quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie The force is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Evidence in the scientific [sense does not depend on one's] 'personal' approval.

+1.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Evidence in the scientific term is never pending our ‘personal’ approval. So no, you are wrong. There is no “plenty of evidence” for the existence of God. If there was, then it would have been scientifically affirmed.

This is where your argument falls apart. The existence of anything supernatural cannot be confirmed or ruled out by science as the pursuit of science is limited to that which can be observed by humans. It is utter folly to try to apply the standards of science to anything that is outside of it's scope. The existence or lack thereof of god(s) is not a question for science... it is a question for philosophy.

quote:

And what is with this constant negative proof bullshit argument that seems to be echoing in this thread? No we cannot disprove a negative.

No one is asking anyone to prove a negative... Atheism is the antithesis of theism; it is a POSITIVE position that there is no god(s). The fact that it is a positive position means that it is subject to the burden of proof. Now, if one were to take the position that they do not believe in the existence of god(s) or that they have not been afforded proof of or even persuasive evidence in support of the existence of god(s) then there would be no burden of proof; however, as soon as one takes a positive position then it is incumbent on them to prove that position. Incidently, this is why I would never take a positive position on this subject... no positive position is provable in this debate.

quote:

Wrong. Yes I can, watch me do it--on the origin of morals: (for the sake of our discussion let’s stick to the three Abrahamic religions.) 1.All three religions attribute morals to a divine force. Scientific evidence: none. 2.Via kin-selection and Memetics theory (one of many explanations) evolutionary biologists have argued that morals have been established as norms through an advanced mechanism of heredity. Scientific evidence: plenty. Go read the Selfish Gene to get you started. So, once again, you are wrong. Although it doesn’t make sense for someone to say that evolution via natural selection proves that there is no God. You can rephrase and say something like; certain characteristics of evolution via natural selection are contradictory to the notion of a divine intervention (i.e. morals). Thus, you can use this piece of evidence to further negate, what are otherwise, tenuous arguments for the existence of God, in spite of evolutionary findings.

Okay, you can cite it but it is not supportable. Again, evolution does not negate the existence of god(s). At very best your argument above would support that the description of how morality was revealed to humans contained in Genesis is inconsistent with the theories of kin-selection and memetics put forward by evolutionary biologists. Even if it were proven that the morality evolved in a matter other then described in Genesis (which very few people would argue against) one could not conclude anything on the nature of god(s) from that other then that the book of Genesis is not a literal account of early humans... which nearly all adherents of the Abrahamic faiths already and have long since believed.

quote:

I'd use the word 'faith' specifically--but yes, I agree absolutely. One of the smartest comments made in this dreadful thread.

Indeed it is... I don't think anyone here has argued otherwise.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

We all know Swamper is God so lets just leave it at that....without him none of you would exist here on the interweb

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced We all know Swamper is God so lets just leave it at that....without him none of you would exist

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This is where your argument falls apart. The existence of anything supernatural cannot be confirmed or ruled out by science as the pursuit of science is limited to that which can be observed by humans. It is utter folly to try to apply the standards of science to anything that is outside of it's scope.

Once again, wrong.

Let’s break this down.

1.We have theory A and theory B
2.Theory A is scientifically supported
3.Theory B is not scientifically supported
4.Theory A cannot explain X (“supernatural phenomenon”)
5.Therefore theory B is true.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The existence or lack thereof of god(s) is not a question for science... it is a question for philosophy.

Well isn’t that just dandy--that god is exempt from scientific reasoning; that the very question of “how life began?” is not scientific, but philosophical. If that’s your position, so be it. If you’re convinced by this I’m happy to oblige. Just don’t ever talk about science or logic when you’re discussing your faith.

I think you’d enjoy this principle:

quote:

In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion."[48] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"[48] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[48]

In short: science has its realm, and faith has its.
Sounds good don’t it?

Except, it’s a fantasy and not the least realistic. Consider:

quote:

Richard Dawkins has criticized the NOMA principle on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, steer clear of the material scientific matters that Gould considers outside religion's scope. Dawkins argues that "[a] universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. [...] Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." These "existence claims" include miracles such as the Catholic Assumption of Mary: whether Mary's body decayed when she died or was physically lifted to Heaven is a material fact, and thus outside the moral magisterium to which NOMA would limit religion. [50]

You’re telling me virgin births and a body that was supposedly lifted to heaven is not a scientific question? And these are just two examples.

Religions make assertions that are contradictory to science when studied--like the two mentioned above. Pure and simple.

quote:

Okay, you can cite it but it is not supportable.

What in the name of holy crap are you talking about?

X is supported
Y is not.
X says “a” via “b”
Y says “a” via “c”

So I ask again, what?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard

That was by Kenobi, not Madden

___________________

Short time TA, Long time Guver, Good time giver.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Once again, wrong. Let’s break this down. 1.We have theory A and theory B 2.Theory A is scientifically supported 3.Theory B is not scientifically supported 4.Theory A cannot explain X (“supernatural phenomenon”) 5.Therefore theory B is true.

