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?

[Goat]

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?

I see something illogical about the statement.

But, no, that is not the arguement that is presented over and over again, so therefore it seem to me that you are fighting a straw man.

[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?

I see something illogical about the statement.

But, no, that is not the arguement that is presented over and over again, so therefore it seem to me that you are fighting a straw man.

Thank God. When I see statements like

The atheist seeks evidence for God and finds none. No evidence of God = No God likely exists. The Christian does not seek OR does not evaluate evidence for his beliefs. No evidence of God = God.

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.

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

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.

I really start to think that this line of reasoning is alive and well. I am SO glad that it is just a straw man that no one really holds. I can get some sleep now, thx.

[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.

[achilles12604]

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?

[Goat]

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?

Well, it appears in this case, there is a difference between saying 'There is no evidence for God', and 'Science can not define God'. However, people can define God, and then attempt to use science to detect that..

What is your definition of God?

If you use the Christian one, where is the evidence of Jesus that is not merely words on a book. Where is the physical evidence that someone was resurrected. This is a key point in the Christian belief for God.

[The Duke of Vandals]

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

Why on earth would you assert god is "untestable"?

The majority of hypothesis never make it to the testing phase. We simply compare them to existing theories and laws to determine if they're worth testing. If you hypothesize "The sun is Apollo's fiery chariot" do you honestly think we need to scoop up bits of the sun and put them in a test tube before we know the "chariot hypothesis" is bullshit? Of course not. We simply look at what we know to be true (what has evidence) and compare the hypothesis to it. Got any evidence to suggest the sun is a chariot? No? Then the hypothesis is false. Period. No experiment phase. We don't need it (unless further evidence is introduced).

The god hypothesis is no different.

It posits that intelligence can a) exist outside of a biological matrix (the brain) and that b) exist without a gradual process to create it. It also posits that energy can come into existence from nowhere. We currently know all of these things to be false. Show me evidence they're even possible or the god hypothesis fails.

Furthermore, this idea that god having variable definitions is a problem for anyone is intellectual garbage. Every definition of god involves some claim that's unsupported and contradicts what we know to be true. Pick any definition you like and I'll show you where it's hogwash. So, I can easily see where other forumites would contrue your initial op as trolling. I know better, but it doesn't make the "argument" any less trite.

[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.

[Jose]

There are always those who interpret beyond the evidence. To find no evidence of god does not lead irrevocably to the conclusion that there is no god. One must consider the alternative explanations for the evidence. For example, god may exist, but hide from us. God may exist outside of the scientifically-testable world. God may exist within the confines of the imagination of the believer. God may be a human construct, invented to explain what was inexplicable several thousand years ago. To go from the evidence (or lack thereof) to a choice of one interpretation among many is unscientific.

It is, however, human. Our brains are well trained--highly evolved, even--to take evidence and immediately make sense of it and act upon it. Not so long ago, if we didn't, we got eaten. It takes discipline, I guess, to take small steps of logical reasoning when the brain automatically makes one large leap.

Personally, I favor the last of the explanations in my list--that gods of all flavors are human constructs. 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. At least with Apollo, we have a physical entity that was thought to exist within the scientifically-accessible world.

Unfortunately, once we get into the realm of speculation without data, and firm belief that rests, in large part, on the lack of data, I usually tune out. Anyone can believe anything they want to. It's kinda like allergies--we are physiologically capable of becoming allergic to anything, including ourselves.

[McCulloch]

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?

Is that like, "Science cannot define beauty, therefore beauty probably does not exist"?

Beauty, however, is a quality not an entity. Beauty is admittedly subjective. Aspects of beauty can be tested and measured scientifically, for example the relationship between symmetry and beauty.

The idea of God is subjective. No aspect of God can be tested and measured scientifically. There is no objective reason that has been presented to convince a rational person to believe in the existence of the Christian God. Perhaps this argument keeps getting presented over and over because it has still not been answered adequately. Or maybe it is the atheist version of Pascal's wager, an old argument which has been answered so many times but still keeps getting used by the ignorant non-theists. You tell me.