"A Reasonable Argument for God's Existence" or maybe not.

[edhopper]

From the Huffpost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/a-reasonable-argument-for_b_831185.html

I see these articles from time to time in the mainstream. I can only think how pathetic the reasoning is and how bereft of any true argument the theist have on this.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. As pathetic as when Aristotle, that ignorant ass, first came up with the Prime Mover. But...

that's not the point.

It's easy for anyone to throw darts and proclaim an idea to be pathetic, standing back gazing on his pronouncement as the acme of profound enlightenment and waiting for the many accolades that follow it.

But, what's the alternative hypothesis? That may indeed be pathetic, but you still have to have a better idea or you look pretty pathetic yourself.

"We'll figure it out eventually" doesn't cut it. Until we actually do figure it out, a supreme intelligence is every bit as rational as scientific guessing.

[edhopper]

2. Considering there is zero evidence

for a Supreme creator, "We have been figuring it out and will continue to do so" is rational, some supernatural force counter to what we know, is not.

[humblebum]

21. When the scope of your epistemology is:

If I cannot see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or touch it, then it doesn't exist - then of course you cannot understand anyone rationalizing religious belief. Atheism itself borders on religion when it leans toward fanaticism.

[laconicsax]

22. And when the scope of your epistemology is:

I believe it, therefore it's true - then of course you cannot understand anyone not accepting your own beliefs as empirically true. Christianity is a religion with many fanatical adherents.

[humblebum]

23. You just proved my point. Most of us do not claim empirical proof.

that is the limitation of your reasoning, not ours

[laconicsax]

36. No, you just assert in absence of evidence and reason...

which was my point...I'm not surprised you didn't get it.

[edhopper]

29. Yes they are rationalizing

but not using reason. And it is not about me using my senses. that is the theist way of knowing something because they feel it.
It's about the use of scientific and critical investigation, using reproducible data from and of a vast array of instruments.

[humblebum]

31. Um?

"about the use of scientific and critical investigation, using reproducible data from and of a vast array of instruments." And that is usually referred to as EMPIRICAL evidence.
l

[darkstar3]

32. Explain to me then how scientists,

who you accuse of espousing this idiotic epistemology, believe that the electron exists. Be sure to show how you arrive at the conclusion that the electron can be seen, smelled, heard, tasted, or touched.

[humblebum]

33. Well, actually that falls well into the definition of empiricism.

"A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective empirical or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations." Wiki
"Experiences or observations" can only be actualized via the 5 physical senses, which is the definition of logical empiricism, which is the basis of the Scientific Method.

[darkstar3]

35. You didn't come close to answering the question.

Here's a review:

You are accusing people on this board and in scientific practice of adhering strictly to an epistemology limited to "If I cannot see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or touch it, then it doesn't exist."

Scientists believe that there is such a particle as an electron.

If you think that scientists only believe in what they can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch, then why not explain how scientists can do any of those things with an electron?

[humblebum]

37. I answered the question exactly as it should be answered.

Scientists do use empiricism to arrive at their conclusions. Never did I, nor does anyone say that electrons are large enough to be sensed, BUT the evidence or consequences that are observable, from data and experimentation are observable by the senses. You seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that empiricism is experience or observation obtained solely through the five senses, which of course are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, or the sense of touch. I cannot see the breeze, but I can feel its effects on my face. So to can the evidence of electrons be see by observing the consequences of experimentation. I will stick by my answer. If you can prove to me that empiricism is using something other than the senses then by all means. And if scientists use something other than empiricism to prove a theory, please let me know.

[darkstar3]

38. Now you've shifted the goalposts.

You claim: "So to can the evidence of electrons be see by observing the consequences of experimentation."

That is NOT close to what you said in post #21. For post #21 to be any more than a gross and purposeful oversimplification, you would need to be able to see, hear, feel, taste, or smell an electron. You understand that you cannot, and so you choose to move the goalposts and tell us all that scientists are seeing "consequences of experimentation."

Observation of data is not remotely the same as direct observation of an object. Your original claim in #21 is worthless. No one outside of the straw bogeyman in your mind adheres to the twisted definition of an epistemology you keep harping on.

[humblebum]

39. "Now you've shifted the goalposts" - a common retort, but

empiricism still boils down to "if you can't see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something then it probably doesn't exist. Empiricism is what it is. The evidence must be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched regardles whether or not that evidence is through direct observation, experimentation, or the consequences or results of experimentation. None of these can be achieved without using the senses - it's that simple.

[darkstar3]

40. Way to purposely ignore the point.

"Observation of data is not remotely the same as direct observation of an object. Your original claim in #21 is worthless. No one outside of the straw bogeyman in your mind adheres to the twisted definition of an epistemology you keep harping on."

And if you think you're not moving the goalposts, then tell me why you keep injecting words into your statement from #21. So far you've injected the word "probably", not to mention the word "evidence".

[humblebum]

41. You are doing everything you can to deny the meaning of empiricism.

Regardless of attempts to divert from the obvious truth at issue here, empiricism is still observation by the senses, whether it be observation of physical objects, effects, results, accumulated data or consequences - it is still empiricism. I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch you, BUT I can observe the visual evidence of your existence. I have before me empirical evidence that you exist. Good night.

[darkstar3]

42. And now, through your own words, you contradict #21,

showing that even you know that it was a gross oversimplification of the idea of empirical evidence. Thank you.

