[_ Old Earth _] God must be scientifically verifiable or He doesn't exist.

[Jayls5]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLlSySWuoiA

This is a fairly cohesive argument. Does anyone have any criticisms?


The only one I could think of was the general dismissal of "Omniscience" as being impossible without an explicit description. Other than that, I think his main argument is fairly convincing.

I'd like to hear some theistic perspectives on the matter.

 

[jwu]

It begins with the premise that anything that exists consists of either matter or energy.

E.g. space exists, but it is neither matter nor energy. Hence the premise is violated even within the framework of science, and any conclusions drawn from that premise fall apart.

Basically the video (i actually didn't bother to watch more than 30 seconds after the flaw at its start) uses a definition of "existence" that by definition does not apply to God (a metaphysical being). It's presupposing its own conclusion (that nothing metaphysical truly "exists").

 

[Dunzo]

It begins with the premise that anything that exists consists of either matter or energy.

E.g. space exists, but it is neither matter nor energy. Hence the premise is violated even within the framework of science, and any conclusions drawn from that premise fall apart.

I disagree. 'Space' is defined as having no matter or energy, and technically doesn't exist. It's just the word we use to describe the area between things that do exist.

I hope you can see my point.

 

[jwu]

'Space' is defined as having no matter or energy, and technically doesn't exist.

The Big Bang was an "expansion of spacetime". Space (and time) are physical entities which are not equal to nothingness.

However, even if my counter-example were flawed, that still leaves the begging of the question...which you are doing as well. You are using a strictly materialistic definition of "existence", under which God doesn't fall by definition (just as concepts and ideas like "beauty").
That logic basically can be shortened to, "i define that God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist".

 

[Guest]

'Space' is defined as having no matter or energy, and technically doesn't exist.

The Big Bang was an "expansion of spacetime". Space (and time) are physical entities which are not equal to nothingness.

However, even if my counter-example were flawed, that still leaves the begging of the question...which you are doing as well. You are using a strictly materialistic definition of "existence", under which God doesn't fall by definition (just as concepts and ideas like "beauty").
That logic basically can be shortened to, "i define that God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist".

It's an endless argument... when something is based on "faith" there needs to be no proof . So it really doesn't matter what stellar proof is out there against one idea, when the idea is based on "faith".

 

[Jayls5]

'Space' is defined as having no matter or energy, and technically doesn't exist.

The Big Bang was an "expansion of spacetime". Space (and time) are physical entities which are not equal to nothingness.

However, even if my counter-example were flawed, that still leaves the begging of the question...which you are doing as well. You are using a strictly materialistic definition of "existence", under which God doesn't fall by definition (just as concepts and ideas like "beauty").
That logic basically can be shortened to, "i define that God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist".

Good point.

An argument only begs the question if evidence given for its premises are in need of as much explanation as the conclusion. I think you have a legitimate criticism here. His argument by analogy was supposed to address this, but sound is indesputably made up of matter. Since he made no argument against a concept that is assumed to be immaterial, such as "beauty" or "space," he did seem to beg the question.

Assuming he had previously made a successful argument that abstract concepts (non mass/energy) were in fact non-existent, would it then be applicable? I'd think so, but I'd like your thoughts on that.

 

[darkwater]

Materialists....

They cannot be reasoned with because they refuse to recognize the full universe. They only accept what they can see.

 

[Jayls5]

Materialists....

They cannot be reasoned with because they refuse to recognize the full universe. They only accept what they can see.

That is such a cop out.

It's completely unsubstantiated, and it serves nothing to advance the discussion. If you actually feel like arguing your case, I welcome it. However, I urge you to withhold your impulse to make inane comments like the one above.

 

[jwu]

Assuming he had previously made a successful argument that abstract concepts (non mass/energy) were in fact non-existent, would it then be applicable? I'd think so, but I'd like your thoughts on that.

That would degrade the definition of "existence" in a way that defeats the purpose of the whole argument.

Assuming things/concepts like beauty don't actually exist (one might argue that they are just biochemical reactions in the brain), then we have precedences of "non-existent" things having a great impact on our daily lives. Under such circumstances "existence" becomes a mere artificial and counter-intuitive label without practical relevance.

 

[Orion]

I've always looked at this topic in this light. . . . . and he aludes to it. That which may not be provable RIGHT NOW, may very well still exist, none the less. He points out that we can't see a black hole, but observe effects that apparently are caused by an extreme gravity event, so the evidence isn't the black hole, but what scientists say they see it's effect.