I did not state that theory b (religion) is true, I merely stated that because theory A cannot measure X then it can neither confirm or rule out X. I don't see how that is difficult for you to understand... the two are not inextricably linked... if all science is correct on all matters it endeavors to study that does not make all positions held by religion invalid; they are not mutually exclusive.

quote:

Well isn’t that just dandy--that god is exempt from scientific reasoning;

What I said was that science can only be applied to that which is observable/measurable, which I believe all would agree the existence or lack there of is not. Science can never hope to prove the existence or lack thereof of god(s).

quote:

that the very question of “how life began?” is not scientific, but philosophical. If that’s your position, so be it. If you’re convinced by this I’m happy to oblige. Just don’t ever talk about science or logic when you’re discussing your faith.

You're putting words in my mouth. "How life began" is a question that can be addressed through science, as this is an observable process.

Interesting that you would assume I am a person of faith... I am; however, I've not made any reference to my faith in this discussion. Nevertheless, I do talk about science and logic when discussing my faith, as I believe both I must reconcile them. You need to understand that the two are not at odds with each other. That said, I would never use any arguments based in science to extrapolate to questions such as the existence of god(s).

quote:

You’re telling me virgin births and a body that was supposedly lifted to heaven is not a scientific question? And these are just two examples. Religions make assertions that are contradictory to science when studied--like the two mentioned above. Pure and simple.

Sure they could be studied by science... interestingly, many species do have virgin births... not that that supports the myth surrounding Jesus' birth. While science may contradict elements of various religions that does not discredit the entire faith. Additionally, it should be pointed out that; again, this only applies for those that take a literal interpretation of the source material.

quote:

What in the name of holy crap are you talking about?

What I'm talking about is that you are extrapolating things beyond what the science is actually telling you. If the science says that humans developed morals in a matter other then what is described in the Bible then all you can logically conclude from that is that the particular story concerning the revelation of a moral code is inconsistent with the evidence presently available. One cannot conclude that because one story is incorrect then God cannot exist... that is an illogical jump to make... it's tantamount to the 911 truthers that claim because there is some inconsistencies between how the official report explains how building 7 fell and the available evidence then it must be true that the whole thing was an inside job by Bush and Co.... it's an illogical assumption. Making the extrapolation you have jumps beyond what the science actually supports.


The long and short of it is this; science cannot prove the existence of god(s) or the existence of no god(s); subsequently, both of the positive positions described as theism and atheism are beliefs, not knowledge, and can never be knowledge... unless the theist position is correct

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Feb-02-2009 at 20:10

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I don't see how that is difficult for you to understand... the two are not inextricably linked... if all science is correct on all matters it endeavors to study that does not make all positions held by religion invalid; they are not mutually exclusive.

I never once said that all positions were nullified--in fact, I’ve already show you how your position is wrong by saying

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Although it doesn’t make sense for someone to say that evolution via natural selection proves that there is no God. You can rephrase and say something like; certain characteristics of evolution via natural selection are contradictory to the notion of a divine intervention (i.e. morals). Thus, you can use this piece of evidence to further negate, what are otherwise, tenuous arguments for the existence of God, in spite of evolutionary findings.

You really need to understand the importance of probability--that’s all science is. As I’ve mentioned many a time:

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie ...these are the rules that science operates within. Any scientist will tell you that the scientific method is designed to give an approximation. Now, if that approximation is verified through standard and universal models, than we can put a probabilistic number on it--the number is never 100.

So, on matters like the virgin birth, miracles and what have you, we can put a probabilistic number on there that is aligned with our scheme of logic and physics.

To illustrate:

Theory A asserts “x”

“X” is then scrutinized and tested against current models of physics and logic.

“X” is a given a probabilistic number pending its soundness.

Our universe as we know is governed at the quantum level by some laws that are infallible and others that are highly stochastic, and others that are impossible to predict. Using what we know we can hypothesis on any given claim and label it with a probabilistic number--anything, no exceptions.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard What I said was that science can only be applied to that which is observable/measurable, which I believe all would agree the existence or lack there of is not. Science can never hope to prove the existence or lack thereof of god(s).

What are you basing this on?

The big bang theory is modeled after a simple point of origin--a singularity to be more specific.

Consider: Hubble’s Law
v = Ho * d

v = is the galaxy's recessional velocity (in km/sec)

H0 = is Hubble's constant and corresponds to the value of H (often termed the Hubble parameter which is a value that is time dependent) in the Friedmann equations taken at the time of observation denoted by the subscript 0. This value is the same throughout the universe for a given comoving time.

D is the comoving proper distance from the galaxy to the observer, measured in megaparsecs (Mpc), in the 3-space defined by given cosmotology time.

Tell me how Hubble’s Law is constantly observable.

