasp that this entire thread. I am not disagreeing with it, I am disagreeing with what you think it means.
Your major error here is the way in which you misinterpret the implications of your statement. Not only is it impossible to prove the non-existence of something (God, cyborg frogs, unicorns, etc.) but it is a condition that applies to everyone, not just scientist, therefore if that is the standard which bars scientist IT BARS EVERYONE, including theologians. You are pushing a worthless, moot point. It is a silly argument for why scientist can't have "special knowledge on this issue" and by those standards even theologians also "have no special knowledge on this issue."
The idea that simply because someone's profession is science that they can't also at the same time be an "expert" in the God concept is just stupid, senseless and lacks all common sense. And as I said at the start of the thread, if there is a Creator then to understand this Creator, it would be better to study the actual works of the Creator, rather than the works of man. Go back a few hundred years ago and that is exactly what people thought and it was a huge motivating factor for many natural philosophers (aka scientist) back then. It is only in recent history that people have start to draw this sharp line between the two.
You have provided no good reason at all why theologians should be preferred in this respect and all you have done is pushed your horrible misunderstanding of a fallacy, trying to misshape it into some-type awkward filter.
Furthermore science does address the issue of God by classifying it as an unfalsifiable claim, and I openly encourage everyone to engage scientific principles into their supernatural investigates, that is how we move from mysticism to fact.
And learn how to use the quote and/or mention feature, which is standard practice at these forums.
Yes you are right that science does not make claims about the supernatural. Because once the have been investigated they turn out to be perfectly, predictably natural happenings.
But there is no rule against them investigating anything they feel is worthy of investigation, and believe that science has investigated some really weird things.
Dogs bark a lot at night.
Science discovered that dogs can hear things that other animals and people cannot hear, like another dog barking a mile, away and bark because of that.
The religious people blamed demons and evil spirits for making their dogs bark at night.
One or the other is right I suppose.
Or is it possible that there are demons that dogs can hear and they make them bark at night and scientist have just not gotten around to investigating all of the possibilities and proving that demons and evil spirits do exist?
Did you check out the link I posted? Here it is again in case you missed it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/
I don't recall asking about a supernatural being. Let's take a look. . .
Quoting Jeremiah
Do you see the word supernatural or even god in there? As I don't.
And you really think that you'll be able to handle advanced mathematics? You do know that you will need a very high attention to detail for that type of education, right?
Justr give it up already. There is no science textbook at any major western university that supports your bullshit claims. Not one. They all support my position. The only time students discuss the existence of God issue on college campuses is in the philosophy classroom, or the literature classroom, or the theology classroom, not in the physics classroom. If you would actually read an actual science textbook and go through the problem sets, you'd realize, very quickly, how absurd your position is. But, instead, you get your science "education" from ideologues, which is never good for anyone.
Let's try reading this again . . . .
Quoting Jeremiah
You are also completely wrong about my level of mathematics. Last night I wrote out a proof showing [math]\sigma^2=\frac{\alpha\beta}{(\alpha+\beta)^2(\alpha+\beta+1)}[/math] for the beta distribution. Think you could do the same?
Flashing your degree is not going to work on this site. Many people here are well educated.
However, a good philosopher should be able to demolish the God debate, which in my view is a step in the right direction. If the question of God's existence can be shown to be fatally flawed, then there's not much point in arguing over competing answers, and all this energy can be redirected towards more promising investigations.
==========
We can observe that pretty much everyone on all sides of the issue seems to assume without questioning that things can only exist, or not exist, one or the other. But if we make an observation of reality as our scientist friends would wisely advise us to do, we discover the following.
1) The overwhelming majority of reality from the smallest to largest scales is space.
2) The existence status of space is very unclear. Space doesn't fit neatly in to either our definitions of existence or non-existence. One could make a reasonable claim in either direction.
3) If the vast majority of observable reality can not be firmly said to either exist or not exist, one or the other, then why do we assume that something the scale of gods would be limited to existence or non-existence?
==========
The concept of existence seems to assume that there are separate things which exist independently of other things. And so we ask, does this thing or that thing exist, is it a phenomena separate from other phenomena?
Do YOU exist as a separate thing? Here's a simple quick experiment to find out. Hold your breath for one minute.
==========
Existence and things may not be a property of reality, but rather products of thought, the device observing reality.