It is true, though, that since we are in the current state of our development, a "miracle" may seem to defy some law, but then before certain times, scientists may have thought that faster than sound travel was against the laws of physics, or something similar that today IS provable consistantly.

One final thought, yes, he is saying a true statement about anyone's religion (even the "flying spaghetti monster") being valid since no religion is any more provable than the other. It seems as though, mostly, what ever culture you're born into will be the religion that speaks to you. I can see why it is very hard to reach other cultures because of that, but it does happen from time to time.

Interesting thread.

 

[jwu]

He points out that we can't see a black hole, but observe effects that apparently are caused by an extreme gravity event, so the evidence isn't the black hole, but what scientists say they see it's effect.

Gravity actually is yet another thing which exists and doesn't consist of either matter nor energy (these both are interchangeable anyway).

Of course, gravity can be seen as a property of spacetime; but that then further supports that spacetime exists - nothingness cannot have any further properties.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Inevitably, all arguments against a deity or for a deity will be intrinsically flawed from the start.

God(s) are presumed to exist outside our dimensions, therefore any criteria we used based within our dimensional concept will fail.

Now, if you presume that God is not deistic, and is actually involved with the happenings of this world, then you could try to measure that and set up falsifiable hypothesis relating to that.

example - measure the effectiveness of prayer in a double blind study, look for archaeological evidence for evidence for/against happenings within the stories of religions (global flood, Sodom, etc.- even though any evidence really only supports the event, and not God really)

Now, if the evidence keeps returning to lack/support the existence, then you may make some scientific claims. But science really never says anything is proved one way or the other. Just the strength of evidence.

I don't think Dawkins would truly deny that his book was really a rhetoric piece, and nothing is actually proved/disproved in his work.

Though I did feel like he made at least one very good point. That point is that some theists always object when science is used to build a case against God (though I object to this as well for different reasons. I think it pushes people away from science). Some are qucik to point out that you cannot disprove God through science, yet the same will jump on any supporting evidence. For instance, the Catholic churches initial attachment to the big bang theory.

Also, if someone ever provided DNA evidence that supports immaculate conception, I highly doubt those same theist would reject it and say you can't use science. But then again, that is just my own speculation as well as Dawkins.

 

[TanNinety]

"Morals must be biblically derived or Atheists don't have morals"

I think it then becomes easy for us to see the flaw in the argument. I agree with jwu and VaultZero4Me in their conclusions.

 

[Jayls5]

I've always looked at this topic in this light. . . . . and he aludes to it. That which may not be provable RIGHT NOW, may very well still exist, none the less. He points out that we can't see a black hole, but observe effects that apparently are caused by an extreme gravity event, so the evidence isn't the black hole, but what scientists say they see it's effect.

It is true, though, that since we are in the current state of our development, a "miracle" may seem to defy some law, but then before certain times, scientists may have thought that faster than sound travel was against the laws of physics, or something similar that today IS provable consistantly.

One final thought, yes, he is saying a true statement about anyone's religion (even the "flying spaghetti monster") being valid since no religion is any more provable than the other. It seems as though, mostly, what ever culture you're born into will be the religion that speaks to you. I can see why it is very hard to reach other cultures because of that, but it does happen from time to time.

Interesting thread.

Right, you hit the nail on the head here. Assuming something isn't provable or empirical right now, it has the same truth value as any other unlikely claim. My purple unicorn is just as valid as the Christian God, and that is precisely the case he makes at the end. Everything would be equally true, and it would result in contradictory things under the rules of logic. Now, either you can adhere to logic and say "Wow faith leads to a bunch of nonsense" or you can say "Ok well I believe in God anyway because (fill in blank)"

Assuming he had previously made a successful argument that abstract concepts (non mass/energy) were in fact non-existent, would it then be applicable? I'd think so, but I'd like your thoughts on that.

That would degrade the definition of "existence" in a way that defeats the purpose of the whole argument.

Assuming things/concepts like beauty don't actually exist (one might argue that they are just biochemical reactions in the brain), then we have precedences of "non-existent" things having a great impact on our daily lives. Under such circumstances "existence" becomes a mere artificial and counter-intuitive label without practical relevance.

No, it really wouldn't.

