How to recognize evidence for God

Debate Room
41

To clarify, the scientific method mostly serves for objective reality. Saying something exists is an objective claim. Subjective claims covering topics such as beauty is not what is being covered here.

We don’t know, and just assuming anything is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (assuming the source fallacy). People out there will claim god, but how do they know? They are at ignorance claiming to be at knowledge.

This is treading that very fine line. To get a little pedantic, I think to reword your statment, which is a claim: “I know there is no evidence for god” would be similar to saying: “I know there is no god”. And yes, such claims would need evidence.

So then, what should we consider to be evidence?

If every time I go to sleep with a tooth under my pillow, a dollar takes is place the next morning, is that evidence for the tooth fairy existing? What is being discussed is epistemology, how we know truth, a methodology. If anybody can freely assign evidence that loosely then I have seen evidence for literally everything.

Whenever you get something that is considered evidence, you can structure that with the claim, using epistemology, into a syllogism.

Major Premise: god is all powerful and can do anything.
Minor Premise: The universe exists and is complicated.
Conclusion: Therefore, god exists and created the universe.

This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy because we don’t actually know the source, it is just assumed. One can sub out the major premise and conclusion with everything from powerful aliens to it just always existed. Therefore, the argument is illogical so we don’t consider the universe existing as evidence for god.

Also notice that this case is circular logic. God exists because the universe exists. The universe exists, because god exists…

The person making the claim has to prove the claim. I can’t prove unfalsifiable things false. I don’t have evidence that purple, invisible elephants don’t exist. Some will try to say something like:

Major premise: god exists.
Minor premise: You have no evidence that god doesn’t exist.
Conclusion: therefore god exists.

This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy which many a Christian has given me.

However, I can say that I have personally seen no human have this evidence or get anywhere close. Most merely assign things they don’t understand to an ancient concept they were predisposed to believe in. 80% of people believe the religion of their parents. There are plenty of things I / we cannot explain; plenty of ignorance. But there is no way of logically knowing something unfalsifiable without using a logical fallacy and therefore, it isn’t considered evidence.

You never know who comes in here and you only get understanding with some probing. The definition of religion is very general: “belief in and worship of a super human power”. If both of these things are checked, it is a religion.

False, Science is a collection of facts, hypothesizes, theories, and laws based on the epistemology of the scientific method. The epistemology of the scientific method is at complete odds with the epistemology of faith. Saying that they both are the same would be like saying that tomatoes and suspension bridges are the same.

Most theists I have come across think that atheists treat science like they do their religion. This is because they are cynical and don’t understand the scientific method. The primary differences are falsifiability, and changing the model when something is falsified. A few years ago, based on an updated understanding using the scientific method, scientists reduced the age of the universe by a billion years. We changed our models, and moved forward. I personally know many Christians who still think that the earth is 6000 years old. With faith, there is no such mechanism to remove false beliefs. There is also nothing to prevent false ideas from initially being put in their model. We care more about the process than the end model. Theists care about the model, not the process. If there really was evidence of god, I would happily change.

You can’t really group together atheists well. It would be like grouping people together who don’t believe in Santa Claus. There are no common beliefs, morals, etc. There are some atheists who have terrible epistemologies and believe in a bunch of unfalsifiable things.

My point with this statment wasn’t to try to do some ad hominem fallacy, but to point out that religions have many unfalsifiable belief and therefore irrational beliefs. It is also to point out that god is one of them. I would also argue that believing things without evidence and a corresponding epistemology is irrational, and thus, purely a function of will (faith).

2 Likes
42

I’m aware of that view, but I can’t agree because it isn’t falsifiable. It’s equivalent to saying “all laws must always be approximations” which is unfalsifiable.

A descriptive law after all describes something does it not? well then that thing (albeit only described approximately) nevertheless does exist so what can explain it’s presence?

To say our laws are only descriptive overlooks the fact that there must be something that is being described, something that exists.

43

Lovely post, @TheMagus. You’re a good teacher.

2 Likes
44

FTFY.
& ≥ 20 characters.