As example, if you're wearing tinted sunglasses all of reality appears to be tinted. The tint is not a property of what you're observing, but rather a property of the tool being used to make the observation.
I never said it did, I said that science can and does investigate anything that there is a possible scientific explanation for.
Quoting LD Saunders
Unexplained technology is the equivalent of magic. Unexplained happens are the equivalent of supernatural. All that is needed is an explanation, which is the job of the scientists.
If someone had said to the non scientific minded people of the Enlightenment that horseless changes and metal birds would one day move people around the earth they would have been burnt at the stake. The scientific minded would have said that it is possible that one day it will happen.
If enough people told a scientist that they had seen a ghost, he would not run out to find evidence of ghosts but would would investigate the cause of the peoples statements. Did the people actually see something? Was it a case of mass obfuscation of natural happenings?
Scientist are interested in finding an explanation for things that happen and whether you like the idea or not scientist do study the supernatural for the purpose of making it natural.
Science still does not have any idea about how much they DO NOT know about this world let alone the universe. So do not expect to see everything about the universe in the college text books you keep mentioning.
So I now ask you to answer a question, how do you know that there is not a material god in the universe?
If you can answer this question and learn to use the quote function then we might be able to continue discussing some aspects of this topic. If not, sorry but I have no time for closed mind people that think they know everything just because they went to college. I also have been there and done that.
That is a statement that you cannot prove.
You clearly have no clue what a fact is, at any rate please provide the empirical evidence and PROVE IT.
At least some supernatural claims can be, and have been, investigated scientifically. For instance, the Society for Psychical Research carried out scientific examinations of purportedly psychical phenomena, psychiatrist Ian Stevenson investigated reports of "past lives," studies have been done on the medical efficacy of intercessory prayer, tests for out-of-body experiences have been performed in operating rooms, and so forth.
They also tend to learn what a basic fact is, maybe you should take some of those classes.
Yeah, OK, whatever. I have had enough of trying to clear you highly bigoted, extremely narrow minded and under educated view of the world. You go ahead and believe whatever you want. Just realize this, that whatever is in those classes and textbooks is the result of science having done its job already. The job of science is to explain the world we live in, and the rest of the universe. Science is the method used to find out how and why events happen. And whether you want to believe it or not there are scientist that have tried to discover what ghosts really are. There are scientists that investigate UFOs. There are scientist that have studied life after death and previous lives of people. There are scientist that study the possibility of multiple universe that just like ghosts have no way to be detected, YET.
What is in every book that you keep talking about is history, things that have be proven to be true(in most cases at least). What is not in those books is the research that they are doing to find knew information that might appear in next year's edition. Fifty years ago high school kids did not study genetics, they did not learn how people went to the moon and a whole bunch of other stuff that is a part of today's curriculum.
A hundred years ago most scientists would have laughed if you had told them that an atom is not the smallest particle. And many would have had you locked up if you had told them that there are ways to cure certain types of insanity.
Books are about history, things that have already happened. They are written after the scientist have discovered a method to investigate things. Have you read in any of these books that you have read so many of about the eleventh planet in the solar system, of course not because even even though the scientist are sort of sure it is there they cannot prove it.
Have you ever read about a pill that that with one dose can cure several sexually transmitted diseases? NO, but that is a fact. Why is it not in one of these books?
Quoting LD Saunders
Pathetic. Are you really trying to make people believe that you have checked every one of the major universities? Did you try looking at some of the small ones? You have made this statement so many times now it appears that it is the only thing you know how to say. I even started to think that someone had set up a bot for a while, but they are usually better at arguing their point of view.
I even gave you a link to one that does study things that some would call supernatural. There are several others that, if you would open your mind, you can find quite easily on the internet.
And if you want to have people take you seriously then learn to use the QUOTE function so that they know you have written to them. Not everyone bothers to go and look for replies.
It doesn't' matter if the person is a scientist or a 6th grade dropout, what matters is how one justifies their belief. We want to hear the evidence or the reasons that support the conclusion one way or the other.
The problem I have with many scientists is that they believe that the scientific method is the only way to justify a belief. As if experimentation is the only method that could possibly answer the question. There are many ways of justifying a belief, some are weak and some are strong. Most of the knowledge we have is gained by other means.
That is how things work in science, and maybe if you took some classes in a science then you would know that.