If you are a materialist, you posit words like "love" to chemicals in the brain. God, to a materialist, would then be nothing more than a chemical in the brain; "He" aids in some people's day to day lives, helps them get perspective, gives them some hope, but God would still ultimately be a chemical/electrical impulse. It would accurately explain why some feel so little from God while some feel so much from Him. And obviously, if we begin to assign the word "God" to a simple chemical, then he is disproved from the "omnipotent omniscient" deity he is claimed to be by many. And I think THAT is the main point.

I mean, you could argue that all thoughts are existent since they are grounded in energy within the brain. For example, beauty would be a concept which is "energy" organized in the brain. You could argue that a purple unicorn is existent because it is energy in my head. However, this is merely a semantical dodge of his argument. One could say, "There exists a pink unicorn that can fly," and it would "exist" because the thought was in my head. However, this use of the word "exist" is essentially meaningless. The argument that all thoughts are concepts would logically lead to the conclusion that EVERYTHING exists. Any thought I came up with would be an electrical impulse, and thus "existent." This results in logical absurdity (since contradictory existing things would happen).

I could think of a God with the premise "all powerful" and I could also think of the concept that God was an impossibility, and both would be equally valid.

I think this leads to the question of what definition of EXISTENCE really matters. Do I call love "existent" because I think or feel it? No. I call it a chemical in my brain that I enjoy with my partner when we are with each other, one that we want to last. Is love existent in the sense of some objective REAL thing? NO. It's just a chemical running through the body. Similarly, God could merely be a thought/chemical by existence.

So, what we are pursuing by the word "Existence" is an OBJECTIVE real thing acting upon physical bodies, and I think his argument addresses that.

 

[Jayls5]

I don't think Dawkins would truly deny that his book was really a rhetoric piece, and nothing is actually proved/disproved in his work.

I think it is quite apparent from his work that it is far from rhetorical. Rather, it's an elaborate argument from probability. No matter how improbable evolution and abiogenesis is, the very argument from complexity against it would be even stronger against the case of God.


I think he was quite clear on this in his book, "The God Delusion." Have you read it?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I don't think Dawkins would truly deny that his book was really a rhetoric piece, and nothing is actually proved/disproved in his work.

I think it is quite apparent from his work that it is far from rhetorical. Rather, it's an elaborate argument from probability. No matter how improbable evolution and abiogenesis is, the very argument from complexity against it would be even stronger against the case of God.


I think he was quite clear on this in his book, "The God Delusion." Have you read it?

Yes. Twice. I enjoyed it.

But Dawkins is a smart man, even he admits his outta of his league with philosophy a bit.

And remember, he really is arguing against a theistic god, not deistic, so again he does not attempt to disprove all gods, just one particular concept.

I believe I read that he even admitted the book was not so much as an attempt to disprove God (he does realize the impossibility of that because of definition), but rather it was a tool to pull closet atheists out in the open and spur debate. Something I think which was a success.

Have you read "River out of Eden"? It is a good book as well.

I think the next one that I will read is the Blind Watch Maker.

 

[Slevin]

Nitpick

'Space' is defined as having no matter or energy, and technically doesn't exist.

The Big Bang was an "expansion of spacetime". Space (and time) are physical entities which are not equal to nothingness.

Space and time are mathematical coordinates, like longitude and latitude on a globe, not physical things. Entities exist in a space-time continuum.

However, even if my counter-example were flawed, that still leaves the begging of the question...which you are doing as well. You are using a strictly materialistic definition of "existence", under which God doesn't fall by definition (just as concepts and ideas like "beauty").
That logic basically can be shortened to, "i define that God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist".

Your counter-argument is accurate, though, so I agree in that respect.

 

[Jayls5]

I don't think Dawkins would truly deny that his book was really a rhetoric piece, and nothing is actually proved/disproved in his work.

I think it is quite apparent from his work that it is far from rhetorical. Rather, it's an elaborate argument from probability. No matter how improbable evolution and abiogenesis is, the very argument from complexity against it would be even stronger against the case of God.


I think he was quite clear on this in his book, "The God Delusion." Have you read it?

Yes. Twice. I enjoyed it.

But Dawkins is a smart man, even he admits his outta of his league with philosophy a bit.

And remember, he really is arguing against a theistic god, not deistic, so again he does not attempt to disprove all gods, just one particular concept.

I believe I read that he even admitted the book was not so much as an attempt to disprove God (he does realize the impossibility of that because of definition), but rather it was a tool to pull closet atheists out in the open and spur debate. Something I think which was a success.

Have you read "River out of Eden"? It is a good book as well.