1 Like
45

Well you might claim it is objective reality, hence my recent mentioning of the vastly different interpretations of quantum mechanics, a single formulation has a subjective interpretation, different epistemologically.

Well it logically cannot be explained by recourse to laws when it is laws themselves we seek to explain. So naturalism is ruled out, what does that leave us with in your view?

It is consistent with a tooth fairy existing. This is a good point because I like to point out that consistent with is not necessarily evidence for. If we are not sure what evidence for God might look like then we have to admit that we see no evidence for God based on our assumptions so far and that said assumptions might very well be incorrect, but few atheists are honest enough to say that.

I’m not aware of any theist putting forward quite that argument. I don’t see “powerful aliens” as an option at all because “universe” literally means all matter, energy, fields and laws that exist - everything material.

To admit “it has always existed” is all well and good but is an admission that there is no scientific explanation for it which is a starting point (it has always existed does not meet the criteria of being a theory).

So again, if we can reason that a scientific, naturalistic explanation is not rational, impossible then we can either give up or we can ask ourselves - what options are there for a non-natural (not driven by laws and determinism) explanation for it?

This leads to the idea that will, intent precedes all else, it was will, intent that gave rise to determinism and laws and that in turn gives rise to what we observe.

This is an explanation, a non-scientific (of necessity) explanation and to me is more meaningful than “it has always been here”.

So there are no axioms in mathematical theories of physics? Of course there are, the conservation laws are assumed for example, if you truly perceive a scientific explanation as being free from assumption then we will have trouble talking about this.

Up to a point I’d agree with them. For example the insistence that the only valid explanations are naturalistic is a dogma is it not? an unwillingness to consider extra-natural explanations is akin to some religious dogma.

But you must temper that view with the recognition that we cannot scientifically prove that the universe was not created six thousand years ago with an inherent appearance (to us) of being much older.

I cannot equate unfalsifiable belief with irrational belief. Any belief that can be used to develop a consistent explanation for something is rational even if it might not be falsifiable.

To my mind irrational means unjustified, unreasonable like the stuff we see from conspiracy theorists (Trump et al) and so on.

There are theories in physics today that are unfalsifiable because to test them would require more energy than the sun produces in a year, that kind of experiment is clearly not feasible but the theory is still rational.

46

Physics! Are you begging the question once again? Physics gave rise to the laws. Perhaps you are confused as to what a law is. A law is a physical description of the world around us. It appears consistent to us and can be used as a consistency. A law is statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. Laws are things we observe. We also know they are relative to our state of existence and seem to break down at Panck Time. (Ergo: The laws of our universe may not be the laws outside our universe if such an outside exists.) The laws of physics as we understand them are based on observations and experiments within our own universe. While it is possible that similar laws govern other universes or areas outside our universe, there is currently no way to confirm or disprove this. The conversation dies at the edge of our universe and with our laws. Asserting any kind of cause beyond the observable will require a demonstration. I’m looking forward to it.

3 Likes
47

Objective reality is what we can measure with our 5 senses, typically using some kind of tool. Quantum mechanics is still a pretty new field relatively speaking, and our tools to measure it are very limited. Other fields also had wildly different ideas when they were new until we could measure them better. It doesn’t mean we abandon the scientific method.

How is it ruled out? We can’t measure something if it doesn’t exist. If we can’t make a determination, then we don’t know. People like to assume, but that is different than knowledge. I am not going to believe if we don’t have concrete knowledge. Making assumptions doesn’t get us anywhere. The philosopher Descartes thought that everything should be explained. What that just ended up being was just a lot of guessing. In general, claiming ignorance is honest. What benefit is there in championing something that can’t be proven?

This then takes us back to epistemology and the question I asked you before. What epistemology and facts can we use to know god exists.

If we are not sure what evidence for god looks like, then why would we believe it? Once again, I have never seen “evidence” for god. It was always wrapped in some logical fallacy. Correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t want to go straw manning, but this seems to be essentially the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Major Premise: god could exist.
Minor Premise: we don’t know what evidence for god could look like.
Conclusion: god exists.

We can’t use your statement to know god exists and is entirely unhelpful. Could we get some info like this in the future? Maybe, but it doesn’t help us now. We are still at ignorance.

