Can science prove the existence of God?

[jillery]

From my second-favorite astronomer:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>

<http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>

Short answer:

"Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"

The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
to conclude Earth is unique.

The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
to use science to justify one's beliefs.

Of course, I don't expect those who do these things to understand the
article, even if they actually read it.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[John Harshman]

On 1/30/17 2:38 PM, jillery wrote:
> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>
> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>
> Short answer:
>
> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"

Well, of course, science can never prove anything, can it? You know
that's the wrong word. And whether science can test the existence of god
surely depends on what god we're talking about.

If it's a claim about some unknown kind of entity that someone might
call a god, I see the statement as vacuous, similar to the claim that
science can't test the existence of splortzian. Sorry, I can't tell you
anything about what splortzian is. But perhaps there is something that
someone might call splortzian. Prove there isn't!

[Jonathan]

On 1/30/2017 5:38 PM, jillery wrote:
> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>
> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>
> Short answer:
>
> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>

Of course it can, it has, the concept of emergence
and God are one in the same. Of course it's a
prerequisite that you know the definition of God
and emergence before your mind can comprehend
that simple fact.

> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
> to conclude Earth is unique.
>

Every thing in the universe is unique.

It only takes one counter example to prove that
statement false. So, having the entire universe
from which to choose show me any two things
that are identical?

> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
> to use science to justify one's beliefs.
>

It's stupid to use classical objective science for beliefs
but there is another way. Pity your closed mind won't
even entertain any other way to understand reality
but perusing a filing cabinet pile of facts mindlessly
looking for the ONE ULTIMATE FACT that clears it all up.

> Of course, I don't expect those who do these things to understand the
> article, even if they actually read it.

I've read more interesting articles by high school students.

There's a reason why objective reductionist science
can't prove or disprove God. It never will.

The reason is easy to see, with the duality of light
there will always be seen two opposing forms
depending on how it's /observed/.

Same goes for any self organized system, physical or
living, there will always be a duality between
whether the static or opposing chaotic attractors
dominate the system.

Since they are both critically interacting with each
other reductionist science WILL NEVER definitively
find the single ultimate source of creation.

There is no such single ultimate source, there
will always be a competition or critical interaction
between /at least two/ opposing and incompatible forms.

Like the Mona Lisa smile, objective science WILL NEVER
determine her emotions. Like any duality it's left
to the subjective observer to decide.

SO to withhold our conclusions until /objective/ science
finally determines the ultimate source of creation is
complete and utter STUPIDITY.

As it cannot do so, no matter how small one reduces
how far back in time one extrapolates, no matter
how big the computer and so on.

Reductionist filing cabinet science CAN'T ANSWER
THIS QUESTION OF CREATION AND NEVER WILL.

Only our subjective minds can, not facts.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:39:58 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>
> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>
> Short answer:
>
> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>

All that says is that the author is an Agnostic. Atheists, Theists, and Deists disagree.

> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
> to conclude Earth is unique.

Argument seen above is anti-Theism and anti-Bible, which contradicts author's alleged Agnosticism.

>
> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
> to use science to justify one's beliefs.
>

Another contradiction: Author just said science is Agnostic, now author implies it is not.

> Of course, I don't expect those who do these things to understand the
> article, even if they actually read it.
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

Imagine that; if one doesn't agree with said article one didn't understand its content!

Ray

[RonO]

If God appeared and made himself open to analysis science could study
what was placed before it.

If you think science can work on nothing but fantasy you are mistaken
and will likely forever be mistaken.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill]

Your link is merely a rehash of the standard arguments and
rely on vague probabilities maybes and might haves. To the
extent that verifiable data matters, these arguments are
specious.

Bill

[Bill]

Most rational people would not expect science to contribute
anything whatsoever to the question of the existence of
God(s).

Bill

[Ray Martinez]

Pro-Agnostic statement.

Atheists, Deists, and Theists disagree.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 5:34:58 PM UTC-8, Bill wrote:

How sure are you? Maybe correct? Possibly correct? Somewhat correct?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:09:58 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 1/30/17 2:38 PM, jillery wrote:
> > From my second-favorite astronomer:
> >
> > <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
> >
> > <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
> >
> > Short answer:
> >
> > "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>

> Well, of course, science can never prove anything [with certainty], can it?

[Bracket added by R.M.]

How about heliocentrism? Or the existence of pain and suffering?

> You know
> that's the wrong word. And whether science can test the existence of god
> surely depends on what god we're talking about.
>
> If it's a claim about some unknown kind of entity that someone might
> call a god, I see the statement as vacuous, similar to the claim that
> science can't test the existence of splortzian. Sorry, I can't tell you
> anything about what splortzian is. But perhaps there is something that
> someone might call splortzian. Prove there isn't!

Suddenly, a highly subjective claim is granted legitimacy, tripping up a man with a doctorate.

The existence of the God of the Bible is THE most debated question of all time. More than enough evidence and scholarly argument exists to form an up or down opinion. Since you're a known Atheist, you've formed a down opinion.

Ray (Christian)

[Robert Camp]

I don't recall him saying he had no opinion. Did you bother to read
either of the preceding posts?

[Ray Martinez]

My comments were positioned as a reply against comments that argued he could not disprove a claim that said a deity named "splortzian" existed. Do you see it?

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Of course I did. And your comment took an inappropriate inference from
John's remarks. He expressed no ideas regarding opinions about anything.
He was talking about proof in the context of science.

So if you don't mind I'll ignore your silly attempt at a retort and note
once again that you either did not read before responding or you
comprehended little of what you read. Neither would be much of a surprise.

[jillery]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:06:19 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 1/30/17 2:38 PM, jillery wrote:
>> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>>
>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>>
>> Short answer:
>>
>> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>
>Well, of course, science can never prove anything, can it? You know
>that's the wrong word. And whether science can test the existence of god
>surely depends on what god we're talking about.

I understand the quote above doesn't try to make a scientific claim,
but instead is a response to those who assert the opposite, that
science *can* prove/disprove the existence of God. As such, the quote
merely and appropriately refers to whatever god those claimants refer
to.

>If it's a claim about some unknown kind of entity that someone might
>call a god, I see the statement as vacuous, similar to the claim that
>science can't test the existence of splortzian. Sorry, I can't tell you
>anything about what splortzian is. But perhaps there is something that
>someone might call splortzian. Prove there isn't!
>
>

[jillery]

IOW the article relies on the same vague probabilities, maybes, and
might haves you claim you use to come to the exact opposite
conclusion. So if the article's arguments are specious, so are yours.
If your arguments are valid, so are the article's. Either way, you
lose.

[jillery]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:54:39 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/30/2017 5:38 PM, jillery wrote:
>> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>>
>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>>
>> Short answer:
>>
>> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>>
>
>
>
>Of course it can, it has, the concept of emergence
>and God are one in the same. Of course it's a
>prerequisite that you know the definition of God
>and emergence before your mind can comprehend
>that simple fact.

I note your bald assertions of your opinions.

>> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
>> to conclude Earth is unique.
>>
>
>
>
>Every thing in the universe is unique.
>
>It only takes one counter example to prove that
>statement false. So, having the entire universe
>from which to choose show me any two things
>that are identical?

I note your reliance on stupid word games. Based on your definition,
since everything uses different atoms with different velocities,
nothing can be identical, Of course, such details are irrelevant to
establishing uniqueness as it's applied in the article.

>> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
>> to use science to justify one's beliefs.
>>
>
>
>
>It's stupid to use classical objective science for beliefs
>but there is another way. Pity your closed mind won't
>even entertain any other way to understand reality
>but perusing a filing cabinet pile of facts mindlessly
>looking for the ONE ULTIMATE FACT that clears it all up.

I note your bald assertions of superiority, which suggests you lack of
self-confidence.

>> Of course, I don't expect those who do these things to understand the
>> article, even if they actually read it.
>
>
>
>I've read more interesting articles by high school students.

Articles about Team Edward vs Team Jacob aren't interesting to me.
Apparently your mileage varies. That's what happens when you post
stupid non sequiturs.

To answer questions with ad hoc definitions is another stupid word
game. Your definition doesn't apply to a personal, interventionist
deity, which is the meaning implicit in the article.

[jillery]

Your tactic of substituting other words for what was actually written
is asinine. Get a different shtick, if only for the novelty of the
experience.

[jillery]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:22:03 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 1/30/2017 4:38 PM, jillery wrote:
>> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>>
>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>>
>> Short answer:
>>
>> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>>
>> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
>> to conclude Earth is unique.
>>
>> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
>> to use science to justify one's beliefs.
>>
>> Of course, I don't expect those who do these things to understand the
>> article, even if they actually read it.
>>
>

>If God appeared and made himself open to analysis science could study
>what was placed before it.
>
>If you think science can work on nothing but fantasy you are mistaken
>and will likely forever be mistaken.
>
>Ron Okimoto

Non-sequiturs "R" Ron. Nobody suggested or implied anything about
fantasy.

[RonO]

What do you not get about what I just wrote? As it stands Science does
not address the issue. The only way that the issue could be addressed
is just the way that I described. Being stupid shouldn't be a life long
ambition. Just think what your statement means to the ID scam (what
were the ID perps claiming that their "science" could do?) and how bogus
you knew it to be for years. I am the one that has repeatedly told you
that science hasn't addressed the issue and that the ID perps were just
lying about what they were doing, and now what are you admitting?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

As things exist today, what would such inferences be based on if not
fantasy? What is IC, the new IDiot law of thermodynamics etc.? These
things are only proposed to exist it is equivalent to the proposition
that invisible fairies make the flowers bloom in the spring because they
are so complex and beautiful, and what is fantasy?

Ron Okimoto

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:39:58 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>>
>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>>
>> Short answer:
>>
>> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>>
>
> All that says is that the author is an Agnostic. Atheists, Theists, and Deists disagree.

Some do, some don't. Quite a to of theists and deists agree and argue
that knowledge of god comes only through revealed religion, but not
science.

In fact, that's what "deist" originally meant when the term was coined
by Ralph Cudworth in the 17th century. Deists in his sense reject all
natural or rational religion as blasphemous because of its
incompatibility with god's omnipotence. Similar reasoning you and other
modern day creationist have been given here several time.

With atheists, it depends on the definition. If you use the weak
negotiation ("does not believe there are any gods), they may or may not
believe that there are no gods (strong negation), and those who believe
that there are no gods may or may not believe that science disprove
their existence.

Of the latter, some think it is not science, but allocation of burden of
proofs and similar issues of rational discourse that disproves the
existence of gods. Most would probably argue that science disproves the
existence of specific deities only, but that we then can make a
meta-induction.

>
>> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
>> to conclude Earth is unique.
>
> Argument seen above is anti-Theism and anti-Bible, which contradicts author's alleged Agnosticism.

Not really, no. First, there is a difference between saying, as the
author does, that science does not disprove the existence of all
possible gods, and disproves some specific claimed deity. This can of
course include the christian god, or specific claims made about the
christian god. In particular, there have been several religions that
endorse "multi-world" idea. Several of the old South American religions
e.g., or various Christina groups such as Christian Science or the
Swedenborgians.

Secondly, even within mainstream Christianity the idea is debated
controversially. The Lutheran theologian Ted Peters for instance not
only endorsed it, but also showed how it was a mainstay of Christian
theology from the word go, tracing the discussion back to Church
Fathers such as Antipodes.

He also notes that of course, there is no explicit statement in the
Bible for or against, so if you are sola scriptura, at best you can be
agnostic as to alien life.

C.S. Lewis wrote about them from a catholic perspective and also had no
problems reconciling their existence with Christianity, others even
think it requires it.

Again from a catholic perspective, the 19th century theologian Joseph
Pohle argued that the incarnation is best understood as the need of a
small, weak and otherwise insignificant world, making the sacrifice even
more extraordinary.

More recently, the Christian apologist Alvin Plantigna for instance
writes" 'it would seem strange if God would have created this entire
universe and have creatures in only one small corner who were able to
witness it and see what miraculous work he has done. So the natural
thing to think from a Christian perspective is that there are lots and
lots of intelligent species out there.'

>
>>
>> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
>> to use science to justify one's beliefs.
>>
>
> Another contradiction: Author just said science is Agnostic, now author implies it is not.

Again no contradiction. Just the statement that "natural religion" is
untenable, leaving "revealed religion" an option.

>
>> Of course, I don't expect those who do these things to understand the
>> article, even if they actually read it.
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>
> Imagine that; if one doesn't agree with said article one didn't understand its content!

I'd say your comments are pretty much proof positive that Jillery is
right on that too - all your comments showed misunderstandings of the
article, and/or theology.
>
> Ray
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> Some do, some don't. Quite a to of theists and deists agree and argue
> that knowledge of god comes only through revealed religion, but not
> science.
>
> In fact, that's what "deist" originally meant when the term was coined
> by Ralph Cudworth in the 17th century. Deists in his sense reject all
> natural or rational religion as blasphemous because of its
> incompatibility with god's omnipotence. Similar reasoning you and other
> modern day creationist have been given here several time.
>

Hmmm..., deist Tom Paine exonerated God as he rejected the revelations in
the Bible and NT and seemed to think the evidence for God comes from nature
via the human faculty of reason in a manifest truth sort of way. Maybe he
was an outlier?

[R. Dean]

What exactly is the "IDiot law of thermodynamics?" And which law of
thermodynamics: there are four (4). And precisely how is it different
from this law as engineers were taught about it?

Ron
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

[jillery]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 06:33:48 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 1/31/2017 12:22 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:22:03 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/30/2017 4:38 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>>>>
>>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>>>>
>>>> Short answer:
>>>>
>>>> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>>>>
>>>> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
>>>> to conclude Earth is unique.
>>>>
>>>> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
>>>> to use science to justify one's beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I don't expect those who do these things to understand the
>>>> article, even if they actually read it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If God appeared and made himself open to analysis science could study
>>> what was placed before it.
>>>
>>> If you think science can work on nothing but fantasy you are mistaken
>>> and will likely forever be mistaken.
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>
>> Non-sequiturs "R" Ron. Nobody suggested or implied anything about
>> fantasy.
>>
>

>As things exist today, what would such inferences be based on if not
>fantasy?

I have no idea to what your "such inferences" refers. Please specify.

>What is IC, the new IDiot law of thermodynamics etc.? These
>things are only proposed to exist it is equivalent to the proposition
>that invisible fairies make the flowers bloom in the spring because they
>are so complex and beautiful, and what is fantasy?
>
>Ron Okimoto

IIUC you are I are in substantial agreement about Behe's IC
specifically, and ID generally. That deals with just one half of
Siegel's quote, that science can't *prove* God exists. OTOH if God
appeared as you suggested previously, that would be ipso facto proof.

[R. Dean]

As one who accepts the ID hypothesis as the most reasonable explanation
as to how intelligent beings came into existence, I take exception to
the condemnation of the ID hypothesis as a scam and those of us who
defend it as perps. This, to me seems very biased, intolerant, hateful
and unfair to us who have a different view.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

[Burkhard]

No, just a different meaning of deist. As I said, "originally meant" -
it changed meaning soon afterwards to "non-interventionist deity", which
is what we mean when Paine is described as deist

[jillery]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:12:11 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

What you say above may be completely correct, but none of your
complaints alter the fact that ID is not only *not* the most
reasonable explanation, it's not even an explanation, by any
reasonable meaning of the word. Just sayin'.

[John Harshman]

I never said splortzian was a name or a deity. But go ahead. Prove that
splortzian doesn't exist.

[John Harshman]

On 1/30/17 10:18 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:06:19 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/30/17 2:38 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>>>
>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>>>
>>> Short answer:
>>>
>>> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>>
>> Well, of course, science can never prove anything, can it? You know
>> that's the wrong word. And whether science can test the existence of god
>> surely depends on what god we're talking about.
>
> I understand the quote above doesn't try to make a scientific claim,
> but instead is a response to those who assert the opposite, that
> science *can* prove/disprove the existence of God. As such, the quote
> merely and appropriately refers to whatever god those claimants refer
> to.

Since the claimants are unnamed, we have no idea what god or gods any of
them is talking about. So how can any such statement be made? Perhaps
the writer knows exactly what he's referring to, but even so how can we?

And don't you agree that regardless, "prove" is the wrong word?

[R. Dean]

The _only_ way you can come to the decision is to rule out the very
possibility that there can be a higher or a supreme intelligence. That
is, if you rule out the designer at the outset, there's no reason to be
surprised when it doesn't appear in the final scene.
It's like a ball game where the competing team doesn't show up for the
game, it's the absent team that forfeits the game.

[Jonathan]

As usual your reply isn't responsive, just excuses.

But only the uneducated masses, rude and uncultured
minds believe in a personal, interventionist God.
Such a vision of God is taught to children and
others that can't handle a more intellectual
discussion with the hope that as they grow
in age and mind they'll come to understand
a more rational view.

But sadly most atheists choose to remain
in the dark.

The fact your article, like most that ridicule
religion, choose to use such a strawman definition
of God only reflects poorly on the author.

Not on religion.

[RonO]

What reality do you live in? The ID perps claimed to have the iD
science. No IDiot has ever gotten this ID science when they have needed
it because it does not exist. The bait and switch is run on the IDiot
rubes that believed the ID perps (the guys that sold you the ID scam).
If you needed the ID science for your local school board to include in
your public school science classes what would the guys that sold you the
ID scam do? What have they done 100% of the time in those cases? Why
would you only get an obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID
ever existed.

The bait and switch goes down because the ID perps never had any
verifiable hypotheses that supported their explanation. Really, if you
needed the IDiot explanation would you get it from the ID perps when you
needed it? Why hasn't any IDiot ever gotten the IDiot explanation from
the ID perps when they have needed it?

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>

[RonO]

Actually my statement was about the topic, and agreed with the
conclusion that you stated. The "you" in my original statement was not
you, but anyone in general that believed differently.

I simply stated what it would take for science to evaluate God and
barring that the current fantasy that is engaged in by factions like the
IDiots is based on fantasy. Science doesn't work if there is nothing to
study. As it stands today science can't evaluate the existence of God.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

How long have you been an IDiot? It has been years by my recollection
of your posts. About the last thing that the ID perps at the Discovery
Institute made claims about was Dembski's new law of thermodynamics. He
claimed that there was a new law of thermodynamics that would make it so
biological evolution of such information was impossible. The problem
obviously is that you can't just declare that a new law of
thermodyanmics exists, you have to actually do the hard work to
demonstrate that such a law exists. Dembski was never able to do that,
and you never hear about the junk anymore. When was the last time that
you heard about specified complexity, or complex specified information.
They died just like the new law. Beats me why IDiots still talk about
IC when it never amounted to anything either.

I just Googled "Dembski's new law of thermodynamics and got this page:

https://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0399

This guy cites "The Design Inference" and "No Free Lunch"

QUOTE:
Dembski also introduces a 4th law of thermodynamics, the law of
conservation of information to argue information cannot emerge from
random processes.
END QUOTE:

If you check you will see that there is no such thing as a fourth law of
thermodynamics.

The last time I recall Dembski talking about it was several years after
the Dover fiasco. He was still talking as if the law actually existed.

Ron Okimoto

>
> Ron
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>

[Earle Jones27]

On 2017-02-01 01:15:42 +0000, RonO said:

> On 1/31/2017 9:02 AM, R. Dean wrote:
>> On 1/31/2017 7:33 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 1/31/2017 12:22 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:22:03 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/30/2017 4:38 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Short answer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"

*
Careful.

"Forever is a long time – especially the last part."

Woody Allen

earle
*

[jillery]

I note your failure to post a single coherent comment. Apparently you
enjoy losing arguments with yourself.

[jillery]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:37:59 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

> As it stands today science can't evaluate the existence of God.

That's a good paraphrase of the OP quote.

[jillery]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:18:11 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

Of course there's another way to come to that decision, which is to
recognize that to invoke a Designer doesn't explain anything. My
impression is the only reason you think it's some kind of explanation
is because you find it emotionally comforting.

Of course, a Designer doesn't have to explain anything, so that lack
doesn't say anything about whether It exists or not.

[jillery]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:47:42 -0800, John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 1/30/17 10:18 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:06:19 -0800, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/30/17 2:38 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>>>>
>>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>>>>
>>>> Short answer:
>>>>
>>>> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>>>
>>> Well, of course, science can never prove anything, can it? You know
>>> that's the wrong word. And whether science can test the existence of god
>>> surely depends on what god we're talking about.
>>
>> I understand the quote above doesn't try to make a scientific claim,
>> but instead is a response to those who assert the opposite, that
>> science *can* prove/disprove the existence of God. As such, the quote
>> merely and appropriately refers to whatever god those claimants refer
>> to.
>
>Since the claimants are unnamed, we have no idea what god or gods any of
>them is talking about. So how can any such statement be made? Perhaps
>the writer knows exactly what he's referring to, but even so how can we?

Since the claimants are self-identified and self-publicized and
evangelical in those habits, my understanding is we do have a
reasonable idea of what they're talking about. But even if as you say
we actually have no idea, it still wouldn't matter. What you keep
missing is that *whatever* god or gods said claimants are talking
about, even a splortzian, the veracity of the statement I quoted
remains.

>And don't you agree that regardless, "prove" is the wrong word?

Since you asked, IMO it's exactly the right word. As you know,
science doesn't deal with "proofs", so in that sense, the quote is a
truism by definition.

But my impression is that's not how Siegel means it. Instead, I
understand him to say that the existence of God isn't testable by
material means, and it doesn't provide testable explanations of
material phenomena, both of which are required by science. IOW the
existence of God is both beyond the reach of, and irrelevant to,
scientific explanations.

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:38:13 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Jonathan seems to be sort of a pantheist -- God is the universe around
us. More specifically, God resides in the fact that the universe is
a "complex system." And since science is how we describe the universe,
science (aka "complexity theory") therefore proves God.

My comment harks back to what Jonathan wrote. As to what you wrote,
it is quite correct that Jonathan has failed to post a single coherent
argument. I would not dare suggest what Jonathan enjoys except for
Emily Dickinson.

[Ray Martinez]

Okay....unless a noun can be shown to have a corresponding material referent the noun is a false claim about reality. Since you admittedly coined the term at issue on the spot, case closed. I simply don't see how you can make the challenge that you have made?

Ray

[John Harshman]

Now I have to disagree. The god claimed by many evangelicals is very
active in the world, and science can indeed show such a god not to
exist. The god who made the universe 6000 years ago (but isn't trying to
deceive us), for example, clearly doesn't exist.

>> And don't you agree that regardless, "prove" is the wrong word?
>
> Since you asked, IMO it's exactly the right word. As you know,
> science doesn't deal with "proofs", so in that sense, the quote is a
> truism by definition.

And thus vacuous, if so.

> But my impression is that's not how Siegel means it. Instead, I
> understand him to say that the existence of God isn't testable by
> material means, and it doesn't provide testable explanations of
> material phenomena, both of which are required by science. IOW the
> existence of God is both beyond the reach of, and irrelevant to,
> scientific explanations.

Do you agree? Wouldn't that depend on what the assumed characteristics
of the particular god were?

[John Harshman]

You're really bad at proof. And sentences.

[Ray Martinez]

That is true or you can't answer . Since what I said is basic English 101, and a question about why you made the challenge that you made, I'll go with the latter, you can't answer.

Ray

[Burkhard]

sort of reminded me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TixwF_ywN4A

[jillery]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:12:20 -0800, John Harshman

Once again, claims of what a deity does isn't the same as the deity's
existence or essence. AIUI most evangelicals would disagree that
their deity's relevance is based on your specific event and
motivation.

More to the point, in order for your strategy to work, you would have
to affirmatively prove a negative, a losing strategy. There will
always be events which change people's lives. You can't prove that a
specific event at a specific time wasn't caused by some deity.

>>> And don't you agree that regardless, "prove" is the wrong word?
>>
>> Since you asked, IMO it's exactly the right word. As you know,
>> science doesn't deal with "proofs", so in that sense, the quote is a
>> truism by definition.
>
>And thus vacuous, if so.

Incorrect. Something that is obviously true is ipso facto different
from something that's lacking meaningful content.

>> But my impression is that's not how Siegel means it. Instead, I
>> understand him to say that the existence of God isn't testable by
>> material means, and it doesn't provide testable explanations of
>> material phenomena, both of which are required by science. IOW the
>> existence of God is both beyond the reach of, and irrelevant to,
>> scientific explanations.
>
>Do you agree? Wouldn't that depend on what the assumed characteristics
>of the particular god were?

Whatever characteristic(s) one assumes for a god, the best science can
do is provide explanations which make that god unnecessary. Science
can't prove that god wasn't involved or doesn't exist, but then, it
doesn't matter to science. The question then devolves to which
explanation is more meaningful to the person. For those who don't
understand science, and even for some who do, a caring,
interventionist god wins.

[John Harshman]

Tell yourself whatever you need, Ray.

[John Harshman]

Once again? Did you say that before? I still disagree. A deity who
didn't create the world 6000 years ago is a different one from the deity
who didn't, and has a different essence. Evangelicals of course differ
widely in their beliefs, but a god with known characteristics will
generally be testable.

> More to the point, in order for your strategy to work, you would have
> to affirmatively prove a negative, a losing strategy. There will
> always be events which change people's lives. You can't prove that a
> specific event at a specific time wasn't caused by some deity.

The fact is that negatives are often possible, even easy, to "prove".
Depends on the event. It's easy, for example, to show that there is no
Tyrannosaurus in your bathroom (assuming that there isn't). As for
trivial events that could easily have natural causes, which may be where
you're going, we can agree that some gods are carefully designed so as
to be untestable. It all depends on the assumed characteristics of the
god, as I said before.

>>>> And don't you agree that regardless, "prove" is the wrong word?
>>>
>>> Since you asked, IMO it's exactly the right word. As you know,
>>> science doesn't deal with "proofs", so in that sense, the quote is a
>>> truism by definition.
>>
>> And thus vacuous, if so.
>
> Incorrect. Something that is obviously true is ipso facto different
> from something that's lacking meaningful content.

"A rose is a rose" is obviously true and also vacuous. Perhaps you don't
agree. How about "a splortzian is a splortzian"?

>>> But my impression is that's not how Siegel means it. Instead, I
>>> understand him to say that the existence of God isn't testable by
>>> material means, and it doesn't provide testable explanations of
>>> material phenomena, both of which are required by science. IOW the
>>> existence of God is both beyond the reach of, and irrelevant to,
>>> scientific explanations.
>>
>> Do you agree? Wouldn't that depend on what the assumed characteristics
>> of the particular god were?
>
> Whatever characteristic(s) one assumes for a god, the best science can
> do is provide explanations which make that god unnecessary. Science
> can't prove that god wasn't involved or doesn't exist, but then, it
> doesn't matter to science. The question then devolves to which
> explanation is more meaningful to the person. For those who don't
> understand science, and even for some who do, a caring,
> interventionist god wins.

Well of course, if all you're saying is that science doesn't deal in
proof. But that apparently isn't all you're saying. Certainly
self-deception and science don't go well together. And certainly nothing
can be proven to a person who doesn't want to deal with evidence and
strongly wants to believe the contrary. But this all seems, if not
vacuous, trivial and uninteresting. Is that really all you meant?

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:

> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:39:58 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> >> From my second-favorite astronomer:
> >>
> >> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
> >>
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
> >>
> >> Short answer:
> >>
> >> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
> >>
> >

> > All that says is that the author is an Agnostic. Atheists, Theists, and Deists disagree.

>
> Some do, some don't. Quite a to of theists and deists agree and argue
> that knowledge of god comes only through revealed religion, but not
> science.
>
> In fact, that's what "deist" originally meant when the term was coined
> by Ralph Cudworth in the 17th century. Deists in his sense reject all
> natural or rational religion as blasphemous because of its
> incompatibility with god's omnipotence. Similar reasoning you and other
> modern day creationist have been given here several time.
>

> With atheists, it depends on the definition. If you use the weak
> negotiation ("does not believe there are any gods), they may or may not
> believe that there are no gods (strong negation), and those who believe
> that there are no gods may or may not believe that science disprove
> their existence.
>
> Of the latter, some think it is not science, but allocation of burden of
> proofs and similar issues of rational discourse that disproves the
> existence of gods. Most would probably argue that science disproves the
> existence of specific deities only, but that we then can make a
> meta-induction.

>
> >
> >> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
> >> to conclude Earth is unique.
> >

> > Argument seen above is anti-Theism and anti-Bible, which contradicts author's alleged Agnosticism.
>
> Not really, no. First, there is a difference between saying, as the
> author does, that science does not disprove the existence of all
> possible gods, and disproves some specific claimed deity. This can of
> course include the christian god, or specific claims made about the
> christian god. In particular, there have been several religions that
> endorse "multi-world" idea. Several of the old South American religions
> e.g., or various Christina groups such as Christian Science or the
> Swedenborgians.
>
> Secondly, even within mainstream Christianity the idea is debated
> controversially. The Lutheran theologian Ted Peters for instance not
> only endorsed it, but also showed how it was a mainstay of Christian
> theology from the word go, tracing the discussion back to Church
> Fathers such as Antipodes.
>
> He also notes that of course, there is no explicit statement in the
> Bible for or against, so if you are sola scriptura, at best you can be
> agnostic as to alien life.
>
> C.S. Lewis wrote about them from a catholic perspective and also had no
> problems reconciling their existence with Christianity, others even
> think it requires it.
>
> Again from a catholic perspective, the 19th century theologian Joseph
> Pohle argued that the incarnation is best understood as the need of a
> small, weak and otherwise insignificant world, making the sacrifice even
> more extraordinary.
>
> More recently, the Christian apologist Alvin Plantigna for instance
> writes" 'it would seem strange if God would have created this entire
> universe and have creatures in only one small corner who were able to
> witness it and see what miraculous work he has done. So the natural
> thing to think from a Christian perspective is that there are lots and
> lots of intelligent species out there.'

>
>
> >
> >>
> >> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
> >> to use science to justify one's beliefs.
> >>
> >

> > Another contradiction: Author just said science is Agnostic, now author implies it is not.
>
> Again no contradiction. Just the statement that "natural religion" is
> untenable, leaving "revealed religion" an option.

> >
> >> Of course, I don't expect those who do these things to understand the
> >> article, even if they actually read it.

> >> --
> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >

> > Imagine that; if one doesn't agree with said article one didn't understand its content!
>
> I'd say your comments are pretty much proof positive that Jillery is
> right on that too - all your comments showed misunderstandings of the
> article, and/or theology.
> >
> > Ray
> >

Every reply seen above is a non-sequitur, and to make things worse the author doesn't seem to be aware of the fact. And his last thought, ironically, accuses his opponent of misunderstanding everything written in the Opening Post. In addition to the irony this last thought is actually a popular debating tactic among the intellectually deficient crowd----the much used "misunderstanding card." Said card only requires one to say the same in response. So the card betrays, as mentioned, an empty intellect unable to address what was actually said and argued.

Ray

[Burkhard]

really? The you will have no problem showing where exactly the arguments
fail.

>and to make things worse the author doesn't seem to be aware of the fact. And his last thought, ironically, accuses his opponent of misunderstanding everything written in the Opening Post.

Not just "accuses". Shows in detail how every single line of your post
was either wrong as a matter of logic or wrong as a matter of theology.

>In addition to the irony this last thought is actually a popular debating tactic among the intellectually deficient crowd----the much used "misunderstanding card." Said card only requires one to say the same in response. So the card betrays, as mentioned, an empty intellect unable to address what was actually said and argued.

My post is still visible above. Every single line of your claim was
shown to be faulty, with relevant citation to the literature where
needed, counterexamples where appropriate. our only response has been
"it ain't so"
>
> Ray
>

[Ray Martinez]

Anyone can fact check and see that my output in reply to your claims is short, succinct, and relevant. In response you choose to portray my output to be unworthy of a reply.

You've been exposed, once again, of not knowing what a noun is----no wonder you're embarrassed, trying to play it off via blaming the messenger. Your on the spot coinage was easily shown as not existing, and you refuse to admit because, like I observed, you don't know what a noun is. Your thinking is anti-reality. I advise you to read Ayn Rand and learn how to think reality-based.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Sure, no problem, will do exactly that ASAP.

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

In the category "Thus Spake John Galt":

[J. J. Lodder]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
> > From my second-favorite astronomer:
> >
> > <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-go
d-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
> >
> > <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
> >
> > Short answer:
> >
> > "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
> >

> > The article also contains relevant information about why
> > it's stupid to conclude Earth is unique.
> >

> > The article also contains relevant information about why
> > it's stupid to use science to justify one's beliefs.
> >

> > Of course, I don't expect those who do these things to
> > understand the article, even if they actually read it.
>

> Your link is merely a rehash of the standard arguments and
> rely on vague probabilities maybes and might haves. To the
> extent that verifiable data matters, these arguments are
> specious.

As are all arguments wrt to the existence of god,

Jan

[R. Dean]

So, rather than just slack off on some on this intolerance, unfairness,
self-righteousness you just double down.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>
>

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l0f29cpqce3k6uca7...@4ax.com...

Indeed!





I'd like to draw attention the the fact - yes, there is one fact to be found
in the Bible! The fact that Moses spent a whole sleepless night, struggling
with God to reveal his name. At last he got the answer: I AM! That's it,
that's THE answer to the question. God is there! What remain is for people
to understand. Carl Gustav Jung understood, I know and understand, and pity
the ignorant.



Among my studies during the past 67 years are the study of psychoanalysis in
the paradigm of Jungian depth psychology. Jungian psychoanalysis was common
in Norway already in the 1920's; I studied it in the 1950's - but that was
not any kind of university study, it was done by freelancers, working under
the umbrella of a Dr.Med that had learned it from Sigmund Freud himself. But
he had abandoned the archaic and primitive approach to analysis that we
always have found in American movies where analysis was a subject: The
'patient' on a couch, with the analyst sitting with his back towards the
patient. The Jungian approach was the simple tête-à-tête, pupil and teacher
with the desk between them. There is more going on between two people than
what you can hear, eyes and sight are important.



I had long studied the subject and I entered into analysis with the goal of
setting up my own practice, but I already had a good job and when I told my
mentor about my plans, he stopped it short with his response: Do you have
any money? Newly wed and with my first child, I didn't have money to spare,
so I decided to stay with the job I already had. It was a good job that
suited me well. Not too well paid, but with a company car and other
benefits, life was good. Add to that a wonderful wife, what more could I
ask for?



It may be interesting to note that the goal of psychoanalysis is the same as
the goal of Jesus-worhsip. We all (growing up in a Christian society) bear
an image of Jesus with us.The symbol: Dying from you old "sinful" self,
resurrecting (born anew) as a Christ (The"Christ in me" of St. Paul). The
same symbolic process seen in the Egyptian Osiris-Isis myth, and several
similar myths throughout the millenia before the present age. To die on a
cross, and rise again as a son of God. As the Jews say, we are all sons of
God. The myth is symbolic in nature, to inspire us to follow the path laid
out. To set off the same chain of events in ourselves.



That's the best I can do in a foreign language.





tête-à-tête

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l0f29cpqce3k6uca7...@4ax.com...

[Rolf]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:cNWdnW_TxM805gzF...@giganews.com...

LOL

Rolf

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

Since the label "god" has not been shown to have a corresponding material
referent, likewise.

Goody, we just disproved gods. All of 'em.

Now where's my cookie?

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:b0f29c1iaa1bfveim...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:37:59 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> As it stands today science can't evaluate the existence of God.
>

Besides, there is the problem of agreeing upon the existence of which god
we/you are dealing with.
Personally I know just one, but that happens to be the only one as well. All
the others ar imaginary.
But proof is out of the question. When one knows, proof is not requred.

I suspect though that my approach may be a litle too far along the esoteric
scale to be meaningful to most people.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7oh39c9te4u53gch9...@4ax.com...

My favourite god is the one Moses encountered on a sleepless night: I AM.

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 06:28:23 -0800, John Harshman

>who [did], and has a different essence. Evangelicals of course differ

>widely in their beliefs, but a god with known characteristics will
>generally be testable.

The specific date is irrelevant. The motivation is pure speculation,
even by Evangelical standards; there's no basis for assuming a
creative deity would or wouldn't do things which might appear to us as
devious. So I disagree that your specified event and motivation
identifies an essential part of an Evangelical's God.

>> More to the point, in order for your strategy to work, you would have
>> to affirmatively prove a negative, a losing strategy. There will
>> always be events which change people's lives. You can't prove that a
>> specific event at a specific time wasn't caused by some deity.
>
>The fact is that negatives are often possible, even easy, to "prove".
>Depends on the event. It's easy, for example, to show that there is no
>Tyrannosaurus in your bathroom (assuming that there isn't).

I agree that one can identify specific instances well enough to prove
them false. I disagree that one can so specify a god, and still have
a believer agree with said specification. For example, there may be
someone who believes in a god whose domain is limited to a bathroom
between the hours of midnight and 3 AM, but that someone wouldn't be
representative of Evangelicals, or even humans. So, while your
argument above is technically correct, it's not relevant to the
question at hand.

>As for
>trivial events that could easily have natural causes, which may be where
>you're going, we can agree that some gods are carefully designed so as
>to be untestable. It all depends on the assumed characteristics of the
>god, as I said before.

My understanding is that believers are unconcerned with specifying
their gods specifically enough for science to disprove their god's
existence. One can only wonder why you think they are, or even should
be.

>>>>> And don't you agree that regardless, "prove" is the wrong word?
>>>>
>>>> Since you asked, IMO it's exactly the right word. As you know,
>>>> science doesn't deal with "proofs", so in that sense, the quote is a
>>>> truism by definition.
>>>
>>> And thus vacuous, if so.
>>
>> Incorrect. Something that is obviously true is ipso facto different
>> from something that's lacking meaningful content.
>
>"A rose is a rose" is obviously true and also vacuous. Perhaps you don't
>agree. How about "a splortzian is a splortzian"?

There are vacuous truisms, as with your example. There are also
truisms which note relevant and important truths, ex. science doesn't
deal with proofs. So your claim that truisms are necessarily vacuous
is incorrect.

As to your specific question re splortzian, explain how it applies to
the question at hand, whether science can prove or disprove the
existence of God.

>>>> But my impression is that's not how Siegel means it. Instead, I
>>>> understand him to say that the existence of God isn't testable by
>>>> material means, and it doesn't provide testable explanations of
>>>> material phenomena, both of which are required by science. IOW the
>>>> existence of God is both beyond the reach of, and irrelevant to,
>>>> scientific explanations.
>>>
>>> Do you agree? Wouldn't that depend on what the assumed characteristics
>>> of the particular god were?
>>
>> Whatever characteristic(s) one assumes for a god, the best science can
>> do is provide explanations which make that god unnecessary. Science
>> can't prove that god wasn't involved or doesn't exist, but then, it
>> doesn't matter to science. The question then devolves to which
>> explanation is more meaningful to the person. For those who don't
>> understand science, and even for some who do, a caring,
>> interventionist god wins.
>
>Well of course, if all you're saying is that science doesn't deal in
>proof. But that apparently isn't all you're saying.

Since you reply to a paragraph which explicitly says more than your
conditional, one can only wonder why you qualify your reply.
Apparently you doubt the intent of the words you apparently read.

>Certainly
>self-deception and science don't go well together. And certainly nothing
>can be proven to a person who doesn't want to deal with evidence and
>strongly wants to believe the contrary. But this all seems, if not
>vacuous, trivial and uninteresting. Is that really all you meant?

My understanding is those who believe God exists don't frame the
argument as you do above. You're entitled to establish what's
vacuous, trivial, and uninteresting for yourself. In a similar
spirit, perhaps you could extend that courtesy to those who believe in
God.

My experience is people facing grave personal challenges, to deal with
the death of a loved one, to care for their children, to survive
cancer and its treatments, to avoid getting shot or blown up,
generally don't give a shit about the veracity of biological
evolution, even if you do.

If it helps them to endure and/or overcome life's challenges, then
what you consider self-deception is going to win out over something
they consider irrelevant at best.

[jillery]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 22:30:19 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That's pretty good in any language.

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:10:58 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I like a god of few words, to counter the verbosity typical of Its
believers.

[RonO]

So instead of facing the obvious reality that you find yourself in you
would rather blame someone else and run away in denial. Why not face
what the ID scam is? What reason would you have to accept the ID
creationist scam at this time? The sad thing is that the ID hypothesis
that you want to support is just your religious beliefs and the ID scam
is just layered on top of that. You don't really need the ID
creationist scam, you just think that you do. You could go back to a
discussion of religious theology, but you'd rather lie to yourself about
the non existent ID science.

Look at Jonathan's beef. He is obviously concerned with his perceived
conflict between his religious beliefs and real science, but he has to
still call it ID for some stupid reason. The only IDiots left are the
ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest and maintaining the denial is
stupid and dishonest at this time. What happened to the IDiots that
used to belong to the ID network and ISCID? There were supposed to be
IDiot "scientists" and "academics" in both IDiot organizations, but so
many of them quit the ID scam that the organizations fell apart.

This is the reality that you live in. Blaming the messenger isn't going
to change that reality. There never was any ID science so why are you
still an IDiot. There is obviously no value in ID for you except the
scam. The value is elsewhere and there is no reason to lie to yourself
about that. The ID scam is not your religious beliefs, it was just a
dishonest scam that was supposed to partly support your religious
beliefs, but was run mainly to support ID perp political agendas. The
ID perps didn't keep selling the ID scam after the bait and switch
started to go down to support your religious beliefs, but to keep their
political agenda alive by keeping the rubes interested with ID and
substituting in the switch scam for political purposes. ID was an
obvious failure, but they still had their political agenda, and they
required the creationist political support. That is all ID has been
good for, for the past 15 years of the bait and switch. ID is just the
bait. What do you actually get if you take the bait? Why is there no
mention of ID in the switch scam that you get from the ID perps?

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[raven1]

I find it odd that you're arguing for materialism here, Ray. Is that
what your intent was?

[R. Dean]

No-this is just not true. I suspect that most critics of ID hypothesis
has a strong desire to lay religion at the feet of the IDist. This no
doubt gives them some kind of security. But this is wrong, where I'm
concerned.
Religion was not important to me, I don't think I was ever an atheist, I
didn't think about it. So, one day I came across an old magazine where I
read an article about a physicist, Brandon Carter, who at a scientific
symposium in Poland brought to the attention of scientist that our
universe had been the result of a number of fine tuned cosmological
constants. This was my first encounter with the subject. I have since
read a number of books on the subject by scientist.
I bought the book The Anthropic Cosmological principle by Barrow and
Tippler which I struggled through as well as other books by Rees,
Davies and others including internet articles for and against the
fine tuning of the constants.

I find me and others accused of a religious motivated, but it's
perfectly obvious that there is far more animosity towards religion
and this, I'm sure is the driving motivation for the unfair,
intolerant and vicious attacks on people who hold different views from
yours.

[John Stockwell]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:39:58 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>
> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>
> Short answer:
>
> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>
> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
> to conclude Earth is unique.
>
> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
> to use science to justify one's beliefs.
>
> Of course, I don't expect those who do these things to understand the
> article, even if they actually read it.
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

It is said that "faith can move mountains." That may or may not be true,
but what we can agree on definitely is that "faith can move goal posts".

-John

[John Harshman]

The date is indeed relevant, if only because a common assumptions is
that god dictated Genesis and does not lie. What's the difference
between "might appear to us as devious" and "devious"? Are you supposing
that god is unaware of or isn't concerned with the conclusions people
will draw from his work?

Certainly "an Evangelical's God" is ambiguous, since there are many
evangelicals, each with his own idea of god. One must consider each
hypothesis separately. But some evangelicals are young-earth
creationists who suppose that if any word of the bible (or, more
correctly, their interpretation of it) is false, then all of
Christianity collapses. Do you deny that there are such people?

>>> More to the point, in order for your strategy to work, you would have
>>> to affirmatively prove a negative, a losing strategy. There will
>>> always be events which change people's lives. You can't prove that a
>>> specific event at a specific time wasn't caused by some deity.
>>
>> The fact is that negatives are often possible, even easy, to "prove".
>> Depends on the event. It's easy, for example, to show that there is no
>> Tyrannosaurus in your bathroom (assuming that there isn't).
>
> I agree that one can identify specific instances well enough to prove
> them false. I disagree that one can so specify a god, and still have
> a believer agree with said specification. For example, there may be
> someone who believes in a god whose domain is limited to a bathroom
> between the hours of midnight and 3 AM, but that someone wouldn't be
> representative of Evangelicals, or even humans. So, while your
> argument above is technically correct, it's not relevant to the
> question at hand.

We disagree about whether any relevant people exist. I would claim that
any YEC falls into that category. Why not?

>> As for
>> trivial events that could easily have natural causes, which may be where
>> you're going, we can agree that some gods are carefully designed so as
>> to be untestable. It all depends on the assumed characteristics of the
>> god, as I said before.
>
> My understanding is that believers are unconcerned with specifying
> their gods specifically enough for science to disprove their god's
> existence. One can only wonder why you think they are, or even should
> be.

You persist in lumping all believers, so that anything not true of all
of them is not true, period. Some believers do specify their gods
sufficiently, whether they are concerned with it or not, whether they
should be or not.

And yes, some believers make excuses for their gods specifically
designed to make them untestable: "Who are we to question God's
actions?" is one; "God works in mysterious ways" is another. Thus one
salvages the claim that God loves us in the face of evidence that he
doesn't care at all (or perhaps doesn't exist).

>>>>>> And don't you agree that regardless, "prove" is the wrong word?
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you asked, IMO it's exactly the right word. As you know,
>>>>> science doesn't deal with "proofs", so in that sense, the quote is a
>>>>> truism by definition.
>>>>
>>>> And thus vacuous, if so.
>>>
>>> Incorrect. Something that is obviously true is ipso facto different
>>> from something that's lacking meaningful content.
>>
>> "A rose is a rose" is obviously true and also vacuous. Perhaps you don't
>> agree. How about "a splortzian is a splortzian"?
>
> There are vacuous truisms, as with your example. There are also
> truisms which note relevant and important truths, ex. science doesn't
> deal with proofs. So your claim that truisms are necessarily vacuous
> is incorrect.

Made no such claim. "Science doesn't deal with proofs" is not vacuous.
But in the light of that statement, "Science can't prove god" is
vacuous, because all it says is that science can't do what science
doesn't do.

> As to your specific question re splortzian, explain how it applies to
> the question at hand, whether science can prove or disprove the
> existence of God.

It's an example of a claim that is vague enough not to be testable. Some
conceptions of god are quite similar to your conception of splortzian. I
agree that claims about such gods can't be tested. God must be
sufficiently defined if he's (it's?) to be tested.

>>>>> But my impression is that's not how Siegel means it. Instead, I
>>>>> understand him to say that the existence of God isn't testable by
>>>>> material means, and it doesn't provide testable explanations of
>>>>> material phenomena, both of which are required by science. IOW the
>>>>> existence of God is both beyond the reach of, and irrelevant to,
>>>>> scientific explanations.
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree? Wouldn't that depend on what the assumed characteristics
>>>> of the particular god were?
>>>
>>> Whatever characteristic(s) one assumes for a god, the best science can
>>> do is provide explanations which make that god unnecessary. Science
>>> can't prove that god wasn't involved or doesn't exist, but then, it
>>> doesn't matter to science. The question then devolves to which
>>> explanation is more meaningful to the person. For those who don't
>>> understand science, and even for some who do, a caring,
>>> interventionist god wins.
>>
>> Well of course, if all you're saying is that science doesn't deal in
>> proof. But that apparently isn't all you're saying.
>
> Since you reply to a paragraph which explicitly says more than your
> conditional, one can only wonder why you qualify your reply.
> Apparently you doubt the intent of the words you apparently read.

Could you restate what you consider the important point of that
paragraph, particularly the part that responds to the questions I asked?
I'm not clear on it.

>> Certainly
>> self-deception and science don't go well together. And certainly nothing
>> can be proven to a person who doesn't want to deal with evidence and
>> strongly wants to believe the contrary. But this all seems, if not
>> vacuous, trivial and uninteresting. Is that really all you meant?
>
> My understanding is those who believe God exists don't frame the
> argument as you do above. You're entitled to establish what's
> vacuous, trivial, and uninteresting for yourself. In a similar
> spirit, perhaps you could extend that courtesy to those who believe in
> God.

How do those who believe frame the argument? Do they frame it correctly?
Or are you being a relativist here, in which each person is free to
inhabit his or her own reality, and there is no "correctly"?

> My experience is people facing grave personal challenges, to deal with
> the death of a loved one, to care for their children, to survive
> cancer and its treatments, to avoid getting shot or blown up,
> generally don't give a shit about the veracity of biological
> evolution, even if you do.

> If it helps them to endure and/or overcome life's challenges, then
> what you consider self-deception is going to win out over something
> they consider irrelevant at best.

Is the fact that it wins out an argument against self-deception? Is the
fact that a believe feels good an argument for the truth of that belief?
If the answer is "no", what is the point in bringing it up?

[John Harshman]

You refer to a fictional character encountered by another fictional
character in a work of fiction. Why is he your favorite?

[Burkhard]

I think you might be missing the pun here (took me a bit too - and hten
again it might not even be intended) "Sleepless night - I AM"- as in
01.00 hrs

[Rolf]

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dp2bmd-...@spanky.localhost.net...

But splortzian remains real, or at least hypothetically real, since nothing
says that splortzian can not exist, although AFAICT, no information about
splortzian and he/her/its properties except name so far has been provided.

Anyway, I miss the carton about a certain soldier Splortman from the planet
Grlzak.
But he was absolutely not real. It is an interesting fact of nature that we
are capable of 'inventing' anyhing thinkable, and yet it doesn't exist. Like
a time machine, Spock, Luke Skywalker or Darth Wader. Strange. This forum
lacks a real philosopher. I miss John Wilkins.

Rolf

[John Harshman]

Yeah, I don't think it was intended. First, it's a bad pun, since it
requires a purely visual equation of capital I with a Roman numeral. And
second, in other posts on the subject he seems completely sincere.

[Ray Martinez]

The corresponding material object for the noun "God" is Jesus the Christ or the Doctrine of the Incarnation.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

> Ray Martinez wrote:

> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:39:58 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> >> From my second-favorite astronomer:
> >>
> >> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
> >>
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
> >>
> >> Short answer:
> >>
> >> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
> >>
> >

> > All that says is that the author is an Agnostic. Atheists, Theists, and Deists disagree.
>
> Some do, some don't. Quite a to of theists and deists agree and argue
> that knowledge of god comes only through revealed religion, but not
> science.
>

My comment is logical thus factually correct. Your comment in reply simply reminds us that some persons contradict their own worldview. But I did, in fact, respond in a relevant manner to what was said. So for you to say I misunderstood is completely false.

> In fact, that's what "deist" originally meant when the term was coined
> by Ralph Cudworth in the 17th century. Deists in his sense reject all
> natural or rational religion as blasphemous because of its
> incompatibility with god's omnipotence. Similar reasoning you and other
> modern day creationist have been given here several time.

These comments have no relevance to what I said or to the comment I was replying against. Neither said comment or what I said denied anything you mention. So you have produced, like I observed, a non-sequitur.

>
> With atheists, it depends on the definition. If you use the weak
> negotiation ("does not believe there are any gods), they may or may not
> believe that there are no gods (strong negation), and those who believe
> that there are no gods may or may not believe that science disprove
> their existence.

It stands regardless that the Atheism worldview points to science and history as justifying their view of God. For you to invoke subjective beliefs about Atheism, as if these beliefs somehow harm the preceding fact, equates to another non-sequitur regarding what I said in regard to the OP quote.

Will continue ASAP....

Ray

>
> Of the latter, some think it is not science, but allocation of burden of
> proofs and similar issues of rational discourse that disproves the
> existence of gods. Most would probably argue that science disproves the
> existence of specific deities only, but that we then can make a
> meta-induction.
>
> >

> >> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
> >> to conclude Earth is unique.
> >

> >> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
> >> to use science to justify one's beliefs.
> >>
> >

> > Another contradiction: Author just said science is Agnostic, now author implies it is not.
>
> Again no contradiction. Just the statement that "natural religion" is
> untenable, leaving "revealed religion" an option.
> >

> >> Of course, I don't expect those who do these things to understand the
> >> article, even if they actually read it.
> >> --
> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >

[John Harshman]

The doctrine of the incarnation is not a material object. And Jesus the
Christ has not been shown to be a material object any more than Paul
Bunyan has. Try again.

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

> Ray Martinez wrote:

> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:39:58 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> >> From my second-favorite astronomer:
> >>
> >> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
> >>
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
> >>
> >> Short answer:
> >>
> >> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
> >>
> >

> > All that says is that the author is an Agnostic. Atheists, Theists, and Deists disagree.
>

[snip...]

>
> Of the latter, some think it is not science, but allocation of burden of
> proofs and similar issues of rational discourse that disproves the
> existence of gods. Most would probably argue that science disproves the
> existence of specific deities only, but that we then can make a
> meta-induction.
>

Comments above have no relevance to anything I said in response to the quotation at issue from the OP. Again, that's why I observed a non-sequitur.

> >
> >> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
> >> to conclude Earth is unique.
> >
> > Argument seen above is anti-Theism and anti-Bible, which contradicts author's alleged Agnosticism.
>
> Not really, no. First, there is a difference between saying, as the
> author does, that science does not disprove the existence of all
> possible gods, and disproves some specific claimed deity. This can of
> course include the christian god, or specific claims made about the
> christian god. In particular, there have been several religions that
> endorse "multi-world" idea. Several of the old South American religions
> e.g., or various Christina groups such as Christian Science or the
> Swedenborgians.

Comments above have no relevance to the issue of an alleged Agnostic expressing a pro-Atheism view of special creation. Again, this is why I observed that you created a non-sequitur.

>
> Secondly, even within mainstream Christianity the idea is debated

> controversially [what idea? R. M.]. The Lutheran theologian Ted Peters for instance not

> only endorsed it, but also showed how it was a mainstay of Christian
> theology from the word go, tracing the discussion back to Church
> Fathers such as Antipodes.
>
> He also notes that of course, there is no explicit statement in the
> Bible for or against, so if you are sola scriptura, at best you can be
> agnostic as to alien life.
>
> C.S. Lewis wrote about them from a catholic perspective and also had no
> problems reconciling their existence with Christianity, others even
> think it requires it.
>
> Again from a catholic perspective, the 19th century theologian Joseph
> Pohle argued that the incarnation is best understood as the need of a
> small, weak and otherwise insignificant world, making the sacrifice even
> more extraordinary.
>
> More recently, the Christian apologist Alvin Plantigna for instance
> writes" 'it would seem strange if God would have created this entire
> universe and have creatures in only one small corner who were able to
> witness it and see what miraculous work he has done. So the natural
> thing to think from a Christian perspective is that there are lots and
> lots of intelligent species out there.'
>

Again, paragraphs have no relevance to the comments I made about the OP quotation regarding an alleged Agnostic siding with the pro-Atheism view of special creation.

>
> >
> >>
> >> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
> >> to use science to justify one's beliefs.
> >>
> >
> > Another contradiction: Author just said science is Agnostic, now author implies it is not.
>
> Again no contradiction. Just the statement that "natural religion" is
> untenable, leaving "revealed religion" an option.

Religion was not mentioned by me or the OP quotation in which I was offering a reply----another non-sequitur is documented.

Fact: the author claims to be Agnostic, yet the OP quote implies science doesn't support his worldview = contradiction. My reply observing a contradiction was relevant, responding to what was said. I did not misunderstand. Your accusation is false.

> >
> >> Of course, I don't expect those who do these things to understand the
> >> article, even if they actually read it.
> >> --
> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >
> > Imagine that; if one doesn't agree with said article one didn't understand its content!
>
> I'd say your comments are pretty much proof positive that Jillery is
> right on that too - all your comments showed misunderstandings of the
> article, and/or theology.
> >
> > Ray
> >

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

The material object of the Doctrine of the Incarnation is Christ. And there's no shortage of Atheist scholars who admit that Jesus lived.

We can also infer the material object at issue from design in nature. So the noun "God" has a corresponding material referent and is thus a true claim about reality. Yes, many deny but that's not the point. The point here is that hundred of millions of persons accept the noun to have a corresponding material referent.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:39:58 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>>>> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>>>>
>>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>>>>
>>>> Short answer:
>>>>
>>>> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>>>>
>>>
>>> All that says is that the author is an Agnostic. Atheists, Theists, and Deists disagree.
>>
>> Some do, some don't. Quite a to of theists and deists agree and argue
>> that knowledge of god comes only through revealed religion, but not
>> science.
>>
>
> My comment is logical thus factually correct.

It really is neither, You made a provably false claim about deists and
theists.

> Your comment in reply simply reminds us that some persons contradict their own worldview.

Only that they don't. Their worldview is entirely consistent, just as it
is consistent to argue that we can have knowledge about our own mental
states without having scientific knowledge of them, or to argue that we
can have knowledge of ethical norms, but not scientific knowledge of them.

> But I did, in fact, respond in a relevant manner to what was said. So for you to say I misunderstood is completely false.

You misunderstood, or rather falsely represented, theism and deism

>
>> In fact, that's what "deist" originally meant when the term was coined
>> by Ralph Cudworth in the 17th century. Deists in his sense reject all
>> natural or rational religion as blasphemous because of its
>> incompatibility with god's omnipotence. Similar reasoning you and other
>> modern day creationist have been given here several time.
>
> These comments have no relevance to what I said or to the comment I was replying against. Neither said comment or what I said denied anything you mention. So you have produced, like I observed, a non-sequitur.

Not at all. I gave a very specific counterexample to your claim that
"deists disagree", based on the history of the term. I further
substantiated this by showing how that position is not only consistent
with theism and deism, but a strong contender for a form of deism/theism
that is not blasphemous.

>
>>
>> With atheists, it depends on the definition. If you use the weak
>> negotiation ("does not believe there are any gods), they may or may not
>> believe that there are no gods (strong negation), and those who believe
>> that there are no gods may or may not believe that science disprove
>> their existence.
>
> It stands regardless that the Atheism worldview points to science and history as justifying their view of God.

So you claim, without giving evidence, and it is manifestly wrong.
Little children who grow up in atheist societies e.g. will be atheists,
without using science as justification. In general, the emphasis on
science is just a historical contingent aspect of some current forms of
atheism in the West.

>For you to invoke subjective beliefs about Atheism, as if these beliefs somehow harm the preceding fact, equates to another non-sequitur regarding what I said in regard to the OP quote.

You confuse "falsification: with "non-sequitur". Even a single atheist
who does not believe that science disproves god is enought to show your
position as wrong.

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:14:58 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:39:58 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > >> From my second-favorite astronomer:
> > >>
> > >> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
> > >>
> > >> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
> > >>
> > >> Short answer:
> > >>
> > >> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
> > >>
> > >
> > > All that says is that the author is an Agnostic. Atheists, Theists, and Deists disagree.
> >
>
> [snip...]
>
> >
> > Of the latter, some think it is not science, but allocation of burden of
> > proofs and similar issues of rational discourse that disproves the
> > existence of gods. Most would probably argue that science disproves the
> > existence of specific deities only, but that we then can make a
> > meta-induction.
> >
>
> Comments above have no relevance to anything I said in response to the quotation at issue from the OP. Again, that's why I observed a non-sequitur.
>

I'll retract this one, consider it as such.

But again, subjective views, even if held by a majority, don't harm the objective view: each worldview holds that science and history justify their view of God.

Ray

[RonO]

Why lie to yourself like this? Why are you still an IDiot? There is no
valid ID science and all ID is, is a bogus creationist scam that
creationists are running on themselves. who is running the bait and
switch and who sold the ID scam?

The only reason that you are still an IDiot are religious reasons
because there is no other reason to remain an IDiot. You know that you
are never going to get the ID science from the creationists that sold
you the ID scam because no one has ever gotten the ID science when they
have needed it.

Claiming that it is the religious beliefs of others is about the
stupidest thing that you could do.

If you really believe that there is some ID science why doesn't any
creationist rubes ever get any ID science when they need it? What do
the ID perps give them instead? ID isn't even mentioned as existing in
the switch scam that you get from the ID perps. It has been that way
for a decade and a half. Nothing has changed. IDiot rubes need the ID
science and all they ever get is the bait and switch run on them.

You have to face the fact that the only reason that you are an IDiot at
this time is your religious convictions. There is no ID science to
claim to support. It never existed.

> Religion was not important to me, I don't think I was ever an atheist, I
> didn't think about it. So, one day I came across an old magazine where I
> read an article about a physicist, Brandon Carter, who at a scientific
> symposium in Poland brought to the attention of scientist that our
> universe had been the result of a number of fine tuned cosmological
> constants. This was my first encounter with the subject. I have since
> read a number of books on the subject by scientist.
> I bought the book The Anthropic Cosmological principle by Barrow and
> Tippler which I struggled through as well as other books by Rees,
> Davies and others including internet articles for and against the
> fine tuning of the constants.

That has gotten nowhere. Do you ever wonder why that is? After Denton
published his last book last year he came out with his intelligent
design alternative. He claims that his designer got everything started
with the Big Bang and it all unfolded as expected. That is a useless
alternative. Just as useless as the other Anthropic principle stuff.
Nothing science will learn about nature will confirm these things and
they are useless in helping us learn more about nature. That is why no
one bothers with the junk if they actually want to accomplish something.

If religion was not important to you, why is it important to you today?
Why is it important enough so that you would keep wanting to be lied to
about the ID scam? Why not deal with your religious beliefs instead of
lie to yourself about some nonexistent ID science. A lot of people are
religious and admit that ID was just a stupid creationist scam.

http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Resources/Faces2.htm

These clergy realize that their religious beliefs are not science. Read
a few and see what they think of the ID scam.

Why lie to yourself about your religious motivation? There is no ID
science to be motivated about.

ID is just a bogus creationist scam that creationists are running on
themselves. Read about the Clergy that support the Clergy letter
project. They used to have a specific statement against the ID scam,
and you can tell that it is one of the things that motivated them to
sign the letter.

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:39:58 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>>>> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>>>>
>>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>>>>
>>>> Short answer:
>>>>
>>>> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>>>>
>>>
>>> All that says is that the author is an Agnostic. Atheists, Theists, and Deists disagree.
>>
>
> [snip...]
>
>>
>> Of the latter, some think it is not science, but allocation of burden of
>> proofs and similar issues of rational discourse that disproves the
>> existence of gods. Most would probably argue that science disproves the
>> existence of specific deities only, but that we then can make a
>> meta-induction.
>>
>
> Comments above have no relevance to anything I said in response to the quotation at issue from the OP. Again, that's why I observed a non-sequitur.

Simply claiming that they are non-sequitur is not the same as giving
reasons that they are non-sequiturs. And that you think they are
non-sequiturs simply shows you can;t follow a rather simple logical
argument

In particular, my comments give you three different types of
justification of atheism that are all used by some atheists, and which
nonetheless are not claims of having scientifically disproven god. With
other words they falsify your statement.

Simply calling counter examples "non sequitur: shows your confusion
about logic and how it works,

>
>>>
>>>> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
>>>> to conclude Earth is unique.
>>>
>>> Argument seen above is anti-Theism and anti-Bible, which contradicts author's alleged Agnosticism.
>>
>> Not really, no. First, there is a difference between saying, as the
>> author does, that science does not disprove the existence of all
>> possible gods, and disproves some specific claimed deity. This can of
>> course include the christian god, or specific claims made about the
>> christian god. In particular, there have been several religions that
>> endorse "multi-world" idea. Several of the old South American religions
>> e.g., or various Christina groups such as Christian Science or the
>> Swedenborgians.
>
> Comments above have no relevance to the issue of an alleged Agnostic expressing a pro-Atheism view of special creation. Again, this is why I observed that you created a non-sequitur.

Of course they do. The disprove your claim that this view is
pro-atheism. It is a view held, as my examples show, by various theistic
religions through the ages.

>
>>
>> Secondly, even within mainstream Christianity the idea is debated
>> controversially [what idea? R. M.]. The Lutheran theologian Ted Peters for instance not
>> only endorsed it, but also showed how it was a mainstay of Christian
>> theology from the word go, tracing the discussion back to Church
>> Fathers such as Antipodes.
>>
>> He also notes that of course, there is no explicit statement in the
>> Bible for or against, so if you are sola scriptura, at best you can be
>> agnostic as to alien life.
>>
>> C.S. Lewis wrote about them from a catholic perspective and also had no
>> problems reconciling their existence with Christianity, others even
>> think it requires it.
>>
>> Again from a catholic perspective, the 19th century theologian Joseph
>> Pohle argued that the incarnation is best understood as the need of a
>> small, weak and otherwise insignificant world, making the sacrifice even
>> more extraordinary.
>>
>> More recently, the Christian apologist Alvin Plantigna for instance
>> writes" 'it would seem strange if God would have created this entire
>> universe and have creatures in only one small corner who were able to
>> witness it and see what miraculous work he has done. So the natural
>> thing to think from a Christian perspective is that there are lots and
>> lots of intelligent species out there.'
>>
>
> Again, paragraphs have no relevance to the comments I made about the OP quotation regarding an alleged Agnostic siding with the pro-Atheism view of special creation.

Of course they have. They disprove your claim that this is a pro-atheism
view of special creation, as it was held by numerous Christian groups
through the ages.

With other words: you are ignorant of theology, just as I said, and by
not even noticing that all these are counterexamples to your claim ,
you show that you are also incapable f understanding a simple logical
argument.

>

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The article also contains relevant information about why it's stupid
>>>> to use science to justify one's beliefs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Another contradiction: Author just said science is Agnostic, now author implies it is not.
>>
>> Again no contradiction. Just the statement that "natural religion" is
>> untenable, leaving "revealed religion" an option.
>
> Religion was not mentioned by me or the OP quotation in which I was offering a reply----another non-sequitur is documented.

Just use of the correct terminology in Christian theology, which always
juxtaposed revealed from natural religion. That was a typical name of
university chairs and degree programs in divinity in the 18th and 19th
century. cf e.g. John Brown's "A Compendious View of Natural and
Revealed Religion from 1817

The difference between the two is the way you can claim knowledge about
god - either through revelation or through reason. And that means that
it is perfectly possible to reject one of the two ways of knowledge
(here, natural religion or reason) and rely solely on the other
(revelation) s many Christian groups do - I documented some above)

>
> Fact: the author claims to be Agnostic, yet the OP quote implies science doesn't support his worldview = contradiction.

Only that this is not a fact, just some stuff you made up.As my examples
show, the contradiction is only in your mind,

> My reply observing a contradiction was relevant, responding to what was said. I did not misunderstand. Your accusation is false.

Of course it isn't. My accusation is based on correctly identifying your
theological mistake - assuming that natural or rational religion are the
only ways of having knowledge of god, and then showing that you compound
your mistake by not even recognizing the counter examples to your claim
for what they are.

[John Harshman]

As I've said, you aren't very good at sentences.

> We can also infer the material object at issue from design in nature.
> So the noun "God" has a corresponding material referent and is thus a
> true claim about reality. Yes, many deny but that's not the point.
> The point here is that hundred of millions of persons accept the noun
> to have a corresponding material referent.

Ah, so it's a noun if lots of people think it has a referent. Whether
there really is such a thing is...immaterial.

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:09:58 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:39:58 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> >>>> From my second-favorite astronomer:
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
> >>>>
> >>>> Short answer:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> All that says is that the author is an Agnostic. Atheists, Theists, and Deists disagree.
> >>
> >> Some do, some don't. Quite a to of theists and deists agree and argue
> >> that knowledge of god comes only through revealed religion, but not
> >> science.
> >>
> >
> > My comment is logical thus factually correct.
>
> It really is neither, You made a provably false claim about deists and
> theists.
>

Nope, the objective view held by each worldview is that their view of God is supported by science and history; the fact that some deny, in each worldview, doesn't harm the objective fact. You haven't shown any understanding of what I just said.

> > Your comment in reply simply reminds us that some persons contradict their own worldview.
>
> Only that they don't. Their worldview is entirely consistent, just as it
> is consistent to argue that we can have knowledge about our own mental
> states without having scientific knowledge of them, or to argue that we
> can have knowledge of ethical norms, but not scientific knowledge of them.
>

Again, invoking those who have a different view of how their worldview is supported doesn't harm the fact that each worldview claims science and history as supporting their view of God. If an Atheist or Theist, for example, deny science and history as supporting their view of God then these denials support Agnosticism, which contradicts their claim of Theism or Atheism. There's no way around these contradictions. To say "I'm a Theist" but deny science and history as supporting is to say or indicate a pro-Agnosticism position because Agnosticism says science and history do not support or deny the existence of God. Thus we have a contradiction.

>
> > But I did, in fact, respond in a relevant manner to what was said. So for you to say I misunderstood is completely false.
>
> You misunderstood, or rather falsely represented, theism and deism
>
> >
> >> In fact, that's what "deist" originally meant when the term was coined
> >> by Ralph Cudworth in the 17th century. Deists in his sense reject all
> >> natural or rational religion as blasphemous because of its
> >> incompatibility with god's omnipotence. Similar reasoning you and other
> >> modern day creationist have been given here several time.
> >
> > These comments have no relevance to what I said or to the comment I was replying against. Neither said comment or what I said denied anything you mention. So you have produced, like I observed, a non-sequitur.
>
> Not at all. I gave a very specific counterexample to your claim that
> "deists disagree", based on the history of the term.

Okay, but you left out the fact that rejection of organized religion wasn't the only tenet of Deism; they also accepted design. Deism rejected religion and accepted the main claim of science at the time: God could be ascertained in nature.

So original Deism does not disagree: It's their MAIN CLAIM.

> I further
> substantiated this by showing how that position is not only consistent
> with theism and deism, but a strong contender for a form of deism/theism
> that is not blasphemous.
>
> >
> >>
> >> With atheists, it depends on the definition. If you use the weak
> >> negotiation ("does not believe there are any gods), they may or may not
> >> believe that there are no gods (strong negation), and those who believe
> >> that there are no gods may or may not believe that science disprove
> >> their existence.
> >
> > It stands regardless that the Atheism worldview points to science and history as justifying their view of God.
>
> So you claim, without giving evidence, and it is manifestly wrong.

Ridiculous!

What Atheist scholar is going to say "My Atheism ISN'T based on science and history and the fact that no evidence of God exists in time present or time past"?

You're entangled in a contradiction: You just implied Atheists accept Agnosticism.

> Little children who grow up in atheist societies e.g. will be atheists,
> without using science as justification. In general, the emphasis on
> science is just a historical contingent aspect of some current forms of
> atheism in the West.
>
> >For you to invoke subjective beliefs about Atheism, as if these beliefs somehow harm the preceding fact, equates to another non-sequitur regarding what I said in regard to the OP quote.
>
>
> You confuse "falsification: with "non-sequitur". Even a single atheist
> who does not believe that science disproves god is enought to show your
> position as wrong.
>

Imagine that; Lenny Flank's pizza delivery boy's opinions, meaning anyone's subjective views, falsify the objective.

Undoubtedly the silliest thing you have ever said!

Ray

[R. Dean]

Here you are passing off you own extreme biased opinion as fact.

>
> The only reason that you are still an IDiot are religious reasons
> because there is no other reason to remain an IDiot.
>

You really allowed your animosity and hatred of you own concept of
religion to overcome your reasoning power. You need to get a life!
And get over your preoccupation with religion. If you notice I have
never brought religion into any discussion, but you are constantly
harping on it.

>
You know that you
> are never going to get the ID science from the creationists that sold
> you the ID scam because no one has ever gotten the ID science when they
> have needed it.
>
> Claiming that it is the religious beliefs of others is about the
> stupidest thing that you could do.
>

That's exactly what you are doing! You cannot conceive that religion
plays no part in any discussion on the fine tuning of the fundamental
constants of nature. But with me it's the scientific discoveries I've
learned about. There is no doubt that if any one of the constants had
varried by just a small percentage, there would be no universe, no
stars, no galaxies, no elements and no life to appear and evolve on
at least one planet. And this is scientific fact.

>
> If you really believe that there is some ID science why doesn't any
> creationist rubes ever get any ID science when they need it? What do
> the ID perps give them instead? ID isn't even mentioned as existing in
> the switch scam that you get from the ID perps. It has been that way
> for a decade and a half. Nothing has changed. IDiot rubes need the ID
> science and all they ever get is the bait and switch run on them.
>
> You have to face the fact that the only reason that you are an IDiot at
> this time is your religious convictions. There is no ID science to
> claim to support. It never existed.
>

You've never heard of the fine tuned universe. Even Richard Dawkins,
and Stephen Hawking has written about it. But they turn to the
multiverse supposition. The arguement goes like this: there trillions
and trillions of universes in a super universe, each with it's own
set of physical constants. So, it's no surprise that we find ourselves
in a universe where the constants are just right for our existence.
However, Hawking has invented the no boundaries proposal which
supposedly gets rid of the constants, others have argued that the theory
of everything (TOE) whenever it's found will explain how the constants
acquired their critical values.

This is horsehsit! Why it's so important for you to believe that
religion is the motivation for me? It must be conforting to you. I
think it's necessary for you to believe this, because of your own
insecurities.

There is no ID
> science to be motivated about.
>

The cosmological constants are scientific discoveries and they need an
explanation, other than the multiverse idea.

>
> ID is just a bogus creationist scam that creationists are running on
> themselves.
>

As far as I'm concerned there is a significent difference between ID
and Bibical Creationism. And while I accept the ID hypotheses I totally
reject the Genesis account of creation.

>
Read about the Clergy that support the Clergy letter
> project. They used to have a specific statement against the ID scam,
> and you can tell that it is one of the things that motivated them to
> sign the letter.
>

I don't care about cleargy or what they think. It appears to me that
it's you who is obsessing over religion. And it's driving you insane!

[jillery]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 09:04:58 -0800, John Harshman

Of course, that date appears nowhere in Genesis. More to the point,
whatever Genesis is about, it is *not* about a specific date or a
specific motivation, any more than it is about a talking serpent. I'm
almost certain that you know this, so I don't understand why you focus
on it here.

> What's the difference
>between "might appear to us as devious" and "devious"? Are you supposing
>that god is unaware of or isn't concerned with the conclusions people
>will draw from his work?

Really? Apparently you're unwilling to even consider the possibility
that a deity capable of creating the universe might have motivations
different from humans. And no, this is not a reference to "mysterious
ways".

>Certainly "an Evangelical's God" is ambiguous, since there are many
>evangelicals, each with his own idea of god. One must consider each
>hypothesis separately.

I'm glad you agree, since that is the premise you posted. I accept
the above as your admission that your premise doesn't support your
claim.

>But some evangelicals are young-earth
>creationists who suppose that if any word of the bible (or, more
>correctly, their interpretation of it) is false, then all of
>Christianity collapses. Do you deny that there are such people?

Such denials are reserved for others who post to this newsgroup. My
claim is that the characters you identified, in general do not base
their beliefs on that specific date and that specific motivation you
identified. If you want to argue specific cases, then limit your
argumentation to those specific cases.

>>>> More to the point, in order for your strategy to work, you would have
>>>> to affirmatively prove a negative, a losing strategy. There will
>>>> always be events which change people's lives. You can't prove that a
>>>> specific event at a specific time wasn't caused by some deity.
>>>
>>> The fact is that negatives are often possible, even easy, to "prove".
>>> Depends on the event. It's easy, for example, to show that there is no
>>> Tyrannosaurus in your bathroom (assuming that there isn't).
>>
>> I agree that one can identify specific instances well enough to prove
>> them false. I disagree that one can so specify a god, and still have
>> a believer agree with said specification. For example, there may be
>> someone who believes in a god whose domain is limited to a bathroom
>> between the hours of midnight and 3 AM, but that someone wouldn't be
>> representative of Evangelicals, or even humans. So, while your
>> argument above is technically correct, it's not relevant to the
>> question at hand.
>
>We disagree about whether any relevant people exist. I would claim that
>any YEC falls into that category. Why not?

My understanding is that we disagree on what we disagree on.

>>> As for
>>> trivial events that could easily have natural causes, which may be where
>>> you're going, we can agree that some gods are carefully designed so as
>>> to be untestable. It all depends on the assumed characteristics of the
>>> god, as I said before.
>>
>> My understanding is that believers are unconcerned with specifying
>> their gods specifically enough for science to disprove their god's
>> existence. One can only wonder why you think they are, or even should
>> be.
>
>You persist in lumping all believers, so that anything not true of all
>of them is not true, period.

If I so persist, I do so no more than you do. So I don't accept your
criticism as distinctively applicable to me.

>Some believers do specify their gods
>sufficiently, whether they are concerned with it or not, whether they
>should be or not.

Point one, it was you who claimed believers should define their God
sufficient for science to prove their God false.

Point second, since you claim there exist such believers, then right
here would have been a good place for you to have identified them, and
how they specify their god sufficiently.

>And yes, some believers make excuses for their gods specifically
>designed to make them untestable: "Who are we to question God's
>actions?" is one; "God works in mysterious ways" is another. Thus one
>salvages the claim that God loves us in the face of evidence that he
>doesn't care at all (or perhaps doesn't exist).

My impression is their motive is *not* to make their God untestable,
as you say, but instead to express a sincere if logically invalid POV.
Apparently your mileage varies.

>>>>>>> And don't you agree that regardless, "prove" is the wrong word?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you asked, IMO it's exactly the right word. As you know,
>>>>>> science doesn't deal with "proofs", so in that sense, the quote is a
>>>>>> truism by definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus vacuous, if so.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect. Something that is obviously true is ipso facto different
>>>> from something that's lacking meaningful content.
>>>
>>> "A rose is a rose" is obviously true and also vacuous. Perhaps you don't
>>> agree. How about "a splortzian is a splortzian"?
>>
>> There are vacuous truisms, as with your example. There are also
>> truisms which note relevant and important truths, ex. science doesn't
>> deal with proofs. So your claim that truisms are necessarily vacuous
>> is incorrect.
>
>Made no such claim. "Science doesn't deal with proofs" is not vacuous.
>But in the light of that statement, "Science can't prove god" is
>vacuous, because all it says is that science can't do what science
>doesn't do.

As I said, AIUI that isn't the basis of the article's quoted comment.
One can only wonder why you obsess about that issue here.

>> As to your specific question re splortzian, explain how it applies to
>> the question at hand, whether science can prove or disprove the
>> existence of God.
>
>It's an example of a claim that is vague enough not to be testable. Some
>conceptions of god are quite similar to your conception of splortzian. I
>agree that claims about such gods can't be tested. God must be
>sufficiently defined if he's (it's?) to be tested.

Then IIUC you admit to being in violent agreement with the OP.

>>>>>> But my impression is that's not how Siegel means it. Instead, I
>>>>>> understand him to say that the existence of God isn't testable by
>>>>>> material means, and it doesn't provide testable explanations of
>>>>>> material phenomena, both of which are required by science. IOW the
>>>>>> existence of God is both beyond the reach of, and irrelevant to,
>>>>>> scientific explanations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you agree? Wouldn't that depend on what the assumed characteristics
>>>>> of the particular god were?
>>>>
>>>> Whatever characteristic(s) one assumes for a god, the best science can
>>>> do is provide explanations which make that god unnecessary. Science
>>>> can't prove that god wasn't involved or doesn't exist, but then, it
>>>> doesn't matter to science. The question then devolves to which
>>>> explanation is more meaningful to the person. For those who don't
>>>> understand science, and even for some who do, a caring,
>>>> interventionist god wins.
>>>
>>> Well of course, if all you're saying is that science doesn't deal in
>>> proof. But that apparently isn't all you're saying.
>>
>> Since you reply to a paragraph which explicitly says more than your
>> conditional, one can only wonder why you qualify your reply.
>> Apparently you doubt the intent of the words you apparently read.
>
>Could you restate what you consider the important point of that
>paragraph, particularly the part that responds to the questions I asked?
>I'm not clear on it.

Could you restates what you're unclear about?

>>> Certainly
>>> self-deception and science don't go well together. And certainly nothing
>>> can be proven to a person who doesn't want to deal with evidence and
>>> strongly wants to believe the contrary. But this all seems, if not
>>> vacuous, trivial and uninteresting. Is that really all you meant?
>>
>> My understanding is those who believe God exists don't frame the
>> argument as you do above. You're entitled to establish what's
>> vacuous, trivial, and uninteresting for yourself. In a similar
>> spirit, perhaps you could extend that courtesy to those who believe in
>> God.
>
>How do those who believe frame the argument? Do they frame it correctly?
>Or are you being a relativist here, in which each person is free to
>inhabit his or her own reality, and there is no "correctly"?

Stupid question. Why raise possibilities not in evidence?

>> My experience is people facing grave personal challenges, to deal with
>> the death of a loved one, to care for their children, to survive
>> cancer and its treatments, to avoid getting shot or blown up,
>> generally don't give a shit about the veracity of biological
>> evolution, even if you do.
>
>> If it helps them to endure and/or overcome life's challenges, then
>> what you consider self-deception is going to win out over something
>> they consider irrelevant at best.
>
>Is the fact that it wins out an argument against self-deception? Is the
>fact that a believe feels good an argument for the truth of that belief?
>If the answer is "no", what is the point in bringing it up?

I didn't bring it up. You did. As long as you frame your answer to
the question about the existence of God on the basis of the
self-deception of those who believe in God, you will continue to talk
past them.

[jillery]

My impression is you didn't actually read the cited article. Am I
wrong?

[jillery]

I'll testify to that.

[Burkhard]

So the doctrine is not am material object, but its topic is - just as
John says.

>And there's no shortage of Atheist scholars who admit that Jesus lived.
>
> We can also infer the material object at issue from design in nature. So the noun "God" has a corresponding material referent and is thus a true claim about reality. Yes, many deny but that's not the point.

Yes, of course that's the point. Th point is whether having a word for
something commits you to the existence of that thing (the answer is no)
and even more so, if the the existence of a word for something commits
you to the existence of a test if that word has a referent (to which the
answer is heck no, as John's example shows)

[Burkhard]

Only that as I have shown is simply factually wrong. The fact that a
position (in your subjective opinion, btw, since you have not offered
any arguments so far)is wrong does not mean the position does not exist.

You talk about deist,theists etc. These are descriptive terms of certain
world views If these views are correct, or if the specific formulation
of some of these views are correct, is irrelevant for the objective fact
that they exist.


>
> Ray
>

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:09:58 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:39:58 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Short answer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All that says is that the author is an Agnostic. Atheists, Theists, and Deists disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Some do, some don't. Quite a to of theists and deists agree and argue
>>>> that knowledge of god comes only through revealed religion, but not
>>>> science.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My comment is logical thus factually correct.
>>
>> It really is neither, You made a provably false claim about deists and
>> theists.
>>
>
> Nope, the objective view held by each worldview is that their view of God is supported by science and history; the fact that some deny, in each worldview, doesn't harm the objective fact.

On the contrary, it falsifies that fact, rendering it your subjective
value judgement without any relevance of what is discussed.

Your subjective view on how to do religion right is irrelevant for the
objective, descriptive question what the terms "deist" or "theist" mean,
which can simply be determined at looking what positions though the ages
wee expressed under this label.

That you disagree with some forms of theism is really of no concern for
anybody, and most certainly does not render the position of the OP
inconsistent.

> You haven't shown any understanding of what I just said.
>
>>> Your comment in reply simply reminds us that some persons contradict their own worldview.
>>
>> Only that they don't. Their worldview is entirely consistent, just as it
>> is consistent to argue that we can have knowledge about our own mental
>> states without having scientific knowledge of them, or to argue that we
>> can have knowledge of ethical norms, but not scientific knowledge of them.
>>
>
> Again, invoking those who have a different view of how their worldview is supported doesn't harm the fact that each worldview claims science and history as supporting their view of God.

Of course it does, that's how their worldview is defined. If you are a
deist in the sense of Cudworth, then you are a deist who believes that
the only legitimate way to know about god is the bible and the bible
alone. My examples show that this is far from an idiosyncratic outside
position, it is though the centuries an influential way to understand
what it means to be deist - and as my short argument shows, one that
avoids the inherent blasphemy of your approach,

That makes it a matter of historical fact. That you, an internet nobody
with a keyboard, disagrees tat this is a good way to do religion does
not change a historical fact

>If an Atheist or Theist, for example, deny science and history as supporting their view of God then these denials support Agnosticism, which contradicts their claim of Theism or Atheism.

Only that it doesn't. That is simply your demonstrably false claim. It
assumes that science and history are the only valid way of knowing
things, proposition with which most people disagree and which is, as my
counterexamples show (knowledge of norms, knowledge of internal mental
states) highly implausible.

>There's no way around these contradictions.

The contradiction only exists in your mind, as my examples have
demonstrated.

>To say "I'm a Theist" but deny science and history as supporting is to say or indicate a pro-Agnosticism position because Agnosticism says science and history do not support or deny the existence of God. Thus we have a contradiction.

No we don't, we just have a typical Ray logical fallacy. We simply have
two groups agreeing one one thing, and disagreeing on another. Something
that isn't a contradiction and happens in the real world all the time.
In this specific case, they simply agree that science is irrelevant for
settling the dispute.

To use an analogous example from a disagreement in biology, some
biologists think that birds are not dinosaurs, others argue that birds
are dinosaurs. Those who argue that birds are dinosaurs also believe
that the existence of beetles does not support or deny the fact that
birds are dinosaurs. But hey, that is also what those people who believe
that birds are not dinosaurs. No contradiction, merely an agreement that
the existence of beetles is irrelevant for their dispute.

>
>>
>>> But I did, in fact, respond in a relevant manner to what was said. So for you to say I misunderstood is completely false.
>>
>> You misunderstood, or rather falsely represented, theism and deism
>>
>>>
>>>> In fact, that's what "deist" originally meant when the term was coined
>>>> by Ralph Cudworth in the 17th century. Deists in his sense reject all
>>>> natural or rational religion as blasphemous because of its
>>>> incompatibility with god's omnipotence. Similar reasoning you and other
>>>> modern day creationist have been given here several time.
>>>
>>> These comments have no relevance to what I said or to the comment I was replying against. Neither said comment or what I said denied anything you mention. So you have produced, like I observed, a non-sequitur.
>>
>> Not at all. I gave a very specific counterexample to your claim that
>> "deists disagree", based on the history of the term.
>
> Okay, but you left out the fact that rejection of organized religion wasn't the only tenet of Deism; they also accepted design. Deism rejected religion and accepted the main claim of science at the time: God could be ascertained in nature.
>
> So original Deism does not disagree: It's their MAIN CLAIM.

Eh no. If you read what I wrote, the term "deism" was originally defined
as exactly that - that is the rejection that god could be ascertained
in nature. That is how Cudworth defined it explicitly, because he needed
a term for the substantial number of Christians at the time who rejected
exactly what you claim.

It only changed later into today's meaning of a "hand off" deity.

>
>> I further
>> substantiated this by showing how that position is not only consistent
>> with theism and deism, but a strong contender for a form of deism/theism
>> that is not blasphemous.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> With atheists, it depends on the definition. If you use the weak
>>>> negotiation ("does not believe there are any gods), they may or may not
>>>> believe that there are no gods (strong negation), and those who believe
>>>> that there are no gods may or may not believe that science disprove
>>>> their existence.
>>>
>>> It stands regardless that the Atheism worldview points to science and history as justifying their view of God.
>>
>> So you claim, without giving evidence, and it is manifestly wrong.
>
> Ridiculous!
>
> What Atheist scholar is going to say "My Atheism ISN'T based on science and history and the fact that no evidence of God exists in time present or time past"?

Atheists scholars are only a small subset of atheists. As I said, some
atheists do indeed think that science is one, or maybe even the main
reason for their position. For many many more, it isn't.

>
> You're entangled in a contradiction: You just implied Atheists accept Agnosticism.

As I said in the part of my reply that you snipped, that is indeed true
for some (understanding of) atheists. "Atheist" does not necessarily
mean "strong atheist". If you want to talk about strong atheists alone
(that is those who claim that they have strong reasons to believe that
there is indeed no god).

And no, it is not inherent in the definition of "strong atheist"
either that this belief has to be based on science. Metaphysical monists
for instance are also all metaphysical atheists. They give traditional
philosophical/metaphysical arguments for monism, from which atheism
follows.

Another significant group comes to their conclusion from the existence
of evil and make a moral argument against the existence of god - but
that is not a scientific argument either.

And as with all worldviews, many will get it because someone they trust
told them so - be it a parent or the party.

>
>
>> Little children who grow up in atheist societies e.g. will be atheists,
>> without using science as justification. In general, the emphasis on
>> science is just a historical contingent aspect of some current forms of
>> atheism in the West.
>>
>>> For you to invoke subjective beliefs about Atheism, as if these beliefs somehow harm the preceding fact, equates to another non-sequitur regarding what I said in regard to the OP quote.
>>
>>
>> You confuse "falsification: with "non-sequitur". Even a single atheist
>> who does not believe that science disproves god is enought to show your
>> position as wrong.
>>
>
> Imagine that; Lenny Flank's pizza delivery boy's opinions, meaning anyone's subjective views, falsify the objective.

That depends on what the objective claim is. If the objective claim is
one about history of ideas, then yes, that is indeed the case. That you
disagree with the truth of a view does not mean that the view,
objectively, does not exist. You simply mischaracterise history of
ideas, theology and history to claim that your ideosyncratic view of
Christianity is not just the only valid one (silly enough as it is) but
that it is also the only one that ever existed.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40ee12f7-7f67-4e8b...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:09:58 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

>> On 1/30/17 2:38 PM, jillery wrote:
>> > From my second-favorite astronomer:
>> >
>> > <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>> >
>> > <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>> >
>> > Short answer:
>> >
>> > "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>>

>> Well, of course, science can never prove anything [with certainty], can
>> it?
>
> [Bracket added by R.M.]
>
> How about heliocentrism? Or the existence of pain and suffering?
>
>> You know
>> that's the wrong word. And whether science can test the existence of god
>> surely depends on what god we're talking about.
>>
>> If it's a claim about some unknown kind of entity that someone might
>> call a god, I see the statement as vacuous, similar to the claim that
>> science can't test the existence of splortzian. Sorry, I can't tell you
>> anything about what splortzian is. But perhaps there is something that
>> someone might call splortzian. Prove there isn't!
>
> Suddenly, a highly subjective claim is granted legitimacy, tripping up a
> man with a doctorate.
>
> The existence of the God of the Bible is THE most debated question of all
> time. More than enough evidence and scholarly argument exists to form an
> up or down opinion. Since you're a known Atheist, you've formed a down
> opinion.
>

> Ray (Christian)
>

Considering all the bad events and happening attributed to the God of the
OT, we should be happy and relieved that he apparently has gone to sleep and
most likely will stay asleep for eternity. There is a better God waiting in
the wings, name is I AM. But most worshippes worship an imaginary God. That
may be the reason prayers rarely are answered.

[John Harshman]

The date does appear. You just have to construct it from a series of
begats. More to the point, people argue about what Genesis is about, and
your assurance that it isn't about dates or talking snakes is not shared
by many Christians. That's why there are YECs.

>> What's the difference
>> between "might appear to us as devious" and "devious"? Are you supposing
>> that god is unaware of or isn't concerned with the conclusions people
>> will draw from his work?
>
> Really? Apparently you're unwilling to even consider the possibility
> that a deity capable of creating the universe might have motivations
> different from humans. And no, this is not a reference to "mysterious
> ways".

What is it a reference to? I'm willing to consider the possibility. But
that isn't what a lot of Christians think.

>> Certainly "an Evangelical's God" is ambiguous, since there are many
>> evangelicals, each with his own idea of god. One must consider each
>> hypothesis separately.
>
> I'm glad you agree, since that is the premise you posted. I accept
> the above as your admission that your premise doesn't support your
> claim.

I have no idea how you got there.

>> But some evangelicals are young-earth
>> creationists who suppose that if any word of the bible (or, more
>> correctly, their interpretation of it) is false, then all of
>> Christianity collapses. Do you deny that there are such people?
>
> Such denials are reserved for others who post to this newsgroup. My
> claim is that the characters you identified, in general do not base
> their beliefs on that specific date and that specific motivation you
> identified. If you want to argue specific cases, then limit your
> argumentation to those specific cases.

I'm not sure what characters you're referring to here. But do you agree
that there are some evangelicals whose god is testable by science?

>>>>> More to the point, in order for your strategy to work, you would have
>>>>> to affirmatively prove a negative, a losing strategy. There will
>>>>> always be events which change people's lives. You can't prove that a
>>>>> specific event at a specific time wasn't caused by some deity.
>>>>
>>>> The fact is that negatives are often possible, even easy, to "prove".
>>>> Depends on the event. It's easy, for example, to show that there is no
>>>> Tyrannosaurus in your bathroom (assuming that there isn't).
>>>
>>> I agree that one can identify specific instances well enough to prove
>>> them false. I disagree that one can so specify a god, and still have
>>> a believer agree with said specification. For example, there may be
>>> someone who believes in a god whose domain is limited to a bathroom
>>> between the hours of midnight and 3 AM, but that someone wouldn't be
>>> representative of Evangelicals, or even humans. So, while your
>>> argument above is technically correct, it's not relevant to the
>>> question at hand.
>>
>> We disagree about whether any relevant people exist. I would claim that
>> any YEC falls into that category. Why not?
>
> My understanding is that we disagree on what we disagree on.

What do you think we disagree on?

>>>> As for
>>>> trivial events that could easily have natural causes, which may be where
>>>> you're going, we can agree that some gods are carefully designed so as
>>>> to be untestable. It all depends on the assumed characteristics of the
>>>> god, as I said before.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that believers are unconcerned with specifying
>>> their gods specifically enough for science to disprove their god's
>>> existence. One can only wonder why you think they are, or even should
>>> be.
>>
>> You persist in lumping all believers, so that anything not true of all
>> of them is not true, period.
>
> If I so persist, I do so no more than you do. So I don't accept your
> criticism as distinctively applicable to me.

Do you accept it as valid criticism?

>> Some believers do specify their gods
>> sufficiently, whether they are concerned with it or not, whether they
>> should be or not.
>
> Point one, it was you who claimed believers should define their God
> sufficient for science to prove their God false.

I don't believe I did.

> Point second, since you claim there exist such believers, then right
> here would have been a good place for you to have identified them, and
> how they specify their god sufficiently.

I believe I have: YECs. Their god has clear and obvious entailments for
the world. I think there are others too, but that's good enough for now.

>> And yes, some believers make excuses for their gods specifically
>> designed to make them untestable: "Who are we to question God's
>> actions?" is one; "God works in mysterious ways" is another. Thus one
>> salvages the claim that God loves us in the face of evidence that he
>> doesn't care at all (or perhaps doesn't exist).
>
> My impression is their motive is *not* to make their God untestable,
> as you say, but instead to express a sincere if logically invalid POV.
> Apparently your mileage varies.

It does.

>>>>>>>> And don't you agree that regardless, "prove" is the wrong word?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you asked, IMO it's exactly the right word. As you know,
>>>>>>> science doesn't deal with "proofs", so in that sense, the quote is a
>>>>>>> truism by definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And thus vacuous, if so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect. Something that is obviously true is ipso facto different
>>>>> from something that's lacking meaningful content.
>>>>
>>>> "A rose is a rose" is obviously true and also vacuous. Perhaps you don't
>>>> agree. How about "a splortzian is a splortzian"?
>>>
>>> There are vacuous truisms, as with your example. There are also
>>> truisms which note relevant and important truths, ex. science doesn't
>>> deal with proofs. So your claim that truisms are necessarily vacuous
>>> is incorrect.
>>
>> Made no such claim. "Science doesn't deal with proofs" is not vacuous.
>> But in the light of that statement, "Science can't prove god" is
>> vacuous, because all it says is that science can't do what science
>> doesn't do.
>
> As I said, AIUI that isn't the basis of the article's quoted comment.
> One can only wonder why you obsess about that issue here.

I was merely responding to you.

>>> As to your specific question re splortzian, explain how it applies to
>>> the question at hand, whether science can prove or disprove the
>>> existence of God.
>>
>> It's an example of a claim that is vague enough not to be testable. Some
>> conceptions of god are quite similar to your conception of splortzian. I
>> agree that claims about such gods can't be tested. God must be
>> sufficiently defined if he's (it's?) to be tested.
>
> Then IIUC you admit to being in violent agreement with the OP.

"Violent"? No, I'm not in agreement. The OP says that (in more
reasonable terms) god can't be tested scientifically. My point is that
it depends on the god.

>>>>>>> But my impression is that's not how Siegel means it. Instead, I
>>>>>>> understand him to say that the existence of God isn't testable by
>>>>>>> material means, and it doesn't provide testable explanations of
>>>>>>> material phenomena, both of which are required by science. IOW the
>>>>>>> existence of God is both beyond the reach of, and irrelevant to,
>>>>>>> scientific explanations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you agree? Wouldn't that depend on what the assumed characteristics
>>>>>> of the particular god were?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever characteristic(s) one assumes for a god, the best science can
>>>>> do is provide explanations which make that god unnecessary. Science
>>>>> can't prove that god wasn't involved or doesn't exist, but then, it
>>>>> doesn't matter to science. The question then devolves to which
>>>>> explanation is more meaningful to the person. For those who don't
>>>>> understand science, and even for some who do, a caring,
>>>>> interventionist god wins.
>>>>
>>>> Well of course, if all you're saying is that science doesn't deal in
>>>> proof. But that apparently isn't all you're saying.
>>>
>>> Since you reply to a paragraph which explicitly says more than your
>>> conditional, one can only wonder why you qualify your reply.
>>> Apparently you doubt the intent of the words you apparently read.
>>
>> Could you restate what you consider the important point of that
>> paragraph, particularly the part that responds to the questions I asked?
>> I'm not clear on it.
>
> Could you restates what you're unclear about?

I'm unclear about whether you agree that the existence of god is both
beyond the reach of, and irrelevant to, scientific explanations. And
about whether "explanations that make X unnecessary" would be sufficient
for science to reject X" under situations in which X is something other
than god; and also when X is god. And whether what those who don't
understand science thinks is relevant to whether science can test god.
Among other things.

>>>> Certainly
>>>> self-deception and science don't go well together. And certainly nothing
>>>> can be proven to a person who doesn't want to deal with evidence and
>>>> strongly wants to believe the contrary. But this all seems, if not
>>>> vacuous, trivial and uninteresting. Is that really all you meant?
>>>
>>> My understanding is those who believe God exists don't frame the
>>> argument as you do above. You're entitled to establish what's
>>> vacuous, trivial, and uninteresting for yourself. In a similar
>>> spirit, perhaps you could extend that courtesy to those who believe in
>>> God.
>>
>> How do those who believe frame the argument? Do they frame it correctly?
>> Or are you being a relativist here, in which each person is free to
>> inhabit his or her own reality, and there is no "correctly"?
>
> Stupid question. Why raise possibilities not in evidence?

Not clear. What possibilities not in evidence are you referring to?
Which of the questions above are you unable to answer, and why?

>>> My experience is people facing grave personal challenges, to deal with
>>> the death of a loved one, to care for their children, to survive
>>> cancer and its treatments, to avoid getting shot or blown up,
>>> generally don't give a shit about the veracity of biological
>>> evolution, even if you do.
>>
>>> If it helps them to endure and/or overcome life's challenges, then
>>> what you consider self-deception is going to win out over something
>>> they consider irrelevant at best.
>>
>> Is the fact that it wins out an argument against self-deception? Is the
>> fact that a believe feels good an argument for the truth of that belief?
>> If the answer is "no", what is the point in bringing it up?
>
> I didn't bring it up. You did. As long as you frame your answer to
> the question about the existence of God on the basis of the
> self-deception of those who believe in God, you will continue to talk
> past them.

The ability of people who believe in god to understand science is not
relevant to the ability of science to test god, only to the ability of
such tests to convince believers. Those are not at all the same thing,
and I thought we were talking about the former. No?

[Vincent Maycock]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 23:10:17 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/2/2017 7:10 PM, RonO wrote:

snip

>> Why lie to yourself about your religious motivation?
> >
>This is horsehsit! Why it's so important for you to believe that
>religion is the motivation for me? It must be conforting to you. I
>think it's necessary for you to believe this, because of your own
>insecurities.

You have said that science doesn't tell us who the designer is, but do
you personally believe that the designer is God?

[raven1]

A doctrine is not a material object, Ray. Stop using your own
definitions for words.

[raven1]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 14:44:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:55:00 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 2:39:58 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> >> From my second-favorite astronomer:
>> >>
>> >> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-c74a751ce214#.fkrsgqtm2>
>> >>
>> >> <http://tinyurl.com/z9g48jd>
>> >>
>> >> Short answer:
>> >>
>> >> "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"
>> >>
>> >
>> > All that says is that the author is an Agnostic. Atheists, Theists, and Deists disagree.
>>
>> Some do, some don't. Quite a to of theists and deists agree and argue
>> that knowledge of god comes only through revealed religion, but not
>> science.
>>
>
>My comment is logical thus factually correct.

The latter does not follow from the former. "All Vulcans are logical,
Sarek is a Vulcan, therefore, Sarek is logical" is a logical
statement, but it is not factually correct, as neither Vulcans nor
Sarek actually exist.

[Mike Duffy]

On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 12:08:56 -0500, raven1 wrote:

> A doctrine is not a material object, Ray. Stop using your own
> definitions for words.

It's even worse, Raven. These people will typically use the noun without an
article. In english, this implies an aggregate quantity, not a proper noun
implying an identity.

For example, they ask "Do you believe in God?". They do not ask: "Do you
believe in any god?", or "Do you believe in my God?".

In their usage of the words, 'god' can be replaced with 'magic' and the
balance of words retain an identical syntax. (And, quite frankly, the
overall semantics are identical in my opinion.)

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

...

>> What's the difference
>>between "might appear to us as devious" and "devious"? Are
>>you supposing that god is unaware of or isn't concerned
>>with the conclusions people will draw from his work?
>
>
> Really? Apparently you're unwilling to even consider the
> possibility that a deity capable of creating the universe
> might have motivations
> different from humans. And no, this is not a reference to
> "mysterious ways".

This reminds me of another point. Following my earlier
posts, a Creator, Designer, Tuner doesn't have to build a
universe from scratch, only the intelligence necessary to
perceive it. This intelligence creates reality by proxy by
virtue of us observing it. This exactly agrees with what is
experienced.

Bill

[R. Dean]

There's no way to know. So, I'm content just to say that the universe
is designed. I have no need to speculate as to who or what designed
the universe. And I do not think there is any need or any way for
anyone to go any further. It's the end of the line - unfortunately.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 17:55:32 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

Okay. So would it be accurate to say that you don't believe in God?