Surely you know, in order to make the statement above that “science can only be applied to that which is observable/measurable.” Additionally, I refer you to quantum observatory effects. If you think physics at the quantum level can be invariably observed and measured, then you are wrong. This invalids your aforementioned claim. As Richard Feynman put it “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

In brief, the singularity, Hubble’s Law, and likewise the question of a supreme being cannot be observed in a state other than flux. What we can, and do observe and measure is the relative information we have to base our probability on. In regards to god, Einstein mentioned that a universe with a supreme deity capable of doing all the stuff it’s attributed to being able to do, would result in a different universe than the one we have now.

To simplify:

If universe “x” is observed via a set of given laws without unaccounted for variable(s) that undermine said laws, then our universe is expected to operate with a very high probability of predictability “y” (standards)

If the universe “x” is observed via a set of given laws with an unaccounted for variable (g) capable of all the things we attribute to it, then our universe cannot be expected to operate within any high levels of predictability, thus we’d have no standards based on this unaccounted for, random variable

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard While science may contradict elements of various religions that does not discredit the entire faith

Once again, I never said ‘entire faith.’ What I have said is that we can place a number on the likelihood via probabilistic and deductive reasoning.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard One cannot conclude that because one story is incorrect then God cannot exist... that is an illogical jump to make...

I agree, and I’ve never done this--nor do I know any reasonable scientific that would make this claim. However, what I have done, and what the scientific community has consensus on is this: that through examining ALL, not one, ALL--every single one--the claims made by religions since the Greeks and the Vikings, we have collectively agreed that the probability of the existence of a supreme being; and all that it entails, is a statistically probable element. Key word: all that it entails. Scientists have looked at the absolute broad picture and have concluded that the probability is extremely low.

I’ve mentioned this before, the great American geneticist Francis Collins, formally head of the gnome project that mapped the human DNA, is a devout Christian. But he understands, and has said, in his books and interviews, that if examine the question of god scientifically we can logically deduce its improbability. However, Collins is a firm believer that god is not to be found via science or evidence, but faith. If this is what you agree with, then so be it, we have nothing else to discuss. Just don’t make scientific assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot A suitable choice would be the average integral dt of human happiness or satisfaction over a lifetime.

So you've substituted one form of ambiguity ("better") with another ("happiness"). The question remains: in concrete terms, what are you measuring, and where is your evidence?

quote:

Many authors have written about social implications of game theory and you are naive to dismiss it as irrelevant.

I didn't dismiss the social implications as irrelevant. The social implications are clear. I dismissed game theory as a complete and reliable model for the entire realm of individual and social behaviour. Chaos theory is a better model, but unfortunately it doesn't claim to be able to answer such broad philosophical questions as "does religion cause more problems than it solves or prevents".

quote:

In the social sciences, one often seeks a mathematical model by which to model human interaction.

I'm not disputing this. Models are useful for making predictions, but they are not evidence. A complex enough model could perhaps be used to make the prediction "if religion disappeared today, humanity would be better off in the capacities of [x], [y] and [z] when measured using the techniques [a], , and [c].". Of course, I have yet to hear of any testable model making such a claim. Do you have one that I don't know about?

quote:

Dismissing these types of analysis as "the tools of writers and politicians" is doing a great disservice to the entire field of social science. I don't think you actually believe this, but then either you're failing to understand my argument, or you're attacking a straw man.

I stated in plain language that argument by analogy is empty rhetoric that doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny. You've chosen to interpret that as a blanket dismissal of all sorts of theoretical models period - that is your straw man, not mine.

quote:

[b]Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Some people would claim that saying "I know there is no god" is as reasonable as saying "I know there is no tooth fairy".

I believe we've been over this point already and I agree, they are analogous. While the idea of a tooth fairy may seem ridiculous to most of us, it is not a trivial task to prove the non-existence of the tooth fairy.

The statement "I know [x]" is equivalent to the statement "[x] is true." This is a positive claim. All positive claims place the burden of proof upon the person making the claim. The only claim that does not require positive evidence is "I don't know whether or not there is a god/tooth fairy", or more granularly, "I do not believe that the current body of evidence supports the existence of a deity/tooth fairy." That is agnosticism, though, not atheism.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie blabber blabber blabber

Please explain, then, how you "support scientifically" the assertion that there is no god.

Remember, you're not talking to a theist here, so I'm not interested in counter-arguments to the theistic arguments. You don't have to convince me that we evolved over billions of years from single-celled organisms - I already know that. You don't have to convince me that the world couldn't have been created in 7 days - I don't believe that it was and it's not important anyhow. You don't have to convince me that the story of Noah's Ark is full of contradictions and physical impossibilities - that's already obvious to me.

This should be easy for you if it's as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be. My position is neutral. I don't know or really even care whether or not there is a god. I'm open to pretty much any definition for the sake of argument. Prove to me that not only is there insufficient evidence to support any theist's position, but that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there cannot be any type of super-sentience, or any type of deterministic will influencing the universe other than our own.

As you point out in a later post, it mostly comes down to probabilities. Show me that the probability of the existence of god is zero, or close enough to it that we can close the book on it unless some fabulous new contradictory evidence presents itself.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here