You probably don’t live around a bunch of ignorant Christians like I do. They barely understand their own religion, let alone science, math, etc. My point was that it would be wrong whatever anybody put in there, period.

There are plenty of things we don’t know. It is okay to be ignorant. In the end, theist don’t have all the answers they think they do.

As asked above, why is this not rational? Do you have a better epistemology? Has it been proven as well as the scientific method? If this is made up, nothing could ever prove it. I wouldn’t have ever expected 15th century England to have a space program but we do because of the scientific method.

The point of the double blind study is to remove biases from both the trail participants and the people putting on the trail. All of this is not merely a function of will, but a desire to find truth, separate from our failing human biases. Faith is a direct function of will, devoid of any power to describe anything.

I wasn’t making that argument, just listing it as one that has been made for the fallacy. I am firmly in ignorance land.

There is a different in making assumptions about something you can measure versus assumptions out of complete ignorance. Eventually measurements can prove or disprove them.

I guess now I see the issue. If there is something beyond naturalistic explanations, then prove it. Once again, show me the epistemology and evidence you would use to get there. Show us how it has been successful on obtaining knowledge. @Sherlock-Holmes I have asked you this for several posts now, and this is beginning to go no where. I can’t prove something invisible doesn’t exist.

This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. They are claiming that the universe is 6000 years old. We can measure star light that is billions of years old. They have no response. You are basically saying that we can’t prove anything. If that is they case, why even come here and argue? They believe the earth is 6000 years old not because they have any actual evidence, but because they want to (faith).

It’s rational because it is based on other measurements. The helio-centric theory is just a theory, but mostly, only the flat earthers think the sun revolves around the earth. Over the last 100 years we have been able to measure things we didn’t even dream possible 100 years ago.

Once again, I think your missing the fact that I don’t hold science as sacred. I know a theory is only as good as the measurements that have been taken. Many assumptions on the frontiers of science are little more than curiosities for me. However, people don’t treat the idea of god like a curiosity even though they have literally no measurable evidence.

5 Likes
48

And it very well could be for many people out there. Believe it or not, though, every person is different. And if your god is all-powerful and all-knowing as claimed, then that god would MOST CERTAINLY know that, and it would therefore know EXACTLY what it would take to convince each and every person in existence it is real. Not sure I can make that any more simple than that.

One: You are absolutely correct that I have no “criteria” for whatever “evidence” would convince me that any god is real. Somebody asks me what would convince me that a god is real, my honest answer is always, “Fuck if I know,” because I have NO IDEA what would convince me. Therefore, how/why would I have any type of criteria?
Two: Actually, during my lifetime, I have seen/heard mountains of so-called “evidence” people have presented as “proof” that their god is real. Matter of fact, before I ever made my escape from my religious indoctrination, there were times I often spouted some of that “evidence” myself. Didn’t convince me then, and still doesn’t convince me now. Bottom line is, if an all-knowing and all-powerful god wants me to believe it is real, then it will do exactly what is necessary to make me believe. MOREOVER, I have absolutely ZERO control over what that god might or might now do in that regard. As such, I’ll carry on as usual until such time as that god decides to change my perspective. Again, I’m not sure I can make that any more simple to understand.

(Edit once more for repetitive redundancy again.)

2 Likes
49

Wrong. Conservation laws are not assumed, but are a consequence of symmetries. Since the laws of physics have the same form for all observers, we get conservation laws (Noether’s theorem for systems with conservative forces). Conservation of energy comes from the laws of physics having the same form under a time translation; conservation of linear momentum comes from the laws of physics having the same form under a spatial translation; conservation of angular momentum comes from the laws of physics having the same form under a rotational transform; etc. Admittedly, the origins of conservation laws rest on observation and empirical data. But later theoretical work show that conservation laws have a better underpinning. Thus, conservation laws are more than assumptions, and have solid empirical observational as well as theoretical support. Which is more than one can say about the traits of diverse gods in ancient mythologies.

