Loki's wager and science.

[achilles12604]

Science can not define God. Therefore, God probably does not exist.



Is this, or is this not the argument presented over, and over, and over, and over?














Does anyone but me see something illogical in this statement?

[The Duke of Vandals]

Pick any definition you like and I'll show you where it's hogwash.

God is that which is responsible for there being something rather than nothing and for the creative capacity of existence.

All right. Let's break this down.

We have "something rather than nothing" and "the creative capacity of existence".

If we assume god exists then he, himself, is something. Also, we have to assume he has a creative capacity.

Thus, god posseses the same traits you indicated evidene a designer. This definition of god requires either a designer or a cop-out. Like all definitions of god, it's flawed. And that's not even getting into lack of evidence and other issues.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am SO glad that it is just a straw man that no one really holds. I can get some sleep now, thx.

It's interesting how you implicitly equate ...

• Science can not define God.

with

• The atheist seeks evidence for God and finds none.

Troll elsewhere.

Ah, What wonderful evidence does the atheist seek? I'll field that one If you take the time to click on the url link, you will see that it links to . . . Scientific evidence. But wait, that leads right back to the op huh?

Is lack of scientific evidence, evidence against existence for something which by definition is currently untestable by science?

Let's return to the OP. I would love to get your take on any of the other 3 quotes I provided. You jumped in and pointed out that you strongly felt I was mistaken in my interpretation of one of them. How about the others? Am I just as far off on the other 3 as I was one the one you "corrected" me on?

Very well ...

The atheist seeks evidence for God and finds none. No evidence of God = No God likely exists.

This is simply wrong.

Science: I am totally unable to detect any sign of him at all and science is the best method we have for detecting and studying things in the universe.

This is a predictably worthless circular argument.

I think science can comment on everything with different degrees of certainty, so I find the premise rather fallacious.

This is naive at best.

In other words, it would take some form of scientific evidence to argue me into believing in God. I don't think this is being narrow in my form of evidence either.

This is perfectly reasonable.

[Jayhawker Soule]

If we assume god exists then he, himself, is something.

Sophomoric nonsense.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Nonetheless, I would argue with The Duke's suggestion that god is, in fact, testable (or at least, the god hypothesis is equivalent to the Apollo's Chariot hypothesis). One of the god hypotheses is that he exists in some unmeasurable realm, outside of the scientifically-accessible world. That hypothesis is by definition not scientifically testable.

No. That hypothesis is by definition a cop out. For a few reasons.

First, you're missing the distinction between that which is scientifically testable and that which can be tested using our current level of technology. Simply because we have not invented a "god-o-meter" doesn't mean god isn't a scientific question.

Second, the claim "there exists something outside the realm of science" is, itself, an unsupported claim. A high dubious one. It's like stating, "My argument exists outside the realm of logic... so your logical argument doesn't apply to it."

To be sure, the only questions outside the realm of science are subjective ones. Science cannot answer "was that a good game?" because there is no definite answer. What was a good game to you could have been a lousy game to me. Furthermore, I may decide one game is a good game and later decide it was lousy... or judge a similar game to be lousy with no rhyme or reason.

God doesn't work that way.

God can't exist for you, but not exist for me.

The universe didn't get Big Banged into existence for me billions of years ago and created 6000 years ago for Christians. It could be neither but we know it's not both.

So, the god hypothesis is most certainly testable in that we can compare it to existing scientific knowledge. Like any other unsupported hypothesis, if it challenges supported claims then it (the hypothesis) is false.

We need to stop giving religion a free ride. We need to stop accepting nonsense from theists. They don't get to use a special set of rules for god. Consider the following:

• There exists a version of Microsoft Excel that can function independently of a computer. The software just hangs in mid air above your desk.

Based on what we know to be true about software and computers, is there any way this hypothesis can anything BUT laughable? No. We know software requires a computer to exist in. Maybe that will change somewhere down the road and when it does we'll happily revise our stance. Until then, it holds.

What if we add...

• There exists a version of Microsoft Excel that can function independently of a computer. The software just hangs in mid air above your desk. This is made possible by an entity which cannot be detected.

Does anyone actually believe this makes the claim any more compelling? It's a special pleading fallacy wherein the speaker creates a different set of rules for a claim; "since I don't have any evidence I don't think you should demand evidence".

Not compelling in the slightest. It doesn't work in any other realm of inquiry. Why allow it to work with religion? There's no reason.

[The Duke of Vandals]

If we assume god exists then he, himself, is something.

I have no reply to your explanation. My definition of god really is untenable.

Fixed.

[Cathar1950]

There is an old rule of thumb among some anthropologist that says if a people we are studying believe something then we need to look at it as real to understand. Or something like that.
The act as if it is real because for them it is real.
Yet most sane people if sick will seek medical help if it is available and not count on prayer as prayer will only be answered if it is God's will and it seems it is more comfort then cure.
Most get the knowledge of God from writings or experiences. Science has been able to demonstrate as well as scholarship how wrong either of them can be. The more we look the father God seems outside our reach while the God of the stories has disappeared. The last time God appears in the Hebrew writings was to Solomon and the wisest man ever followed his pagan wives, at least that is how he story reads. The last great king (I guess there were only two) Josiah took an Egyptian arrow (so much for blessings) while Judah gets taken down because of his grandfather's sin despite his long and prosperous rein. For the most part it seems the stories were edited and combined by authoritarian priests with axes to grind, except maybe Ezra that did his work at the request of Cyrus the Great the Lord's anointed and all the authority he gave Ezra. They even had to dump their non-Jewish wives and families. Yet this collection of diverse writings with conflicting prophesies and stories is were many get their knowledge of God. He wipes out the world because of sin and then like a child that just had a temper tantrum says he won't do it again until the end of course. Then there is some goofy story about a tower to heaven so humans can reach God which upsets him so that he confuses their language because they might accomplish anything.
Yet this is claimed to be the actual “Word of God”.
If you are looking for a God that likes roasted flesh or can't decide if he is going to whack the twin cities you will be later told God is a spirit. It seems wherever you look for God he gets moved. Much like chasing a rainbow the conditions have to be just right to even see one. I tend to like one authors vision of God, as a means to extend our reach. Like a baseball glove with a little padding just in case you don't need to reach that far.

[Jose]

Nonetheless, I would argue with The Duke's suggestion that god is, in fact, testable (or at least, the god hypothesis is equivalent to the Apollo's Chariot hypothesis). One of the god hypotheses is that he exists in some unmeasurable realm, outside of the scientifically-accessible world. That hypothesis is by definition not scientifically testable.

No. That hypothesis is by definition a cop out. For a few reasons.

First, you're missing the distinction between that which is scientifically testable and that which can be tested using our current level of technology. Simply because we have not invented a "god-o-meter" doesn't mean god isn't a scientific question.

Second, the claim "there exists something outside the realm of science" is, itself, an unsupported claim. A high dubious one. It's like stating, "My argument exists outside the realm of logic... so your logical argument doesn't apply to it."

My reasoning here rests on the word "hypothesis," which I use to mean "a hypothetical explanation." A hypothesis need not be testable to be a hypothetical explanation, though it must be testable to be of any use. Not being a believer, I must state that this is what I think various debaters on this site have proposed as their understanding of god--some magical dude who hangs out where science can't reach him. Is their idea a cop out? I dunno...they believe it. Is the idea invalidated by your first argument, that science and technology progress? I don't think so. I see the hypothesis as a definition of god as being inaccessible by any god-o-meter. Is the idea invalidated because it's highly dubious? Again, I don't think so--though this puts it on the same level as a Magic Marshmallow. I have the sense that Believers often Believe precisely because this flavor of god is defined as being unknowable.

But saying it's "an hypothesis" doesn't make it a good one. The weight of the evidence points to god--and all gods--as human constructs.

God doesn't work that way.

God can't exist for you, but not exist for me.

Logically, yes. Yet the reality of human thought seems to argue otherwise. This seems to be what a lot of the killing is about (and has been about historically). "My god exists and yours doesn't, so it would be a Just War if I killed you and all your countrymen."

We need to stop giving religion a free ride. We need to stop accepting nonsense from theists. They don't get to use a special set of rules for god.

...It's a special pleading fallacy wherein the speaker creates a different set of rules for a claim; "since I don't have any evidence I don't think you should demand evidence".

They do use a special set of rules when they are in power. A Christian Taliban would be no better than a Muslim one, and they'd sure use their special set of rules if they could. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be moving toward a more rational society.

The puzzling thing to me is that the argument heats up so quickly. "There's no evidence for god, so he probably doesn't exist" doesn't seem very offensive to me. It wouldn't be offensive if someone said "there's no evidence for green tigers, so they probably don't exist." People seem to get angry when you step on their toes, and even angrier when you step on their gods.

I wonder...maybe it would be profitable to ask, instead, what reasoning Christians (or others) use to conclude that the ancient Norse or Roman gods don't exist. With that discussion, everyone would be on the same side of the fence.

[realthinker]

Pick any definition you like and I'll show you where it's hogwash.

God is that which is responsible for there being something rather than nothing and for the creative capacity of existence.

Is there any evidence that there ever was nothing?

[achilles12604]

Just in case there was some doubt about this being a strawman that I am making up THIS little gem came to my attention.

Seems to me that the fact that God cannot even be accurately described is the real evidence that it doesn't exist.

I've an alternative explanation for God, but I don't think I'll go into it here.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Pick any definition you like and I'll show you where it's hogwash.

God is that which is responsible for there being something rather than nothing and for the creative capacity of existence.

Is there any evidence that there ever was nothing?

That question is irrelevant on so many levels as to render it worthless.