Do We Really Have To Choose?

[Storm]

There is no "if God were involved" so it's impossible to even speculate reasonably. The christians and the muslims of centuries past were thrilled when they discoverd that there were empirical methods (science and math) by which they could discover "the handiwork of god" but they didn't anticipate it would ultimately expose the fallacy that any god was involved at all. People are required to believe that god and science don't clash because they need to resolve the conflict in their mind for psychological reasons IMO. Most humans are psychologically wired up to believe in god, and at the same time, they're rational people, so they have to resolve thieir belief with what they observe impirically. That's IMO one of the reasons we have the gift of cognitive dissonance.

*sighs* If you keep making positive claim, I'm going to have to ask you to prove your assertions.

 

[Papersock]

Shifting the burden.

I'm not saying it would, I'm saying that science can't tell us whether God's involved or not.

It kind of depends on how god is/was involved.
If god is/was involved in such a way that looks completely natural to us, then science cannot say whether or not god is or was involved.

 

[MSizer]

May I posit a hypothetical situation to demonstrate why science eliminates god?

Imagine we observed a glass filled with water. One of us says "well, obviously this glass was carried here on a horse which had fire exiting it's bum."

Do we conclude "who knows? Maybe that's true?" No, we conclude "there isn't a shred of evidence for horses with fiery bums, nor that any are responsible for bringing this glass of water here". The scientific method eliminated the fire-bum horse by pointing out that there is no evidence for it and that it can't be reproduced. Science eliminates fire-bum horses just like it eliminates god.

 

[MSizer]

*sighs* If you keep making positive claim, I'm going to have to ask you to prove your assertions.

*sighs* that's why I specifically placed "IMO" in my post

 

[Storm]

May I posit a hypothetical situation to demonstrate why science eliminates god?

Imagine we observed a glass filled with water. One of us says "well, obviously this glass was carried here on a horse which had fire exiting it's bum."

Do we conclude "who knows? Maybe that's true?" No, we conclude "there isn't a shred of evidence for horses with fiery bums, nor that any are responsible for bringing this glass of water here". The scientific method eliminated the fire-bum horse by pointing out that there is no evidence for it and that it can't be reproduced. Science eliminates fire-bum horses just like it eliminates god.

You can post all the mockery you want, but I'd really prefer you didn't waste my time with such tripe.

 

[Yerda]

The scientific method eliminated the fire-bum horse by pointing out that there is no evidence for it and that it can't be reproduced. Science eliminates fire-bum horses just like it eliminates god.

I don't know of any scientific work that eliminates God, or the fiery-bummed horse for that matter.

 

[Storm]

*sighs* that's why I specifically placed "IMO" in my post

Well, you didn't cover your *** well enough. You only put "IMO" in the bit about cognitive dissonance, which wasn't what I was referring to.

Besides, using "IMO" in a transparent attempt to make positive claim while avoiding burden of proof is dishonest, and therefore beneath you. Right?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Shifting the burden.

I'm not saying it would, I'm saying that science can't tell us whether God's involved or not.

It also can't tell us whether we're all living in a simulation or not, but there isn't any rational basis for assuming that we are.

 

[Magic Man]

You can post all the mockery you want, but I'd really prefer you didn't waste my time with such tripe.

With respect, love, why is that tripe? That's how it works.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't know of any scientific work that eliminates God, or the fiery-bummed horse for that matter.

Maybe not eliminated, but logically removed from the equation.

 

[MSizer]

Well, you didn't cover your *** well enough. You only put "IMO" in the bit about cognitive dissonance, which wasn't what I was referring to.

Besides, using "IMO" in a transparent attempt to make positive claim while avoiding burden of proof is dishonest, and therefore beneath you. Right?

I'm not avoiding the burden of proof, the internet is loaded with BS and if I try to google specific studies I'll have to sift through mountains of unfounded claims to find the credible ones. Therefore I'll simply bow out at this point. I can point you to specidic psychologist though for that specific claim. Ian McGregor, York University, Toronto. I won't bother you any longer in this thread.

 

[Storm]

It also can't tell us whether we're all living in a simulation or not, but there isn't any rational basis for assuming that we are.

True. Eventually, you have to pick a reality and go with it. Where we draw the line is subjective, and science supports none of us.

Kinda my whole point.

With respect, love, why is that tripe? That's how it works.

Mockery posing as argument has never impressed me. Nor does the fact that someone can imagine something unfalsifiable.

 

[Magic Man]

True. Eventually, you have to pick a reality and go with it. Where we draw the line is subjective, and science supports none of us.

Kinda my whole point.

I wouldn't say that. I would say science does support certain things, like us living in an objective reality.

Mockery posing as argument has never impressed me. Nor does the fact that someone can imagine something unfalsifiable.

It's an example of how science excludes certain things.

 

[Storm]

I wouldn't say that. I would say science does support certain things, like us living in an objective reality.

OK, prove you're not a brain in a vat.

It's an example of how science excludes certain things.

Which has been done to death, and does not require references to a horse's ***. You get what you give, and I'm short on forgiving patience these days.

 

[Magic Man]

OK, prove you're not a brain in a vat.

OK, plenty of others can see me. You can ask them yourself.

Which has been done to death, and does not require references to a horse's ***. You get what you give, and I'm short on forgiving patience these days.

I don't understand why one example is better than another.

 

[Storm]

OK, plenty of others can see me. You can ask them yourself.

So, your hallucination is detailed.

 

[imaginaryme]

No, but as an aside it is worth mentioning two facets of Particle Physics - the Higgs Boson (see here) and of course The God Particle (see here) by Nobel prizewinning physicist Leon Lederman.

Ab-sol-freaking-lutely. Won the Nobel for showing we are the reality and not the mirror of reality. Go Leon!

 

[Yerda]

Maybe not eliminated, but logically removed from the equation.

I agree. God is outside the equation. Out of the question if you ask me. But, Storm is not talking about equations, at least I don't believe so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Forget prayer for now, we're just butting heads on that one.

How would the fossil record differ if God were involved?

What do you mean by "involved"? Depending on whether you're talking about God "getting the ball rolling" and then leaving it alone, or whether you're talking about ID-style periodic "tweaking", the things we'd look for would be very different.

Edit: something just occurred to me. If the answer to every question in the form "How would _____ differ if God were involved?" is "there would be no difference", then even if we can't conclude that God does not exist, we can conclude that God is irrelevant.

 

[Storm]

What do you mean by "involved"? Depending on whether you're talking about God "getting the ball rolling" and then leaving it alone, or whether you're talking about ID-style periodic "tweaking", the things we'd look for would be very different.

"ID-style periodic tweaking?" That's theistic evolution, not ID.

But semantic issues aside, yes some tweaking. How, for example, can you tell a random mutation from a supernatural tweak?