Edit: addendum

1 Like
50

Present a paper backed by some evidence and submit it to a reputable science journal. A theory supported by some validatable evidence. Is that really so big a demand?

Because in almost all cases it is easily explicable by other means. While there remain unexplained or not fully explained phenomena, for all currently accepted explanation, the action of deity is neither requested nor required.

Science views the world as explicable by natural means and that has, so far, been the case. It also means that anyone advancing a supernatural explanation is advancing the extraordinary and therefore must back up their “theory” with extraordinary evidence that fits with current explanations.

And your evidence for that claim is what exactly? Why should anyone here take that claim seriously?

You do understand that it is scientists and not specifically atheists that you have to challenge, right?

Let me switch that on you. You come here expressing dismay at our cynicism and lack of belief in your god while advancing an unsupported claim about your supposed discussions with other atheists. It’s clear you’ve already made up your mind so what point is there in showing you evidence that refutes your views? How can you prove to us that you are objective when you can’t share your technique for analysing your own beliefs?

Atheists can, for the most part, understand and cite the scientific method, keep themselves well read on scientific developments and have the kind of minds that formulate arguments instead of coming here and immediately whinging about us. I’ll go further and advance the idea that these atheists of which you spoke in your claim are either relatively inexperienced in debating theists like you or, more likely, products of your disingenuous mind.

Finally, I’ve just decided I believe in Odin and Thor. I have at least as much evidence for their existence as you do for your supposed god. Please tell me why my fellow Vikings and I shouldn’t brand you a heretic and have you secured to a post in order to perform the Blood Eagle ritual on you?

UK Atheist

2 Likes
51

You’re wrong since we can objectively evidence who created them, when, and under what circumstances with great detail, they were also submitted to others for scrutiny. That is objective evidence that those laws were created by humans, what they help us describe and understand are natural phenomena.

You’re shifting the goal posts from the laws to what they describe. Unless you can demonstrate some objective evidence that what those laws describe were created by a deity, then there is no rational reasons to believe they were, especially since you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible. When we infer design we do so based on sufficient objective evidence, and from the unerring fact that designed things do not occur naturally.

No it doesn’t, I can describe an apple, that doesn’t imply I or anything created it. again you asked me to “prove” that natural phenomena occur naturally, I don’t need to do that in order to disbelieve your claim it required magic you can’t explain at all, from a deity you can demonstrate no objective evidence for. I know natural phenomena are possible, I have no objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible, or that any deity is possible.

It has already been explained a while ago when you first tried to use this poisoning of the well fallacy, that: picking one example from scientific inquiry for which our knowledge is incomplete, and then pretending all objective scientific facts are similarly unreliable is dishonest, it is a false equivalence fallacy.

This doesn’t mean there is no explanation, only that we lack one currently, and even if there is no explanation this does not evidence anything supernatural or any deity, to claim it does is again an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, you have used this fallacy repeatedly and from the start, and yet still keep invoking the word logic to describe your arguments and belief, despite being demonstrably irrational.

If you are not sure what evidence for a deity looks like, then one wonders what you’re basing your belief it exists on? I don’t know, and I don’t believe are not the same, but they are clearly synonymous positions, unless one wishes to base belief on not disproving a claim, which as you have been told repeatedly is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

So what? God did it explains nothing whatsoever, it is an appeal to inexplicable magic. At least the atheists here are showing you they have the integrity to say when they don’t know something, and not irrationally base beliefs on not having an alternative explanation.

Atheism and naturalism are not the same, Occam’s razor applies here, when theists start adding woo woo magic they can neither explain nor objectively evidence. What’s more I have explained this more than once, and you keep skipping past it to use this straw man, as if atheism must be predicated on naturalism. When someone demonstrates sufficient objective evidence to support their claims that anything supernatural exists or is even possible, then I will give it due diligence, until then I will withhold belief from such claims, as I would any other.

“Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents “a lack of contrary evidence”), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.”

One may disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, and admit you don’t know whether they are true by also being agnostic, but to believe some of them is clearly biased, ipso facto it is closed minded by definition, to believe them all will inevitably lead to believing contradictory claims, and thus is irrational, to believe none and remain agnostic is the only rational position.

That’s not what you’re doing, you are asserting or implying that a belief gains credence or should not be disbelieved if it cannot be falsified. This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, by definition it is an irrational argument. Disbelieving a claim need not involve a contrary claim, which is why from your very first post you have tried so desperately to portray atheism as involving claims and contrary claims oto theism, which it does not. Rather than dealing with such claims when and if they arise from individual atheists.

There is difference between conceiving a way that something might be empirically falsified, but as yet being unable to do it beyond the theoretical, and being unable to conceive of any empirical way to falsify something.

Ding ding ding ding, we have a winner. If it offers no data, then it likely an unfalsifiable premise. Science can’t study mermaids, so when I see theists claim a deity exists that is beyond science to examine, I wonder on what rationally consistent basis they are ruling out mermaids, we can make them invisible mermaids that are undetectable in any empirical way just for the ideas to have parity.

Exactly, and why has @Sherlock-Holmes not offered us his method if he has one, if he doesn’t then what is he basing his lack of belief in all the thousands of other deities he disbelieves are real?

Absolutely I agree, our ignorance is what the entire method of science is predicated on, it is an admission we don’t know or understand everything, and a tool box to try and reduce that ignorance. In a few hundred years its successes are manifest, and objectively demonstrate it is by far our best method for understanding reality. Compare that to the misplaced hubris of religions that claim to have immutable truth, that start with a core belief, and then bend all facts to it.

It describes an innate subjective bias, I want to believe in the doctrines of religion, so I will do so, even when it contains errant nonsense, by either ignoring facts, or by pretending subjectively the text does not say what it demonstrably does. Human error is inevitable in any method, and science has robust methodology for tackling this fact, error in a message from an infallible deity is a stake though the heart of anyone claiming that doctrine is from an infallible deity. Especially when it;s claims and morality so often and accurately reflect the ignorance and morals of the epoc, peoples and cultures from which it originated.

I can go back to his first post and show @Sherlock-Holmes using this fallacy, he has used it rhoguout his discourse here. he has not once even acknowledge me in any of the innumerable times I have pointed this out, but has continued to use the fallacy, and continued to insist his beliefs are rational.

I don’t think he is missing it, as much as he is incorrectly seeing how much many atheists defer to science, but offer no credence to religions, and can’t cope with this in the light of how emotionally invested in his belief he is, put simply his bias can’t fathom why we think science is more important than any deity humans have imagined.

1 Like
52

Ok yet again I find @Sherlock-Holmes dishonesty can’t go unchecked. The truth is that he misquoted what I said, and quoted it out of context, in order to falsely portray the claim as an unevidenced absolute.

You are right in saying the remark treads a fine line, and those who know me here will think it especially so from me, as I am always so guarded to avoid sweeping absolutes, so here’s the truth.

Firstly I never said no evidence, I said no objective evidence which is a significantly different claim, yet each time @Sherlock-Holmes paraphrases me, he dishonestly leaves out the word objective.

The context was accompanying remarks that explained I have neither seen nor even heard of any objective evidence for any deity after decades of looking, and if that existed would it be reasonable to assume theists would not have demonstrated it, indeed that every theists would not open with it, especially prominent and professional religious apologists in debates and in religious apologetic tomes which abound everywhere, and not with the endless irrational arguments and subjective claims we see every single time. I also pointed out that he himself had failed to offer any objective evidence even after months of asking, if anyone wants to go to his profile and check you will see I asked @Sherlock-Holmes to demonstrate objective evidence, or the most compelling reason he thought he had after his first or second posts, most people here know it is a standard question I ask all visiting theists.

So the assertion he has misquoted, without context was clearly a rational inference I was drawing, and not the absolute claim he is lying about, in order to pursue his faux gotcha moment. He has done this by asking me to falsify an unfalsifiable straw man, that is not what I had said, or in the context I had said it. In order to make a false equivalence fallacy, that he thinks would make my disbelieving his claim a deity exists, seem like an unreasonable double standard. I shall let others decide if that argument is rational and has merit. What for example would the “proof” (his word) for no objective evidence look like?

From now on when he repeats this mendacious misrepresentation, I’ll be quoting this post. I, as much as anyone, understand the necessity for partial quotes both for brevity (the site has crashed several times in recent days) and for facilitating fluid debate, but repeatedly misquoting someone deliberately and out of context is not debating in good faith.

One last word, does anyone think it reasonable to base a belief on the unevidenced assumption that objective evidence might have escaped them? If so, one wonders what their criteria for disbelief is? Lets test it, can @Sherlock-Holmes “prove” (his word), that there is no objective evidence for unicorns, or mermaids, or leprechauns? Does he believe they exist if he cannot, does he have doubts about their existence? That’s before we start on the thousands of deities he doesn’t believe exist, all the ones I don’t in fact, except for one.

1 Like
53

That is because it is not a statement of truth, it is an unevidenced subjective belief, like the deities people imagine are real. The difference is that subjectively extolling the virtues of a painting is not accompanied by a raft of pernicious doctrine and dogma from the archaic superstitions of patriarchal Bedouin societies.

54

Of course, anyone addressing this issue in a serious manner, should being by asking what exactly is meant by the word “god”?

Quite simply, without a proper definition of “god” in place, we’re going nowhere quickly, and merely engaging in a discoursive circle jerk.

Even at this basic stage, of course, we need to exercise proper caution and due diligence with respect to rigour. We need, for example, to clear the ground for a proper analysis of the subject, and this requires us to remove so much of the clutter that has been generated on this issue.

Such as disposing of meaningless dross such as “transcendent” and “immaterial”, which are nothing but assertionist weeds sapping nutrients from the garden of discourse, and strangling the emergence of far more valuable discoursive flowers and fruits.

First of all, even if we allow the usual suspects the liberty of requiring any candidate “god” to be sentient, there is no a priori reason why that candidate should be a magic entity instead of an exotic material entity, and likewise no a priori reason for said candidate to employ magic. But of course, an entity using testable natural processes isn’t satisfying to people with an emotional desire for their god to be a magic entity.

Likewise, there is no reason to suppose that any genuinely existing god type entity, harbours any concern for one species of precocious ape on one small planet in a universe containing several sextillion planets. Conceit along these lines has infected the entire debate on this subject for far too long, and intrudes as yet another unwanted weed in the discoursive garden much earlier than warranted.

But there is worse to come, for those who want to assign to their ‘god candidate’ the ability to instantiate a universe. Already, cosmological physicists are devising models for this that involve testable natural processes, the Steinhardt and Turok braneworld collision model being one I’ve already covered in depth here.

During that exposition, I proposed the possibility, arising from that model being correct, that our universe could have been the product of some other species in some other universe putting that model to direct experimental test. The individuals and apparatus involved almost certainly having a finite lifespan. Again, not a possibility that the usual suspects would want to embrace.

Even worse, the instantiation of the observable universe in its current form, could have taken place by the natural operation of braneworld collisions, without any sentient input whatsoever.

This, of course, is an option no mythology fanboy will find in the least palatable, and the moment scientists even approach the stage where this option becomes likely, I suspect that the mythology fanboy response thereto will be violent, and on a scale not seen since the foetid days of the Inquisition.

But of course, these are all ideas that mythology fanboys not only summarily (and in some cases violently) dismiss, but frequently lack the ability even to imagine, let alone consider from an analytical perspective.

Instead, mythology fanboys presume from the start, that their choice of cartoon magic man from their choice of pre-scientific mythology, is the only possible candidate, and peddle the usual tiresome, predictable and flaccid ex recto apologetic fabrications, to try and convert this wholly unwarranted and gigantic presumption into something resembling fact. An exercise that has been a failure on their part for as long as mythology fanboyism has existed, because treating unsupported assertions uncritically as fact always fails in any properly constituted arena of discourse.

Of course, defining a ‘god’ properly and rigorously, is only the first step that needs to be undertaken, in order for this issue to be treated seriously. Providing evidence for any such entity that actually exists, would require said entity to be reliably and repeatably observable by multiple independent observers, regardless of whatever presuppositions they may hold.