I think the next one that I will read is the Blind Watch Maker.

Oh I'm quite aware that he was only arguing against a theistic God. He mentioned this numerous times. The God's of Pantheism and Deism are arguably not God's at all, at least not to me. "God" for either of these is just shorthand for "logical structure" or some foundation of the universe that we can find out for ourselves.

I must maintain though, I don't think his piece was entirely rhetorical. Arguments were made with an intended purpose of arguing against (at the very least) the probability of a theistic God. I do agree that there was apparent rhetoric in the book; I grew annoyed by his emotional and moral appeals that were separate from the main arguments.

I would have to agree with your assessment that he's out of his league in the philosophy department. I've got a mere B.S. in philosophy, not all that substantial in the scheme of scholarly credentials. He references Kant's deontological ethics quite often, but he didn't seem to discuss the metaphysics grounding his science. Judging by his general outlook, it seems he probably adopted Kant's views from his "Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics." I wish he had explicitly discussed his position on the matter because I'm forced to speculate.

I'm yet to read his other books. I've read a synopsis of the river of eden, and I think that was sufficient for me given my current financial status.

 

[Jayls5]

Inevitably, all arguments against a deity or for a deity will be intrinsically flawed from the start.

God(s) are presumed to exist outside our dimensions, therefore any criteria we used based within our dimensional concept will fail.

Now, if you presume that God is not deistic, and is actually involved with the happenings of this world, then you could try to measure that and set up falsifiable hypothesis relating to that.

example - measure the effectiveness of prayer in a double blind study, look for archaeological evidence for evidence for/against happenings within the stories of religions (global flood, Sodom, etc.- even though any evidence really only supports the event, and not God really)

Now, if the evidence keeps returning to lack/support the existence, then you may make some scientific claims. But science really never says anything is proved one way or the other. Just the strength of evidence.

I figured I should refer back to this because I didn't really respond to it.

I don't think it's intellectually honest to say nothing is proved about a Theistic God by scientific testing. I mean, technically no science is 100% proved, precisely because it's an elaborate inductive argument. However, once the probability reaches a certain point, we call it it an absolute or law. In Kant's terminology, it's when we declare that our understanding of phenomena perfectly mirrors the noumena (even though we cannot TRULY know it, we assert that our understanding is objectively true).

Now, by scientifically testing a Theistic God, we slowly become certain of more and more things about "Him." If theists wanted us out of their business, they could assert that God does not honor scientific testing and appease science to prove He exists. By definition, NOTHING could be known about this God through science or any observable method. This would be just as meaningful as my flying purple unicorn though. The moment you claim God does anything in reality, he must be able to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. This is because we could take any "God willed" event claimed by a theist and analyze it for a more likely natural explanation. Assuming natural explanations are found, this slowly erodes the "miracle working" power of God. If you look at a real historical progression of this trend, we can see why theists are threatened by evolution. It's because their God's claimed miracles have systematically been realized to be profane by science.

 

[TanNinety]

Jayls5 - My purple unicorn is just as valid as the Christian God, and that is precisely the case he makes at the end. Everything would be equally true, and it would result in contradictory things under the rules of logic. Now, either you can adhere to logic and say "Wow faith leads to a bunch of nonsense" or you can say "Ok well I believe in God anyway because (fill in blank)"

That sounds good in theory where you would want to put faith in a Christian God and the purple unicorn on the same epistemological level but in all reality would you be able to produce any intersubjective verifiability that the Christians can show vs your purple unicorn?

Jayls5 - theists are threatened by evolution.

I think you should qualify that statement with "some/most" theists.

Jayls5 - The moment you claim God does anything in reality, he must be able to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. This is because we could take any "God willed" event claimed by a theist and analyze it for a more likely natural explanation.

This is where I agree that VaultZero4Me got it right. You can scrutinize the "claims of the theist". The falsification of the theist's claim does not prove the non-existence of God. The flaw in your argument is that you equate "natural explanation" to "evidence against God". This begs the question, "Is God incapabale of creating natural events by natural processes?"

Slevin - Space and time are mathematical coordinates, like longitude and latitude on a globe, not physical things. Entities exist in a space-time continuum.

Spactime is not an entity? But if it isn't an entity then how come large moving objects warp spacetime and how do we explain gravity and the expansion of the universe? Spacetime and longitude-latitude is comparing apples and oranges. Relativity relies on spacetime being an absolute entity, no?