[humblebum]

43. Not at all. #21 can be restated and still say the same thing:

If I cannot observe or experience the evidence of something then it doesn't exist (or it probably can't exist, depending on that person's POV). It is only possible to observe any kind of objective evidence by using one or some or all of your five senses. Last I knew, science never accepted any other kind of proof. There is no over simplification here. Experiencing or observing evidence ARE using the senses. I can look at an apple, or I can observe an apple - there is no difference. If I am blind and cannot see that apple, but can smell the scent or touch the apple, I am still experiencing or gaining empirical evidence of an apple. There is no over simplification. Just your revulsion of such a simple definition.

[darkstar3]

44. There you go again, injecting words, adding caveats and addendums,

and poorly defending your use of a straw man. Anyone capable of comprehending the English language and simple argumentation can compare and contrast #21 and #43, and recognize the vast difference in simplicity between them.

Oh, and BTW, your apple analogy here is worthless. You're still talking about direct observation of the apple. So not only are you poorly defending your straw man through expansion of your definition, you are showing that you don't know the difference between direct observation and evidence.

[humblebum]

48. I think the straw man accusation is another one of your common retorts.

Right up there with "conflation". "Difference between direct observation and evidence"- um? Isn't that kinda like the difference between a noun and a verb? Last I knew, some types of evidence can be directly observed, which of course is empirical confirmation of evidence or IOW "sensing" the evidence. Or it could be stated,"If it can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or "sensed" by touch - it doesn't exist, or probably doesn't exist, or cannot exist. There just is no getting around it. If you are empirically confirming something, it is being sensed.

[darkstar3]

49. You are abusing transitive logic.

Let me see if I can get this through to you another way.

Here is the gist of what you're trying to say, and the point where your entire defense and your original claim break down. "If you are empirically confirming something, it is being sensed."

Now, to see why I have a problem with this statement, and with the claims you have been making about scientists and the use of their five senses, let's think about the Large Hadron Collider.

Which of the five human senses picks up on the existence of particles generated by impacts in the LHC? The answer, of course, is NONE of them. These particles cannot even be "seen" by using augmentative tools such as microscopes. The particles cannot, under any circumstances, interact with any of the five human senses. Therefore, the particles are not being sensed, and your simplification is worthless. You are ignoring, purposely, the concepts of instrumentation and measurement. Your abuse of the transitive property comes when you try to claim that seeing the measurement data is the same as seeing the object. It is not. THAT is the difference between observation and evidence.

Yet another example: Can you "sense" the nitrogen in the air around you? Certainly you can sense the air, since you breathe it and can feel wind if you are outside or near a ventilation system, but that just proves that the air exists, and doesn't get into its composition. How do we empirically prove that air is mostly nitrogen? None of our senses can help us, here. Sophisticated instrumentation must first be designed, then employed to create data. Then the data must be reviewed and interpreted properly. Then, most importantly, the entire process must be repeated again and again to ensure representative accuracy of the data. At no time do we manage to see, hear, smell, taste, or touch the nitrogen in the air. No direct observation of its existence is made. However, using empirical evidence gathered through various chemical and physical processes carried out through the use of sophisticated instrumentation, we can build a case for nitrogen's existence in air, and then go about measuring its partial pressure.

To put it simply: The difference between direct observation and evidence is the difference between witnessing a shooting and seeing a picture of a gunshot wound.

I can come up with a myriad of items that science has empirical evidence for which cannot be interacted with in any way by the five human senses. Two of these are listed above, to be added to the original example of an electron. Therefore, by multiple examples, your statement of "If you are empirically confirming something, it is being sensed" is quite false.

Finally, the reason you believe that people have developed "standard" responses is because you are a repetitive bullshitter. When someone points out to you that you are using a straw man, or conflating two ideas, you will continue to restate your hypothesis (worded in a different way) as supporting fact and claim that this new "evidence" that you've submitted requires new and different refutation. Re-wording a straw man argument does not make it any less faulty logic. It is quite clear that empirical evidence, contrary to your continued repetition, is gathered through processes that are much more complex than simply seeing, hearing, smelling, feeling, or tasting the object of investigation. Your straw man is burned to ashes, and if you wish to continue beating on those ashes, you may do so alone.

[humblebum]

50. I have already referred to

"purposely, the concepts of instrumentation and measurement." BTW, this is another straw man argument you are using. I "empiricize" you making a fool of yourself.

[edhopper]

53. So how do you know God exists?

Since you belittle the scientific approach of discovery as so limited, what experience leads you to be sure God exists?
Is there a feeling you get? (A feeling obviously not linked to the senses) or do you have some philosophical idea that needs no evidence to justify it?

[humblebum]

56. Now your collection of straw men and red herrings are getting

too hard to cover up. Never did I "belittle the scientific approach of discovery." I merely stated exactly what empiricism is. It really is nothing more than obtaining evidence through the use of the 5 senses, use of instrumentation, etc. included (Galileo used a telescope). Also the Scientific Method, by its own admission and parameters is limited. I belittled nothing. You have now switched the conversation again. We have been down this road many times before and as you well know, there are certain types of "evidence" that the SM rejects as such that are plainly stated in the definition of Logical Empiricism, i.e. metaphysical inquiry, intuition, a priori knowledge, and " A feeling obviously not linked to the senses", etc.

[edhopper]

63. But you did not answer the question

How do you know God exists?

[humblebum]

64. That's because I try not to answer strawmen unless it serves a purpose,

But in this case, I believe God exists for a variety of reasons. Personal insight and experience. Observations of other believers. Experiences of other believers. History. Reason. I've experienced life with and without God and there's is no way I would ever choose to be without again.

[darkstar3]

65. Ah. "No zealot like a convert."

I see now where your incessant need to run down people who don't believe like you comes from. Psychology in action...

[humblebum]

67. Do you feel better now? nt

[humblebum]

66. Delete

[edhopper]

68. And if I were to tell you those very same

reasons lead me to be very sure that God does not exist? Why is your view correct and mine not? Only one of us can be right.
You seem to be advocating a purely subjective viewpoint to establish the existence of something that objectively cannot be shown.

[humblebum]

69. Yep! No doubt about it. NT

[edhopper]

70. Glad you see

the inadequacy of your argument.

[humblebum]

71. Do you also realize that the argument that claims that there is no god because

such god cannot be detected by empirical means is also subjective? Not all evidence is objective. What makes it objective is that it is accepted by everyone. Or more to the point, that the evidence is testable and repetitive from one person to another. Incidentally, it is totally adequate for me and others, regardless of what non-believers think.

[cleanhippie]

72. There are subjective VIEWPOINTS, but not subjective EVIDENCE.

Evidence, by its very definition, is objective.

Subjective evidence is like an anecdote; it may describe an experience, but it does not prove the cause. It is merely opinion and nothing more.

[humblebum]

73. If I see Bigfoot, but he runs away and leaves no trail, who will

believe me? No one or very few. I have seen the evidence of Bigfoot (Not really, you understand), therefore it would be totally evident to me, but subjective to everyone else because I cannot provide objective proof. Of course there is subjective evidence. Circumstantial evidence in a courtroom can be subjective evidence, if there is more than one way to interpret such evidence.

[laconicsax]

74. Glad you can admit that your god is little more than an urban legend.

:rofl:

[humblebum]

75. No more of an urban legend than to say there is no god.

It's all subjective.

[laconicsax]

76. Uh huh. Say hi to Rumpelstiltskin for me.

After all, whether or not he exists is all subjective.

[humblebum]

77. My point exactly.

The difference is that there is a much larger body of subjective evidence to suggest the existence of diety than Rumpelstiltskin.

[edhopper]

78. So now you are saying that there is no such thing as

objective evidence.
Well I guess our worldview is vastly different (I for one accept the Scientific Method as a way of discovering objective evidence).

[humblebum]

80. Where you got that idea from anything I have said I have no idea. nt

[laconicsax]

79. Really? Well I have a more significant body of subjective evidence to suggest...

that Rumpelstiltskin spun your god out of straw, and you can't prove me wrong.

[humblebum]

81. Oh really? Then show me ancient texts and prophecies and testimonies and ontological justifications

and the like that tell of your little buddy.

[cleanhippie]

83. All of that holds no more weight than a copy of Rumpelstiltskin I buy at the bookstore.

You seem to imply that "ancient texts and prophecies and testimonies and ontological justifications" somehow PROVE your subjective viewpoint. How do you PROVE something? You use empirical evidence. What empirical evidence do you have that proves any of it?

[laconicsax]

85. Atlanta exists, the American Civil War happened, therefore Scarlett O'Hara was a real person.

Duh.

[humblebum]

87. Subjective "proof" is subjective, empirical proof is objective. Pretty

self-explanatory.

[cleanhippie]

89. Uh, "proof" cannot be subjective.

evidence is one thing, proof is another.

[humblebum]

92. Actually, it can be subjective. the Scientific Method has been

adapted and modified to be used by many different disciplines and with each one the "proof" that is accepted or recognized in the particular discipline varies in degree of objectivity vs. subjectivity. "Proof" in science or math is not the same as in psychology, law, business, or history, etc.

[darkstar3]

94. So now you're saying psychology isn't science?

I'll grant you that law and history are not science, and certainly business as a practice is not science, but then, leaders in these fields do not use the scientific method to make decisions. You are grasping so hard at straws in order to support your idea of "subjective proof" that you've managed to eject psychology from the field of science and at the same time claim that business leaders use the scientific method as an important tool in their decision-making process. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

Your point here is just so much toast. "Subjective evidence" and "subjective proof" are both oxymorons. The point of evidence is that it shows the same information to everyone. The point of proof is that it is a logical conclusion that cannot be avoided given the evidence. Both evidence and proof must mean the same to everyone they are presented to, and therefore they must be objective.

[humblebum]

95. Psychology is considered a "soft" science, as opposed to "hard"

science such as chemistry, etc. I should have been more specific. But, I think you already knew that. And yes those other disciplines do use a variation of the SM to make decisions, e.g. Legal Positivism.

[darkstar3]

96. Unless you have a reliable source for that claim about psychology

(meaning something aside from Wikipedia), I'm calling bullshit. As for other disciplines using "a variation of the SM to make decisions", that's a specious claim. There is a WORLD of difference between following the scientific method, including the necessary iterations during the data collection process, and making simple evidence-based decisions.

[humblebum]

97. So are you saying that psychology is not a "soft" science?

Possibly someday it won't be, but for now it is considered that. And I never said that the actual SM was used. I said that variations are used. The method itself is a very logical step by step system that is very adaptable to many, many things. BTW, we have been down this road before.

[darkstar3]

98. No sources?

Why am I not surprised? I'd ask you to source your claims, or explain in detail how you can possibly claim that completely unscientific fields use variations of the scientific method, but you'll only dodge the question...

And we've been down this road before because, as I said above, you're a repetitive bullshitter.

[humblebum]

99. Sometimes you make me just shake my head darkstar. I can

remember piling source uopon source before you and you still remaining in denial by attacking the sources, including well known scholars and primary sources. There are many concerning the flexibility and applicability of the SM. A few are:

http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/sec5982/week_1/inquiry_sci_method02.pdf

http://srikant.org/core/node2.html

http://www.scientificmethod.com/index.html

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/BEYPOSIT.PDF


As far as psychology being a "soft" science, I think it will at some point begin being considered "hard", but as for now?

http://bill.silvert.org/notions/ecology/hardsoft.htm

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-soft-science.htm

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Science

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.1/soft.htm

[darkstar3]

100. Wow, so you can google.

Now, howsabout you actually read the links you've posted, along with your drivel.

Remember the path we took here: First, you ejected psychology from the field of science, and then when called on it you defended yourself by saying it's a "soft science," as if "soft" sciences are somehow not really sciences because they don't use the actual scientific method. That's not true. Your sources indicate that social sciences are referred to as "soft" by laypeople because they don't include high levels of applied mathematics. That, however, doesn't change the fact that they still use the scientific method, they still require the same levels of experimental rigor, and they still rely on empirical evidence.

As for your links on the scientific method itself, you're substituting my argument for something ridiculous and then attacking that ridiculous item, otherwise known as a straw man. I never said that the scientific method wasn't flexible. I never said it wasn't broadly applicable. What I DID say is that the evidence-based decision making processes engaged in by people far outside of scientific fields (like business leaders) is NOT the scientific method or a variation of it. Why? Because the scientific method, and any variation that could be rightfully compared to it, involves experimentation and iteration.

And speaking of making people shake their heads, how many logical fallacies do you think you can work into a single subthread? So far I've seen red herrings, straw men, appeals to authority, appeals to ignorance, and wisdom of the ancients. Let's complete the scene...throw me an ad hom and show me one more time the level of intellectual integrity you bring to these debates...

[humblebum]

101. Why is it that I knew you would reject something

right before your eyes? You're all mouth darkstar. You just rejected Karl Popper.

[darkstar3]

102. Aaaaand scene...

[humblebum]

103. More like BS and blather. you are too predictable. nt

[cleanhippie]

104. Wow, I think darkstar is clairvoyant! He called it exactly!

He said the only thing missing from your arguments was an ad hom, and VOILA! You shat one.

Your dishonesty in this subthread has lead me to believe that you will never be able to have a meaningful conversation, as you will never admit when you are wrong, ever.

Don't expect me to engage you anymore. :hi: buh-bye.

[humblebum]

105. Whatever dishonesty you are referring to I have no idea, but I think

you have expressed your no engagement sentiment before. The ignore function works wonders. Give it a try.

[cleanhippie]

106. I won't put you on actual ignore, because then I would miss all the little gems you spew.

But ignore you, I will.

[humblebum]

107. And you are doing such a good job of it. But you still accused me of being dishonest

without backing up your accusation.

[cleanhippie]

108. ignored

[humblebum]

109. When you accuse someone of being dishonest and then

refuse to back up your statement, it means that you have no substance to your character. In other words, it is a bullying tactic and should always be called. When your partner in crime makes such obviously distorted statements as
"Remember the path we took here: First, you ejected psychology from the field of science, and then when called on it you defended yourself by saying it's a "soft science," as if "soft" sciences are somehow not really sciences because they don't use the actual scientific method. That's not true. Your sources indicate that social sciences are referred to as "soft" by lay people because they don't include high levels of applied mathematics. That, however, doesn't change the fact that they still use the scientific method, they still require the same levels of experimental rigor, and they still rely on empirical evidence."
Yes, psychology is a soft science and nowhere did I say that it was not a science. That was a deliberate distortion of the truth (to be civil). And never did I say that they didn't use the scientific method. I have emphasized the SM as a principle of unification of disciplines, not narrowly restricted to the "hard" sciences, as some portray. It is not called "the SCIENCE METHOD". It is the "Scientific Method", which put the emphasis on method, not on science.
So if you are going to call someone dishonest, you had better be ready to back it up or admit your error, or is "distorting the truth" part of your character?

[laconicsax]

110. LOL! The scientific method isn't about science?

:rofl:

Just when I thought you couldnt get any funnier.

[humblebum]

111. Those are your words not mine. It's about science and a whole lot more.

Otherwise, it would probably be called 'The Science Method', but kinda hard to call it that when history and business and law use it too.

[laconicsax]

112. Your words, and I quote:

"It is the "Scientific Method", which put the emphasis on method, not on science."

Quite the amazing statement amid that lengthy ad hominem. I find it absolutely fascinating (and hilarious) to watch you try to divorce science from its method. And for what? To try to win an argument you already lost?

[humblebum]

113. And I will stand by that statement because that is the way it was designed.

Nowhere have I "divorce(d) science from it's method." Again those are your words, not mine. Science could not be conducted without the SM, but science certainly is not the only discipline that uses the method. It is very scientific you know?

[laconicsax]

114. You're the one insisting that the method of science isn't science's method.

:eyes:

[humblebum]

115. In that case I would challenge you to define science if you think that

the SM was not designed as an attempt to unify the processes for conducting a wide range of disciplines. Otherwise, goodnight.

[cleanhippie]

116. ignored

[laconicsax]

84. Forgeries all.

Rumpelstiltskin appeared to me in a dream and revealed the splendor of His creation to me. He also said that He created your god out of love, and was repaid for His kindness with contempt and lies.

Furthermore, He told me that He would prove Himself to me with a sign. The next day, I saw straw scattered on the side of the road and I knew that Rumpelstiltskin was the One True God!

Prove me wrong, if you can.

[skepticscott]

93. There is also a much larger body

of objective evidence to suggest the existence of Santa Claus than of the Abrahamic God.

[cleanhippie]

82. In your make-believe scenario (which is eerily similar to another not so make-believe)

if you saw "something" and "thought" it was bigfoot, yet no evidence whatsoever existed to prove to anyone else, even yourself, that you did, in fact see bigfoot and not some other perfectly plausible animal, then there is no reason to believe that you saw anything other than what your imagination helped you to see.

[humblebum]

86. What if several people saw him(or her) or it came up and kissed you

but then ran off and still nothing but the fond memory of the kiss from an unknown hairy stranger, then what?

[cleanhippie]

88. Then all there would be is a memory, and nothing more. But that does not answer the question

I asked.

[laconicsax]

90. I'm not sure that most people would remember sexual assault fondly. n/t

[humblebum]

91. Then it would certainly be subjective wouldn't it. There may have been some

smell, or any number of physical clues, but still subjective. Many variables.

[skepticscott]

51. See how easily it moves the target from

"If I cannot see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or touch it, then it doesn't exist"

To: "empiricism still boils down to "if you can't see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something then it probably doesn't exist."

To: "The evidence must be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched"

Not to mention repeating for the hundredth time what it claims is a quote about the fundamental nature of empiricism, but always without attribution.

[darkstar3]

52. It's like nailing down Jello, innit?

The trick is to outline it with nails. I think I succeeded...

[humblebum]

57. Where in those statements is there any vacillation from what the 5 senses entail? And

if I say "it doesn't exist" or "probably doesn't exist", I am merely expressing different POV's that commonly expressed by skeptics. Neither is exclusive to all skeptics.

"If I cannot see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or touch it, then it doesn't exist"

To: "empiricism still boils down to "if you can't see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something then it probably doesn't exist."

To: "The evidence must be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched"

As far as attribution, I have many times quoted the def. of empiricism. A scientist like yourself should not have to be told what its limitations are. But then again, I've got to consider whom I am addressing.

The subject matter is virtually unlimited: "A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable BY THE SENSES. It is differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically". Empirical is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/e/Empiricism.htm

[cleanhippie]

59. The denial is string in this one.

:wtf:

[cleanhippie]

58. Uh, humblebum, you just DIRECTLY contradicted yourself.

Well, actually that falls well into the definition of empiricism

Scientists do use empiricism to arrive at their conclusions


Two posts, contradicting statements

[humblebum]

60. I see no contradiction. You'd better explain. Understanding

empirical inquiry is just not that difficult of a concept. It is nothing more than knowledge gained through observation or experience (physical), which can only be attained by using the senses (including instrumentation and experimentation), of which there are five recognized.

[cleanhippie]

62. My mistake.

Got ahead of myself and thought you said they do NOT use...


my apologies.

[qazplm]

46. well I am pretty sure

we can image electrons...we can also predict with great repetition a whole host of things that if the electron (or something 99.99 percent like it) didn't exist wouldn't be so.

We can even control them so that only one of them passes at a time through a device or area.

I understand you can't see them with visible light but you can "see" them in other ways. There is little faith involved in the electron.

Now String theory or even to a certain extent the big bang theory might be a little closer to your point (less big bang, more string theory).

And you can absolutely touch an electron, just stick something sharp and metal into a light socket and you will touch a ton of them.

[humblebum]

34. BTW, I never said that it was an "idiotic" epistemology, only

a limited one, and certainly not the only one.

[Goblinmonger]

54. It's not just about the senses

It's about the fact that there is NO proof for it. No effect that can be seen. NOTHING. Do you believe everything that there is no proof for? It isn't rational if it isn't testable. How is that so hard to understand? And why do you theists that hate atheists so much try so hard to make us religious? Seems odd.

[humblebum]

61. You've got two things going on here.

Most importantly in response to: "why do you theists that hate atheists so much try so hard to make us religious?" I don't hate atheists and I'm not trying hard to make you religious. About your NO PROOF statement. You are operating from the orientation of an entirely different epistemology than does a religious believer. That makes all the difference.

[darkstar3]

15. Your last sentence is known as "God of the Gaps," and it is not remotely rational.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. I am very well familiar with God of the Gaps, and...

congratulations for misreading that last sentence to oversimplify it and finding a way to display your knowledge.

GOTG, btw, really has nothing to so with rationality-- it is simply a description of a condition.

[darkstar3]

25. It is a description of an irrational jump to a conclusion,

which is exactly what you do when you posit the existence of a supreme intelligence as any form of explanation.

[qazplm]

47. I won't call it "pathetic"

but I can call it ignorant and based on a lack of information.

Logic has its strengths but it still relies in part on a base of knowledge, that's why folks like Aristotle and other ancient philosophers and scientists, while every bit as brilliant as we are today, still didn't have enough information to meld with that logic to always reach truth. That's why Newton, who was probably smarter than Einstein, still didn't quite get the right answer on gravity while Einstein did. Einstein simply had access to more information.

I suspect anyone who makes the argument that we haven't a clue how life started and it's all just "guessing" simply doesn't know enough to know what they are talking about. That is not to say we have all of the answers, or heck even most of the answers, but we have some information which takes it a little pass no clue and guessing.

We'll figure it out actually does cut it. It's called the scientific method, and it's our process for "figuring it out." Until we reach a point where we cannot come up with and have eliminated all scientific possibilities aka non-supernatural, only then should one turn to the supernatural to attempt to explain something, including how we got here.

The article talks about how the odds are against amino acids and proteins forming, and they are right, if one assumes all processes are completely random, and that certain processes don't have preferred pathways, or that chemistry doesn't have rules that narrow the possible combinations of elements, compounds, etc.

You put the right things together in the right environment and you get amino acids. All of the constituent parts are fairly common, and water is also something that is fairly common. We see the building blocks for amino acids and proteins in meteorites all of the time. Obviously, these things form fairly frequently in the solar system formation process. It isn't then so astronomical to think they could come together and chemistry and time couldn't lead to life.

[GodlessBiker]

3. "Everyone agrees to the appearance of design." Like hell! If everything is designed,

then nothing is. That is, it is only because we see differences in things that are clearly designed and not designed, that we can call some things designed and other other things not designed. If, in fact, everything was designed, how would we know it? If everything were red, how would we know it?

[skepticscott]

26. The only way we judge

whether something is designed is by its similarity to something else that we already KNOW is designed. There is nothing inherent in any thing that proves design.

[GodlessBiker]

28. Very true.

[Speck Tater]

4. All attempts to prove the NON-existence of God are equally pathetic.

Which is why the whole question is pointless to even ponder.

Is there a God? We don't know. We can't know. We will never know. And who cares anyway? Either hypothesis makes ZERO difference to my daily life, so why waste time even thinking about it?

On Edit: Just to clarify my position, I live my daily life AS IF there is no God. That works for me, and does not require me to prove anything to anybody.

[Deep13]

6. I don't agree.

First of all, efforts to prove or disprove are not necessarily "pathetic." What I object to are proofs of god that are based on fallacies and simply wrong information. I have yet to read any argument that does not rely on a logical fallacy simply because no actual evidence has ever been discovered.

On the other hand, the negative case actually has quite a bit of evidence to support it. Some of it is direct like natural selection which precludes any divine or any other kind of intent or planning int he development of life. Some is indirect like the fact that an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good creator's presence ought to be pretty damned obvious. My own feeling is that we know enough to be able to rule out all but the most practically irrelevant and detached definitions of god.

[Speck Tater]

9. I agree. The negative case has a LOT of evidence. But evidence is not proof.

And if the discussion is about "proof" then we should not side step the issue of "proof" by substituting the issue of "evidence" and then acting as if evidence is the same thing as proof.

I'm sure no geometry professor in the world would give a passing grade to a student who provided "evidence" when asked to provide a "proof". Measuring a thousand right triangles gives a LOT of evidence to favor the Pythagorean theorem, but that evidence, regardless of its shear volume, is not even remotely similar to "proof".

However, devil's advocate aside, the preponderance of evidence is WHY I live my life AS IF there is no God. It is a workable assumption supported by the evidence. But it is not, and never will be proven. I accept it as an unprovable assumption and leave it at that.

[Deep13]

10. You're using the word proof in a mathematical sense.

In common speaking, proof means enough evidence to make a person convinced that something is true, usually by eliminating other possibilities.

[Speck Tater]

11. True. You are correct. But my degrees are in math and engineering.

And as a retired engineer I use the words in the strictest sense. Otherwise we're on a slippery slope of "words mean whatever I say they mean".

This is probably why theologians make claims of "proof" which scientists scoff at. Unless they both define "proof" in the same way they might as well not even open their mouths because whatever they are doing by flapping their jaws, it's NOT communication.

The other problem with conflating "evidence" with "proof" is the issue of what constitutes "valid" evidence. The occultist might say that the fact that every culture throughout recorded history has had stories of ghosts returning to haunt the living constitutes strong evidence of an afterlife. The scientist would counter with "your evidence is not acceptable to me", and we're back at square one. One man's evidence is another man's delusional fantasy. There is no standard of evidence acceptable to all parties.

Not so with "proof" in the strictest sense. There is one and only one strong, mathematical standard of proof. That's NOT open to debate. It is what it is. So "evidence" can NEVER measure up to the rigorous standards of "proof" regardless of what the great unwashed masses think the word "proof" means.

Perhaps to avoid further confusion I should refer to "proof" in the mathematical sense as "formal proof". In that case, I think it's safe to say that deists present a great deal of evidence (to their own standards of evidence) that God exists, and atheists present a great deal of evidence (to their own standards of evidence) that God or gods of any kind do not exist. But neither side has, or even will, present a formal proof of either position.

So my position is, and remains, I don't really care one way or the other whether there is or is not a God or gods, because either way, to me it has no effect whatsoever on the daily business of living my life.

[Deep13]

13. My background is in law which has its own definitions.

"Facts" include not only what happened and when, but issues like guilt, failure to prove guilt and insanity--things most people would regard as mere opinions. And "proof" is similar to what I said the common understanding is--evidence of sufficient quality and amount that convinces the jury. It's pretty subjective. And the law considers things to be evidence that a scientist would find pretty unconvincing--eyewitness accounts (anecdotal, basically), hearsay, inferences and presumptions. Plus, the jury is prohibited from considering certain things that are clearly relevant, but kept out for public policy reasons.

I don't care that there's no god. If I thought gods did exist, I might have to re-evalute how I live and view the world.

[skepticscott]

27. Mathematicians mean one thing

when they use the word "proof" or "prove" and scientists mean something quite different. Even theologians themselves have no clue what they mean when THEY use it, nor are they capable of providing a rational answer when asked to explain their use of it.

But nothing in science is ever "proven" in the mathematical sense of absolute certainty, no matter how much empirical evidence is accumulated, and no responsible scientist would ever claim otherwise. Science is ultimately not about "proving" things, but about finding the best and most likely explanations for things. If other people misattribute a degree of certainty to scientific truths that scientists themselves do not claim, the error is theirs and not science's.

[edhopper]

7. Burden of proof is on those that make the claim.

The absence of any proof is very good evidence that what is claimed does not exists.
Do i need to disprove faeries or unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? How about N ray orsmart water. Or simply state there is zero evidence of their existence.

[ZombieHorde]

12. Some types of gods can be proven to be nonexistent.

For example; the type of god described by Jesus Christ in the Christian Holy Bible is obviously false because Christians can't safely drink poison, and they don't posses magical healing powers.

[TheMadMonk]

14. No reasonable person attempts to prove the non-existence of god.

We are perfectly satisfied with the simple lack of a need for any god to explain the world around us.

We are perfectly satisfied to wallow in our lack of "ultimate surety", since it's only when we acknowledge that we DON'T have all the answers (not even by unknowable proxy), that we can begin to ask the RIGHT questions.


It might also be fun to point out to Rabbi Jacobs and his ilk that dumping their self imposed ignorance in the lap of their god is a direct insult to him and to the gift of intelligence he supposedly gave them to separate them from the animals.

To willfully blind oneself to the true glory of His (or Her) creation simply because objective reality doesn't agree with sujective preconceptions inspired by a collection of doubly plagurised stories insults any god worthy of deification far more than any atheist's simple denial of need for His (or Their) existance.

And while we're about it, let's ask the good Rabbi how he reconciles HIM condemning HIS people to wander the Earth until HE returns, with the current occupation of Palestine.

Unless we're going to get all metaphysical and declare that God won't manifest because it would destroy our free will to do so, and while God won't, Satan can't without demonstrating by inferrence the reality of God and hence again destroying man's freedom to descend in his own handbasket.

Which, leads to one final and compelling argument on the subject of the OP. Given the premise that Free Will was a gift of God's (and Knowledge of Good and Evil a curse of Satan's) then the only possible argument, is that with the bestowing of their "endowments" both God and Satan removed themselves from our purview entirely and all arguments as to their existance within that context is now entirly moot.

Whatever existance God (and any auxiliaries (good or evil)) might have had in the past, the simple presence of Free Will and value systems (no matter how varied) today demonstrates and in fact demands the current non-existance of any deific entities. Else Free Will is simply an cruel illusion to be stripped from us in that moment when we rediscover God under some metaphysical sofa cushion.

Furthermore, in that discovery would come a second. The true gift would have to be the roadmap to salvation (knowledge of good and evil) and the true curse, the Free Will to turn from that path for the sake of short term profit.

'Tis the mark of the true con artist. To tell the "mark" every single step of the way exactly how they are going to screw him over, and do it anyway.

Strikes me that the entire opening Chapter of the Bible constitutes full disclousure in that respect.

[Deep13]

18. I think free will is an illusion that doesn't really exist.

And reasonable people have not only attempted to prove the nonexistence of gods, they have largely succeeded. (I'm using the word "prove" in the common sense and not the mathematical sense.)

[GodlessBiker]

30. Are attempts to prove the non-existence of unicorns pathetic? How about two-inch ...

pink elephants that hide whenever you look at them? How about ... you get the point.

Anyone can concoct anything and then dare someone to prove it doesn't exist.

[laconicsax]

5. And atheists get criticized for "shallow" thinking.

'Science doesn't have all the answers, therefore my petty desert god exists. I just can't see any other possibility'

:eyes:

[Deep13]

8. So, ignorance = "god did it!" ... again?

Even if I accept that scientists have no idea how life began--and I don't--it only means that it is a difficult subject to investigate. We are talking about something that happened four billion years ago when the Earth would have been a very different place than it is now. So it is not surprising that they don't know exactly. No known answer is not the same as no answer possible. God does not win by default and faith is not evidence.

Still, scientists have a rough idea. All over the hot, chemically active Earth organic (carbon-based) molecules where being formed and dissolved making complex molecules. This happens naturally and has been duplicated in the lab. This happened for millions of years all over the world. Countless trillions of reactions happening year after year, century after century. Throw the dice enough times and the unlikely becomes inevitable. What are the odds of throwing five dice and getting all sixes? Pretty remote. But what if a hundred players spend a month throwing dice over and over again? Well, someone is going to get all sixes with one throw at least once. Eventually, a molecule that had the chemical properties for self replication occurred. That began the evolutionary process.

[trotsky]

16. His piece reads like something a YEC (Young Earth Creationists) would throw out.

All that's missing is the tired old "747 in a junkyard" faulty analogy.

No one is saying that RNA had to spontaneously assemble itself in the primordial soup. As you rightly point out - all you need are organic molecules and an environment for them to interact with each other. And then - just ONE molecule, as you note, "had the chemical properties for self replication." The rest is history, leading right up to you & me.

[Deep13]

17. When people ask when life began...

...it seems to be with an assumption that life is someone intrinsically different from non-living chemical processes. At noon there were only nonliving, self-replicating molecules, but at 12:01 there was life. There is an unspoken assumption that life contains an extra property--a divine spark, a soul, whatever. They don't understand that there was no definitive moment or point in development where there was suddenly a living thing. Life is an enormously complex collection of very ordinary chemical processes that is no different in nature than rust, erosion, combustion or any other chemical process.

[charlie]

20. Jacobs knows that

He allows it real quickly at the end:

I make that statement with a full awareness of the fact that scientists hypothesize the prior existence of "simple" self replicating molecules that led up to the emergence of the DNA based bacterium; but this just pushes the question back a step.

If he's at all familiar with the people he's quoting, then he'll know that it doesn't just "push the question back." His whole argument hinges on the event's improbability, which is why he uses Robert Shapiro's Scrabble analogy for RNA. However, Shapiro has written a Scientific American article positing simple precursors as a better bet for life's origins. He also says if that turns out to be correct...

If the general small-molecul paradigm were confirmed, then our expectations of the place of life in the universe would also change. A highly implausible start for life, as in the RNA-first scenario, implies a universe in which we are alone. In the words of the biochemist Jacques Monod: “The universe was not pregnant with life nor the biosphere with man. Our number came up in the Monte Carlo game.”

The small molecule alternative, however, is in harmony with the views of biologist Stuart Kauffman: “If this is all true, life is vastly more probable than we have supposed. Not only are we at home in the universe, but we are far more likely to share it with as yet unknown companions.”

http://www.robertshapiro.org/a_simpler_origin_for_life_78187.htm

And the Rabbi Averick that Jacobs is cribbing from is a joke, a Rabbi Boteach in print. His book's first chapter is online, so we call all appreciate how he "demonstrated the high degree of intellectual vigor of theistic reasoning."

http://www.rabbimaverick.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=87

This excerpt from an exchange he had with a blogger who reviewed his book shows pretty much all you need to know about his reasoning:

The creation of a bacterium in the lab would prove one thing very clearly: In order to have a bacterium you need an intelligent designer.

Why would you think that if a scientist creates life in the lab that this somehow excludes God?

If in order to create a bacterium you require the most brilliant scientific minds using cutting edge technology in the laboratory, then who was around to do the same thing on the prebiotic earth? This would be the greatest proof of all of intelligent design.

http://www.cautionchurchahead.com/2011/02/rabbi-moshe-averick-replies-to.html

[Meldread]

19. You have a very tiny God, Rabbi.

Rabbi:

You've effectively restricted your deity to the fringes of the unknown in hope of protecting him from scrutiny. You've proclaimed your deity as the "God of the Gaps" - but where will your God hide when those gaps in knowledge are filled?

Make no mistake, this is exactly what you're doing - you're hiding God. You're tucking him away into some obscure place to protect his existence. You want to embrace science, this much is clear, and the reasons are obvious. However, you've clearly faced a conundrum: with each knew growth you experience in understanding you've found it more and more difficult to hold onto your old view of God. As a result, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you've abandoned the traditional notions of God as defined by Jews, Christians, and Muslims around the world. Instead, you've attempted to create a new definition to fit the new understanding, perhaps dismissing the old as metaphor and elaborate interpretation of ancient people who lacked proper modern understanding. All of this, of course, is ironic because it means you're falling into the same trap that you've claimed the ancients fell into - assuming that just because something isn't known, that it can never be known.

I understand your reluctance Rabbi to admit the truth. The truth is horrible no matter how you look at it. Either God is so alien and distant from humanity as to be virtually non-existent or there is no God at all. Those are the only logical conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence before us.

In either case it throws the entire religious world view into disarray. If we simply look at the world and assume that what we see is what a distant, unknowable, alien God intended, or that it is just random happenstance and no divine power was involved at all... the conclusions are frightening. It means that there is no divine power that cares about you. That your life is fundamentally meaningless. That humanity is meaningless. That our planet is merely one distant pale blue dot orbiting a single star within a cosmos of trillions upon trillions of stars and planets. It means that even if some distant divine power exists that it likely would be as upset over a dead butterfly as it would over the extinction of our entire species.

The difference between us, Rabbi is this: We both look at this likely truth and dislike it. We both desire more. You have retreated into the realm of mysticism and superstition, hurling your deity into the gaps in our knowledge in an effort to protect him - but more importantly, to allow yourself to continue to suspend your disbelief. I have viewed this likely truth and have accepted it as fact. I accepted that we're on our own, that we cannot depend on benevolence from above, and that both individually and collectively as a species we must forge our own way. Rather than place my faith in something divine, I've placed my faith in myself and humanity. It is not as comfortable as delusion, and it is filled with its own problems. However, it is both tangible and knowable. It can be both changed and improved. It doesn't require gaps in understanding or knowledge, only the hope for a better future than the one we're experiencing today.

I actually have confidence that you shall someday join me Rabbi. Whether you'll admit it or not, you already know the truth in your heart, and you've just found it to difficult to accept. As the gaps begin to fill you'll learn that you no longer have a choice.

[onager]

45. "How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist"

Full book title: God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

Author: Victor J. Stenger

Boy, would I love to see Rabbi Jacoff debate THIS guy...

Victor J. Stenger grew up in a Catholic working-class neighborhood in Bayonne, New Jersey. His father was a Lithuanian immigrant, his mother the daughter of Hungarian immigrants. He attended public schools...

Dr. Stenger received a master's of science degree in physics from UCLA in 1959 and a PhD in physics in 1963...

His research career spanned the period of great progress in elementary particle physics that ultimately led to the current standard model. He participated in experiments that helped establish the properties of strange particles, quarks, gluons, and neutrinos. He also helped pioneer the emerging fields of very high-energy gamma-ray and neutrino astronomy. In his last project before retiring, Dr. Stenger collaborated on the underground experiment in Japan that in 1998 showed for the first time that the neutrino has mass. The Japanese leader of this experiment shared the 2002 Nobel Prize for this work.

And about this time the god-botherers will start jumping up and down and screaming "cold materialistic bastard with no sPEEr-it-chew-ality."

So I should probably mention this part, too:

He currently is...adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger

[Goblinmonger]

55. Let me see if I can boil down this guy's "rational" argument for god

If P, then Q
Not P
Therefore R

Fucking brilliant.