Do We Really Have To Choose?

[Magic Man]

So, your hallucination is detailed.

Could be, but that's not really helpful or useful. Sure, I could be a brain in a vat, but then that would require there to be a brain and a vat and some other objective reality. Also, if we don't agree on that, there's no point in discussing anything.

 

[imaginaryme]

Can anyone think of a single scientific theory that excludes God?

If you can, please explain why you think it does.

By necessity, the only role of science in "validating god" is the exclusion of extraneous variables. As the human condition will always include extraneous variables, science will never disavow god.

 

[Storm]

Could be, but that's not really helpful or useful.

Hepfulness and usefulness have nothing to do with the question of proof.

Sure, I could be a brain in a vat, but then that would require there to be a brain and a vat and some other objective reality.

True.

Also, if we don't agree on that, there's no point in discussing anything.

As you wish.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

But we can choose to pick a reality which is based on only what science does support. If we decide to choose a reality which is a-evidential, whether it be life is a simulation, or god guides evolution, then any arguments about the lack of evidence are essentially empty and meaningless. How would the fossil record look different if god was guiding evolution, or if we were living in a simulation, or if an endless number of other hypothetical scenarios were true? It simply doesn't add anything to why one should choose one speculative scenario over another.

Basically, there are an infinite number of equally plausible scenarios which could explain reality. Deciding to choose one of these seems rather arbitrary when they all have exactly the same amount of evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I think your definition of theistic evolution is narrower than mine. To me, the term also includes the idea that God "started the ball rolling" (knowing the end result) and then didn't interfere afterward.

ID, OTOH, claims that not only did God "tweak", he had to have tweaked.

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

Depends on the tweak in question.

I mean, natural mechanisms will produce mutations in specific ways that are predictable to a certain extent. Assuming we had all relevant information (which I concede is a big assumption) like the full DNA of the "before" and "after" cases, then a clever geneticist could deduce whether the mutation was one that falls within the bounds of what could be expected according to natural processes.

Also, hypotheses don't exist in a vacuum. When we bring up ideas like supernatural tweaking, they also bring up other questions:

- what's the mechanism by which this supernatural force/entity/whatever could "tweak" a physical thing? Is it testable?

- if we assume an intelligent supernatural agent, then what can we deduce about its intent? Does the "tweak" align with its intent and purpose as we understand it?

 

[Storm]

- what's the mechanism by which this supernatural force/entity/whatever could "tweak" a physical thing? Is it testable?

Well, my best guess is that it would just use the mechanisms in place. Just more efficient that way.

Which is why I don't think it would look different either way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, my best guess is that it would just use the mechanisms in place. Just more efficient that way.

What does this mean? Every mechanism known to science is completely naturalistic. Science knows of no mechanism that would allow the supernatural to interact with the natural.

Which is why I don't think it would look different either way.

But as I said before, a god that gives absolutely no indication of its existence is a god that is absolutely irrelevant.

 

[Storm]

What does this mean? Every mechanism known to science is completely naturalistic. Science knows of no mechanism that would allow the supernatural to interact with the natural.

Well, I don't know the mechanisms, myself. I'm just saying that it seems like the most efficient thing to do would be to somehow guide the natural mechanisms already in place. Anything else would be reinventing the wheel.

But as I said before, a god that gives absolutely no indication of its existence is a god that is absolutely irrelevant.

That's a judgment call, but I'm cool with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I don't know the mechanisms, myself. I'm just saying that it seems like the most efficient thing to do would be to somehow guide the natural mechanisms already in place. Anything else would be reinventing the wheel.

But who's to say that a god wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel?

Anyhow, there's still a gap in the chain:

Supernatural agent -----> _______ -----> natural mechanisms -----> physical result

What fills in the blank? Our answer to this might imply other effects that can be tested for. We already know that whatever it is, it has natural, physical effects... otherwise, it couldn't "guide" natural mechanisms.

As an analogy, take evolution: it makes claims beyond beyond biology... for instance, it implies that the Earth is very old: at least hundreds of millions of years, if not billions. Using disciplines unrelated to biology, such as geology, this prediction was tested and found to be true.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. If a claim is true when it's explaining some effect we're interested it, its "side effect" implications will also be true when we go to examine them. It's hard for me to be more specific without a specific supernatural claim to deal with, but hopefully you get what I mean.

That's a judgment call, but I'm cool with it.

But isn't it a reasonable conclusion?

Also, doesn't it speak against the truth of the "generic theistic" model of God? A God that has absolutely no effects and does not interact with the physical universe in any way whatsoever doesn't mesh up with the theology of most mainstream religions, IMO.

 

[Quiddity]

But who's to say that a god wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel?

Anyhow, there's still a gap in the chain:

Supernatural agent -----> _______ -----> natural mechanisms -----> physical result

What fills in the blank? Our answer to this might imply other effects that can be tested for. We already know that whatever it is, it has natural, physical effects... otherwise, it couldn't "guide" natural mechanisms.

As an analogy, take evolution: it makes claims beyond beyond biology... for instance, it implies that the Earth is very old: at least hundreds of millions of years, if not billions. Using disciplines unrelated to biology, such as geology, this prediction was tested and found to be true.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. If a claim is true when it's explaining some effect we're interested it, its "side effect" implications will also be true when we go to examine them. It's hard for me to be more specific without a specific supernatural claim to deal with, but hopefully you get what I mean.

I honestly don't get why you have that gap there.

 

[Storm]

But who's to say that a god wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel?

Well, looking at the cosmos, we see elegance and efficiency. If it was designed by a Creator, it follows that He values those traits.

Anyhow, there's still a gap in the chain:

Supernatural agent -----> _______ -----> natural mechanisms -----> physical result

I know.

What fills in the blank?

You got me.

Our answer to this might imply other effects that can be tested for. We already know that whatever it is, it has natural, physical effects... otherwise, it couldn't "guide" natural mechanisms.

Agreed.

As an analogy, take evolution: it makes claims beyond beyond biology... for instance, it implies that the Earth is very old: at least hundreds of millions of years, if not billions. Using disciplines unrelated to biology, such as geology, this prediction was tested and found to be true

I have no idea what this analogy is supposed to illustrate.

But isn't it a reasonable conclusion?

More than less, but so are others.

Also, doesn't it speak against the truth of the "generic theistic" model of God? A God that has absolutely no effects and does not interact with the physical universe in any way whatsoever doesn't mesh up with the theology of most mainstream religions, IMO.

That's not what I'm attempting to argue, though. I'm arguing that we have no way of know whether God exists or not, much less whether it interacts with us.

 

[Storm]

I honestly don't get why you have that gap there.

Because the supernatural agent (God) has to take some action to influence the natural mechanisms.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I honestly don't get why you have that gap there.

I tried to explain it before:

What does this mean? Every mechanism known to science is completely naturalistic. Science knows of no mechanism that would allow the supernatural to interact with the natural.

I look at it this way: on one side, there's God. On the other side, are the things we generally know through science: the naturalistic mechanisms and physical effects. If the things on one side are going to interact with the things on the other side, there's got to be some sort of link. That link is the blank.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I honestly don't get why you have that gap there.

Explain how the supernatural can interact with the natural?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Explain how the supernatural can interact with the natural?

By disguising itself as a mild-mannered reporter most of the time, but then revealing it's true identity and saving the day when an innocent person is in danger. You know, the same way Superman interacts with man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, looking at the cosmos, we see elegance and efficiency. If it was designed by a Creator, it follows that He values those traits.

We see these things?

Elegance and efficiency imply effectiveness at acheiving a desired goal. I don't see how you can infer these things without first making assumptions about what that goal is.

I have no idea what this analogy is supposed to illustrate.

Just that when require something to be true (e.g. that the Earth is really old) as part of our explanation for one thing (e.g. evolution), it continues to be true when we examine it specifically (e.g. through geology).

Getting back to the subject, say the thing that fills in the blank is pixie magic. This implies that pixies exist; well, then where are they when they're not doing their magic? Could we go somewhere and find a pixie nest? Do pixies leave droppings that we could collect and analyze?

Or, say God heals cancer by creating a miniature black hole that sucks in the tumour. If that's the case, then with sensitive enough instruments, we should be able to find at least a few cases where the gravitational field around a cancer patient does wacky things.

At the very least, we should be able to look at those naturalistic mechanisms and find some cases where there's no naturalistic explanation at the root of it.

That's not what I'm attempting to argue, though. I'm arguing that we have no way of know whether God exists or not, much less whether it interacts with us.

But then we get back to the question "what do you mean by God"? If we're not using the generic theistic model of God, then what are we using?

If we're just going with the shared characteristics that are common to all ideas of God, then I freely admit that this can't be disproven, because AFAICT it's a null set.

 

[Quiddity]

I tried to explain it before:

I look at it this way: on one side, there's God. On the other side, are the things we generally know through science: the naturalistic mechanisms and physical effects. If the things on one side are going to interact with the things on the other side, there's got to be some sort of link. That link is the blank.

You might as well ask for God's footprints.

I've always pictured it like the sun which releases energy and can have an affect on somethings while not affecting others.

Granted, this is just me and of course there is faith involved.

God seems to have a knack for hiding from the measurable, don't He?

 

[Storm]

We see these things?

Elegance and efficiency imply effectiveness at acheiving a desired goal. I don't see how you can infer these things without first making assumptions about what that goal is.

Well, considering I hear it from atheistic physicists, I'd have to say it is indeed possible.

At the very least, we should be able to look at those naturalistic mechanisms and find some cases where there's no naturalistic explanation at the root of it.

THis strikes me an unjustified assumption.

But then we get back to the question "what do you mean by God"? If we're not using the generic theistic model of God, then what are we using?

As you yourself pointed out, the description you gave did not match that model. I am NOT arguing deism.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, my best guess is that it would just use the mechanisms in place. Just more efficient that way.

How is this different from no interference at all? Maybe if you described it more specifically?

For example, if you were talking about evolution of new organisms, does the Creator dictate what mutations happen? Does the Creator dictate which organisms survive? What does a Creator do that's any different from what nature does?

 

[Storm]

How is this different from no interference at all?

It's not, that's my point.

All your other questions have the same answer: Maybe.