Those who want their god to be ‘ineffable’ will have to live with this being indistinguishable from being nonexistent as a corollary.

Likewise, blind assertions to the effect that their god was purportedly responsible, for whole classes of entities and interactions that have already been established via scientific investigation to be accounted for by testable natural processes, can be dismissed on the basis of said scientific investigation. By definition, whatever is found to be the product of testable natural processes is NOT “evidence” for a magic man engaging in “supernatural” magic poofing.

Indeed, I’m reminded at this juncture that in any universe where magic not only existed, but was being deployed routinely, then science as we know it would be impossible . There would not exist “laws of physics” in a universe where a magic entity swept them aside whenever it happened to be administratively convenient, and again, this would be the case by definition . Which renders the familiar apologetics on this matter utterly null and void.

Of course, other issues require dealing with before any genuine progress can be made on this matter, but the aforementioned constitute the bare minimum of groundwork required, and until mythology fanboys exert that effort, all they will ever have to offer is hot air.

4 Likes
55

I think it is fair at the outset to point out that after millennia it is suspiciously convenient that the core belief is unfalsifiable, and can hide behind unevidenced claims for magic, that itself of course has no explanatory powers whatsoever.

To paraphrase the late Christopher Hitchens, you can’t dent the kind of belief that might assert when a child falls from a second story window and rolls through traffic unharmed, that it must be a miracle, but when a child falls 6 inches, fatally fracturing its skull on the corner of a table, that god is just mysterious.

Selection bias is the only obvious response, and until they measure events consistently and objectively, then honest discourse is very difficult. As you say, once magic is introduced as a credible explanation you can’t really objectively examine anything, and it’s hard not to see that as deliberate. A lot of theists and apologists have a deep distrust if not an outright hostility towards science, and it’s not hard to see why.

2 Likes
56

So “physics” is the source of things? I see no point in responding to such silliness.

57

I didn’t assert that. Drop the duplicitous strawman caricatures.

What I stated, if you had bothered to read my post HONESTLY , is that there would not EXIST any genuine laws of physics, in a universe where magic was routinely deployed.

Try addressing what I actually posted, not your dishonest misrepresentation thereof.

Also, I’m on record on numerous occasions in the past, as stating that scientific postulates are DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. We leave the hubristic pretence that unsupported mythological assertions purportedly dictate how reality behaves, regardless of how much reality points and laughs at this, to mythology fanboys.

But of course, when we have a large body of observational data informing us that relevant relationships between variables hold, and in some cases hold to 15 decimal places, we’re not dealing with “silliness”, unlike “Magic Man did it”.

Haven’t you got a stone to crawl under?

2 Likes
58

Because a thing cannot serve as it’s own explanation, to what do we attribute the presence of naturalism? clearly not naturalism.

One shouldn’t believe it without evidence, I agree. But one cannot assert there’s no evidence unless one defines what characterizes evidence for God.

Because a thing cannot serve as the explanation for itself, not in science as I understand it anyway.

The “scientific method” is a discipline and certainly not “proven”. Nothing in science is proven I’m sure most here would not argue with this either.

I disagree, there is no “eventually measurements can prove or disprove them” in science. Nothing is proven, theories are never proven only trusted until eventually being falsified.

It is not a appeal to ignorance and yes and the only way to contest that is to make certain assumptions, I don’t personally think the universe is 6,000 years old but there is no way, no test, no experiments that can prove it was not UNLESS we make some assumptions, therefore it all depends upon the assumptions one is prepared to make.

God could have created the universe six thousand years ago with an inbuilt appearance of being very old, prove otherwise, go ahead I’m listening.

I said it was rational, that’s not contested. But it isn’t falsifiable, if we cannot perform a falsification test on a theory then that theory is rather obviously unfalsifiable.

59

Right, so there might be evidence staring you in the face but you’d misinterpret it and conclude erroneously that there’s no reason to believe in God. That’s all I’ve been saying here and we agree at last.

60

Yes I know, so where did symmetries come from? to what do we attribute the existence of these mathematical patterns? what led to them existing? other symmetries I suppose?

:roll_eyes: