I Need Solid Proof God Doesn't Exist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2013, 08:41 PM
RE: I Need Solid Proof God Doesn't Exist
I think one must realise that truth cannot be known to 100% confidence level.

If we look to science we must firstly understand what is the science narrative.
Science is not about discovery of truth. Science cannot prove anything to 100% confidence level.
The science remit is "to find natural causes or explanations to natural events". Science focuses on natural causes and explanations because these offer empirical measurements that can be objectively assessed and verified.
If there are any supernatural causes or explanations then these fall outside of science because they do not offer empirical measurements and thus cannot be held to an objective standard of knowledge.
Since gods are deemed supernatural and unobservable then they cannot be measured empirically, thus they fall outside of the scientific narrative thus proving or disproving god is not science.

When science goes about building up its stories (its theories) these assume only natural causes, they offer explanations of observations (empirical data), they offer falsifiable criteria (empirical data), they offer an objective standard of knowledge.

A scientific theory must achieve the following:
"The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
So, unless you have a description of god which offers testable falsifiable criteria then the description is not a theory and is thus not in the scientific narrative, thus you will not find any scientific proof against the "description of god".
With the ID movement, they assert that they are scientific, but they offer no testable falsifiable criteria. Thus what they do is not science. I have heard an ID psudo-scientist state that Irreducible Complexity is one of their predictions of empirical evidence made by ID. But this is too vague. They would have to point to a particular instance e.g. the bacteria flagellum, and then make the claim that their god couldn't have made that in a simpler form and that according to their description of god then nature couldn't have produced it in a simpler form.
This would be falsifiable. If scientists prove that the bacteria flagellum is reducible (which they have done) then the ID proponents would have to accept that their "description of god" has been falsified. Thus they would need to alter their description of god (create a new god under the banner of Christianity, of course), or realise that nature does not require their god or that there is another god more powerful than the Christian god.

I look forward to the day when the ID/Creationist movement makes a falsifiable claim and stands behind that claim should it be proven false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2013, 09:35 PM
RE: I Need Solid Proof God Doesn't Exist
(18-08-2013 08:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think one must realise that truth cannot be known to 100% confidence level.

If we look to science we must firstly understand what is the science narrative.
Science is not about discovery of truth. Science cannot prove anything to 100% confidence level.
The science remit is "to find natural causes or explanations to natural events". Science focuses on natural causes and explanations because these offer empirical measurements that can be objectively assessed and verified.
If there are any supernatural causes or explanations then these fall outside of science because they do not offer empirical measurements and thus cannot be held to an objective standard of knowledge.
Since gods are deemed supernatural and unobservable then they cannot be measured empirically, thus they fall outside of the scientific narrative thus proving or disproving god is not science.

When science goes about building up its stories (its theories) these assume only natural causes, they offer explanations of observations (empirical data), they offer falsifiable criteria (empirical data), they offer an objective standard of knowledge.

A scientific theory must achieve the following:
"The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
So, unless you have a description of god which offers testable falsifiable criteria then the description is not a theory and is thus not in the scientific narrative, thus you will not find any scientific proof against the "description of god".
With the ID movement, they assert that they are scientific, but they offer no testable falsifiable criteria. Thus what they do is not science. I have heard an ID psudo-scientist state that Irreducible Complexity is one of their predictions of empirical evidence made by ID. But this is too vague. They would have to point to a particular instance e.g. the bacteria flagellum, and then make the claim that their god couldn't have made that in a simpler form and that according to their description of god then nature couldn't have produced it in a simpler form.
This would be falsifiable. If scientists prove that the bacteria flagellum is reducible (which they have done) then the ID proponents would have to accept that their "description of god" has been falsified. Thus they would need to alter their description of god (create a new god under the banner of Christianity, of course), or realise that nature does not require their god or that there is another god more powerful than the Christian god.

I look forward to the day when the ID/Creationist movement makes a falsifiable claim and stands behind that claim should it be proven false.

You calling science a narrative, a story ? What a bunch of bullshit

Science is about the discovery of truth.
Are you not 100% confident about the following facts
We all live on this planet.
This planet orbits a star.
We have a moon that orbits this planet.

When you get up in the morning you deal with a billion facts that are 100% certain every day. Every fact about you and your life. Everything from the color of the shirt you wear to the size of the room you are in to the sound of your alarm going off.

Please don't go on and on about this crap that since we don't know everything then we really don't know anything. I'm fed up with it.

Ever hit a baseball ? Are you 100% certain that you hit it ?
When you walk out your front door in the morning, are you 100% sure you didn't walk out the second story window instead ?

After all we can't be 100% sure of anything

Bunch of crap

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2013, 10:02 PM
RE: I Need Solid Proof God Doesn't Exist
(18-08-2013 09:35 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  You calling science a narrative, a story ? What a bunch of bullshit
Science does tell a story. That is a story of what can be objectively known from empirical measurements and observations.
(18-08-2013 09:35 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Science is about the discovery of truth.
If a person claims that science is about the discovery of truth, then I see that the ID/Creationists do have a valid grievance. They hold their religious beliefs to be Truth. So for science to ignore religious claims then science does have a bias towards naturalism. If science is about the discovery of truth then ID/Creationists have a valid reason to want to redefine science. For them how can science be about truth when it is biased against the supernatural?
But if science is positioned as an exploration of objective knowledge of natural events and causes then the ID/Creationists must realise that religious beliefs and supernatural claims fall within the theology narrative rather than the science narrative. Thus there is no reason for them to want to redefine science. They can instead look towards theology for the Truth that they are after.
(18-08-2013 09:35 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Are you not 100% confident about the following facts
We all live on this planet.
This planet orbits a star.
We have a moon that orbits this planet.
Nothing is known 100%, we might merely be a brain in a vat plugged into a VR. We might be computer programs experiencing life as if we were real lifeforms, we might merely be part of a Many Worlds alternative. Who knows?
Once we thought gravity was a force attracting objects towards each other and that the moon fell towards the Earth always missing but traveling in a circle through Space, now we think gravity is a consequence of Matter warping SpaceTime and that the Moon travels in a straight line through SpaceTime (a geodesic).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 12:17 AM
RE: I Need Solid Proof God Doesn't Exist
(18-08-2013 10:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Nothing is known 100%, we might merely be a brain in a vat plugged into a VR.

Thank you Mr. Hovind.

(18-08-2013 10:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So for science to ignore religious claims then science does have a bias towards naturalism.

Ya think? The whole point of science as a method of understanding reality should be apparently obvious that it does not comment on what cannot be proven (empirically) to be real. (or supernaturalism, hence the bias towards naturalism)

All other notions are not fucking science, and should not be equated as such.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 12:39 AM
RE: I Need Solid Proof God Doesn't Exist
(19-08-2013 12:17 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(18-08-2013 10:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So for science to ignore religious claims then science does have a bias towards naturalism.

Ya think?
With science being a study of the natural universe, then it has no bias.

But if science was the process of discovering the truth then it would be biased by only considering natural causes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 02:46 AM
RE: I Need Solid Proof God Doesn't Exist
(19-08-2013 12:39 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2013 12:17 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Ya think?
With science being a study of the natural universe, then it has no bias.

But if science was the process of discovering the truth then it would be biased by only considering natural causes.

But... there's no good reasons why we should assume non-natural elements exist within the universe (supernatural things that is) when everything thus-far has been in nature (and of course, anything found in the future would still be within nature). So why is it significant?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 07:55 AM
RE: I Need Solid Proof God Doesn't Exist
(18-08-2013 03:38 AM)I Am Wrote:  
(10-08-2011 09:01 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Evil would be knowingly and purposefully causing harm to other individuals (human or non-human) directly or indirectly for self gain or personal satisfaction. Evil is a social construct not a biological one but that does not make it any less valid.

Oh, look, a pot! I think I'll stir it. So little to keep me occupied since the worm can is already open.

Killing a housefly, wasp, or tasty, super-moist chicken.

Administering chemotherapy, for pay.

Administering permanent hair-removal, for pay.

Clipping a pet bird's wings, de-clawing a cat, or docking a dog's ears or tail.

Some of these things may be wrong, I admit. But are they all evil?
Some of them do more good than harm, but the harm is undeniable. So since it's purposeful and harmful, it's evil?

Please, keep in mind, I'm just playing Devil's advocate. Knowingly, and purposefully, because it might amuse me. Which may irritate you. Which is, I suppose, more harmful than not irritating you. Which makes me evil. Evil_monster

I'm not really interested in debating a devil's advocate mate. Someone might though. Start a new thread and see. Drinking Beverage Haven't had my first cup yet...

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 11:01 AM
RE: I Need Solid Proof God Doesn't Exist
What about stuff that's not natural nor supernatural. I call it rahnian matter. Science can't prove that now can it.
Stevil - people can make up all kinds of bullshit to fool themselves and more importantly to fool other people.

Just look at the Underverse in Chronicles of Riddick
A guy makes up this place called the Underverse and the only way to get there is to become partially lobotomized and turned into a walking zombie slave.

The truth about the universe is ever changing based upon what we discover.
We observe. We discover. We analyze. We attempt to explain that which we observe.
This is the path that leads us to truth

Believing that something is true and then looking for evidence to backup that belief will often lead you to confirmation bias and nothing more.

You may want nothing to be nothing, but it's not
You use the brain in a vat idea to say that we don't know anything 100% - After all we could simply be a brain in a vat.
The question of what is real isn't important, because this is all we have and within all that we have we deal with the knowledge of this place.
We have knowledge of the place we reside our reality in.

The idea of a brain in a vat suggests another reality outside of our own. In fact it suggests an infinite number of vats in a brain that you can never escape from, because no matter the reality that you experience, you can always say I could still be a brain inside a vat.

That kind of thinking doesn't get us any closer to truth. It just presents us with what we can only presume to be a constant lie.
When you view life to never contain an ounce of truth means that you can't go anywhere, you can't discover anything because you are still of the mindset that it's all a lie.
And when everything you experience becomes a lie in your mind, you can't ever find truth.

You're just stuck.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 12:35 PM
RE: I Need Solid Proof God Doesn't Exist
(19-08-2013 11:01 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  What about stuff that's not natural nor supernatural. I call it rahnian matter. Science can't prove that now can it.
Stevil - people can make up all kinds of bullshit to fool themselves and more importantly to fool other people.

Just look at the Underverse in Chronicles of Riddick
A guy makes up this place called the Underverse and the only way to get there is to become partially lobotomized and turned into a walking zombie slave.

The truth about the universe is ever changing based upon what we discover.
We observe. We discover. We analyze. We attempt to explain that which we observe.
This is the path that leads us to truth

Believing that something is true and then looking for evidence to backup that belief will often lead you to confirmation bias and nothing more.

You may want nothing to be nothing, but it's not
You use the brain in a vat idea to say that we don't know anything 100% - After all we could simply be a brain in a vat.
The question of what is real isn't important, because this is all we have and within all that we have we deal with the knowledge of this place.
We have knowledge of the place we reside our reality in.

The idea of a brain in a vat suggests another reality outside of our own. In fact it suggests an infinite number of vats in a brain that you can never escape from, because no matter the reality that you experience, you can always say I could still be a brain inside a vat.

That kind of thinking doesn't get us any closer to truth. It just presents us with what we can only presume to be a constant lie.
When you view life to never contain an ounce of truth means that you can't go anywhere, you can't discover anything because you are still of the mindset that it's all a lie.
And when everything you experience becomes a lie in your mind, you can't ever find truth.

You're just stuck.

This thread is the thing stuck...bashing its face against walls.

If life contains no truth then how do we breath air. I was under the impression that it was true that we need a mix of chemicals in our "air" that we must intake to not die. Seems true enough to me.

This thread is going no place fun it seems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 12:42 PM
RE: I Need Solid Proof God Doesn't Exist
(19-08-2013 12:35 PM)gall Wrote:  ...
This thread is going no place fun it seems.

That's often the way with zombie threads. It shoulda stayed dead perhaps.

Sleepy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: