Prove that science can't prove god

[The Duke of Vandals]

Science is capable of investigating any unknown that isn't a subjective question. Anything that's not like, "Was that a good ballgame?" or "Is this a nice day?" is a scientific question. Anything that either exists or doesn't exist, like god, is the province of science.

Now, we've all read over and over that theists believe science can't prove or disprove god. This is false. "God exists and created the universe" is a scientific hypothesis (a false one).

Issue for debate: If you are a theist who claims science cannot be used to prove god, then prove it. Prove that science cannot prove god.

Be sure you don't confuse a shortcoming of technology with a shortcoming of science.

[Beto]

So your position is that novelists do not really exist, since they are absolutely undetectable by their own characters? That would certainly be a, um, novel argument.

Surely you recognize your argument as a logical fallacy known as "weak analogy". Just because Poe wrote on a desk and on ravens doesn't mean they're alike.

[sfs]

So your position is that novelists do not really exist, since they are absolutely undetectable by their own characters? That would certainly be a, um, novel argument.

Surely you recognize your argument as a logical fallacy known as "weak analogy". Just because Poe wrote on a desk and on ravens doesn't mean they're alike.

Sorry, but I don't see a fallacy here. The Duke of Vandals claim is that any entity that is absolutely undetectable does not really exist. As I wrote, I am assuming that he or she means undetectable by the entity's creations (since otherwise the claim is irrelevant to the discussion). Based on that premise, I see nothing fallacious about the conclusion that novelists do not really exist, since they are absolutely undetectable by their creations. Can you see any way of understanding the claim that makes it relevant to the discussion and that does not lead to this conclusion?

[sfs]

Surely you recognize your argument as a logical fallacy known as "weak analogy". Just because Poe wrote on a desk and on ravens doesn't mean they're alike.

Also, you might note that Poe writing on a desk and writing on ravens is not a fallacy of analogy, but a fallacy of equivocation (on the meaning of "write on").

[Beto]

Surely you recognize your argument as a logical fallacy known as "weak analogy". Just because Poe wrote on a desk and on ravens doesn't mean they're alike.

Also, you might note that Poe writing on a desk and writing on ravens is not a fallacy of analogy, but a fallacy of equivocation (on the meaning of "write on").

It can be both. Aren't you comparing humans and fictional characters? Do we just wave off the fact that human beings are not like fictional characters, thus making the analogy weak?

[Beto]

Actually it can't be both. The meaning of "write on" is understood in both instances, so it's really just fallacy of "weak analogy".

[MikeH]

Of course not. I'm treating the god hypothesis as it should be treated: as a scientific hypothesis subject to comparison against other theories and laws.

"Energy can be created from nothing."
"Intelligence can exist outside of a biological matrix (like the brain)."

Right now, both of these statements are false. Not unknown. Not true.

Both of the above claims are necessary for the god hypothesis to be true. Since those claims are false, so is the god hypothesis. Believe otherwise? Provide evidence. No evidence? Than it's not possible for god to exist.

While I'm glad that you have outlined your reasons for not believing in god, and respect your views, you have quite a way to go before claiming that you have scientifically proven that there in no God.

Here are just a few of the things that you still need to work out:

- Show why the "God hypothesis" is dependent on energy being created from nothing
- Show why the "God hypothesis" is dependent on intelligence existing outside of a biological matrix
- Prove that intelligence can exist
- Prove that intelligence can exist within a biological matrix
- You claimed that the statement "Intelligence can exist outside of a biological matrix (like the brain)" is false and not unknown. Prove this.

[sfs]

It can be both. Aren't you comparing humans and fictional characters?

Do we just wave off the fact that human beings are not like fictional characters, thus making the analogy weak?

You're the one claiming that the analogy is weak -- so why don't you introduce relevant differences between humans and fictional characters? If you can show that there are differences that make Vandal's claim valid for humans but invalid for characters, then you will have succeeded in rebutting my reductio. You haven't actually pointed out any weaknesses yet, though.

[Beto]

It can be both. Aren't you comparing humans and fictional characters?

As corrected, it can't be both.

You're the one claiming that the analogy is weak -- so why don't you introduce relevant differences between humans and fictional characters? If you can show that there are differences that make Vandal's claim valid for humans but invalid for characters, then you will have succeeded in rebutting my reductio. You haven't actually pointed out any weaknesses yet, though.

How about the fact that one exists only in someone's mind? Are you kidding me? Will you argue we exist only in "God's" mind and we're as deprived of self-awareness as fictional characters?

[sfs]

Do you believe either of the following statements are true?

"Energy can be created from nothing."
"Intelligence can exist outside of a biological matrix (like the brain)."

Right now, both of these statements are false. Not unknown. Not true.

False.

Without evidence, they're remain false.

Both of the above claims are necessary for the god hypothesis to be true. Since those claims are false, so is the god hypothesis. Believe otherwise? Provide evidence. No evidence? Than it's not possible for god to exist.

As a scientist, I find this approach baffling. Any statement for which we do not currently have evidence is false? The only options are false, unknown and true? What happened to degrees of probability? Scientifically, empirically-based statements can only provisionally true, so to speak of impossibility is wrong-headed. Some statements have a low probability of being true, but that is not at all the same thing.

It's certainly true that we currently have no evidence that intelligence can exist outside a biological matrix, but it seems far from unlikely that machine-based intelligence can and will exist. At that point will the previously impossible suddenly become possible? If so, you have a different definition for "possible" and "impossible" than I do.

[sfs]

How about the fact that one exists only in someone's mind? Are you kidding me?

No, I'm trying to get you to offer an argument, rather than just derision. What is your justification for believing that we don't exist only in someone's mind? And why is this difference relevant in any case? If instead of a novel, the author writes a computer simulation of the characters, the simulations do not exist only in his mind. Are they any more capable of detecting the author's existence?

I would also really like to see someone defend the claim that only things detectable by humans really exist.

Will you argue we exist only in "God's" mind and we're as deprived of self-awareness as fictional characters?

Why is self-awareness relevant? Self-awareness seems to be produced by our physical brains, which are by hypothesis the products of a god. Why should self-awareness enable us to detect the putative creator?