|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 08/31/2004 : 01:38:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
But beskeptigal, you've presented no hypothesis.
From page 4, apparently you wish to go around again? quote:
If you wanted to use the hypothesis that a god made the Universe and then never interacted with it again, you probably could use the absence of evidence argument. If you do that though, you don't have a definition of any god(s) that humans have described, since all gods are described as interacting with humans.
So now we can construct a working hypothesis.
If there were gods, (as defined by humans) they would have interacted with humans.
If gods interacted with humans, the interaction should be detectable.
Criteria can be established that would be measurable and that would indicate an interaction had occurred.
The criteria must then be validated to confirm it would detect interaction.
Then the criteria can be looked for.
If none can be found, you have very strong evidence that the god theory is not a correct theory.
If one wants to argue semantics of 'very strong' or 'overwhelming' evidence vs. 'proof' or 'absolute proof', then you really have a different argument. Lots of science uses overwhelming evidence to draw conclusions.
quote:
By redefining God as the defective map, you claim certainty about the existential possibility of the territory. Ironically, you end with an atheism predicated upon a thorough-going idealism.
I don't know what you mean by this. God concepts all come from religious traditions. It is you who wishes to re-define god as something more than or beyond those traditions.
|
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 03:14:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
By redefining God as the defective map, you claim certainty about the existential possibility of the territory. Ironically, you end with an atheism predicated upon a thorough-going idealism.
I don't know what you mean by this. God concepts all come from religious traditions. It is you who wishes to re-define god as something more than or beyond those traditions.
I define God as a hypothetical, purposeful entity responsible for nature. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 06:04:43 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
God concepts all come from religious traditions. It is you who wishes to re-define god as something more than or beyond those traditions.
Actually, the different religious traditions define god in sometimes vastly different ways. You've distilled all these various definitions down to - for the purposes of your argument - "god has done stuff," which is only a vague part of the definition Christians would use, and Jews, and Muslims. You'll note that these three groups have fought wars over their differing definitions of god throughout the years.
You'll note, for example, that the Christian god is posited to be able to do as he pleases. These parts of the Christian definition say that your hypothesis is inapplicable to him, since he has the ability to erase the hard evidence of his interaction with the world. In fact, such activities are necessary for him, since his basis for existence is faith, and proof would allow followers to take their god for granted. Also, since god is not to be questioned, your "testing" of his existence is invalid on its face, as god simply changes the rules so that your test comes out however he wants it. And as soon as you question his motivations for making your conclusion be that he doesn't exist, the answer "god works in mysterious ways" contradicts your assumed ability to comprehend the desires of god.
So, if you want to fault people for redefining god, look to yourself, first. Deities of almost all religious traditions I can think of are much more complex than your hypothesis presumes. And your definition leaves out the part where most gods are defined to be able to change reality on a whim.quote:
It's a no brainer there are an infinite number of things yet to be discovered.
Now we're making progress.quote:
But if we had a bunch of people who believed in a planet that after careful observation was determined not to be there, then it would be stated as so by a consensus of scientists.
How can you make careful observations of something which is posited to be able to purposefully hide from view?quote:
They wouldn't just keep stating forever, "well we don't see evidence for it but we'll keep an open mind". At some point, conclusions would be drawn.
There is no scientific consensus regarding god. More scientists have some sort of faith in a traditional religion than do not. They're not keeping an open mind about this, they believe. Certain evolutionary biologists have been quoted as saying, "I study evolution because I want to know how God made His Creation."quote:
But that approach is avoided with religion. Yet there is evidence to be evaluated, there are criteria to measure and/or evaluate the evidence.
No, as you've shown, there is only evidence regarding the human development of religion. There is no evidence - pro or con - regarding any actual deities.quote:
But it isn't PC to do the science in this case.
Screw that "PC" crap. Given the popular definitions of god(s), there's no way to do science about them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
N C More
Skeptic Friend
53 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2004 : 04:56:45 [Permalink]
|
Ah, Dave has brought up the crux of the issue here:
quote:
No, as you've shown, there is only evidence regarding the human development of religion. There is no evidence - pro or con - regarding any actual deities.
Religion is metaphysical, relating to the transcendent or supersensible...religion is not empirical. One can not apply the scientific method to matters of faith...period! To do so is frankly, an exercise in futility and absurdity, IMHO. That's why I usually stay out of discussions about religion. 
|
"An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get some really weird bugs!" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
