What is a 'theory' ?

[Iasion]

Gday,

Two problems with this:
First, the idea of God is different from the idea of something like a ghost or fairy.

No it isn't.
God is just as well evidenced as ghosts and fairies.

Second, I think you misapply the rule-of-thumb that the affirmative assertion must provide proof.

Pardon?
If you believe there is a God, then show us the evidence.

But we all know there is NONE.
That's why you can't quote any.

On the first problem, the amount of evidence we demand before we believe varies from idea to idea, depending on our predilections, history, experience, and so on.

For God, the amount is ZERO.

Personally I find the idea of God more believable as a possible unproved first principle than most of the other things you list: it makes some aspects of the universe we find ourselves in a lot more comfortable. As a working theory God makes more sense, at least on the surface, than a no-God theory. To me atheism takes a deeper understanding; theism comes easily and intuitively.

Yes, we can see you are a faithful believer.

On the second problem, that there is no proof of something tells me almost nothing, since nothing, except within a circumscribed logical framework, can ever have proof. That there is evidence of God should not be doubted

It IS doubted.
It IS completely REJECTED.
It IS known there is ZERO evidence for God.

Which is why you cannot cite any.

The issue is not whether or not there is evidence for God, but whether or not the evidence is convincing.

There is no evidence.
Just beliefs.
Which is why you cannot cite any evidence.

I think the person who asserts there is no God has just as much burden to provide convincing evidence as does the person who asserts He exists.

Of course you do.
You're a faithful believer who insists you faithful beliefs should be taken as fact.

But we are not fooled.

If YOU believe there is evidence for God - then SHOW US some !

But there isn't.
So you won't

Instead we'll get stories, beliefs, legends, ancient books....
All the usual.
But NO evidence.


Iasion

 

[Skeptisch]

Because science deals with the natural.
Not un-, or super-natural.

Or maybe science deals with what naturally exists, and maybe, just maybe, that’s all there is. :flower:

 

[Frank Merton]

I am fully aware of the creationist debate, but I find it a waste of time. Where people get my attention is when, in attacking creationism, they distort or misstate evolutionary theory, in the process confusing the issue and even giving the creationist ammunition.

One thing I think is a misstatement is the assertion that evolution is a "fact." That is incorrect, or at least misleading, and is just asking for trouble, since facts need proving and there is no proving the results of proper objective scientific observation (part of being "science" is disconfirmability, and if you take that away the matter becomes one dogma or even faith -- precisely where the creationist wants you). Only mathematical theorems and such-like can be proven, and even then the proof is limited to the domain of the axiom system and the inferential rules applied.

When I raise this objection, I sometimes hear that I am nit-picking. Indeed I probably am, except that in this whole subject area is one huge nit pick anyway.

 

[Frank Merton]

If God exists then He is part of nature. The idea of a God separate, or outside, the rules of existence (my definition of "nature") leads to intolerable contradictions, such as this God building a rock so big he cannot move it. The theist normally replies that this only shows God cannot do something illogical, from which I conclude that God is not so separate from the rest of us after all.

 

[Frank Merton]

There is actually more than one concept of God, as you yourself noted. And the concept of God bears some similarities to mythical ghosts and fairies. For one thing, God has powers that would be considered "magic" in those beings.

Magic powers, even those completely beyond human explanation, are not God. This is the problem with using miracles to convert: they are easy enough to arrange (as any visit to a typical seance will demonstrate).

Theists will often defend deism when it is clear that they mean to defend theism. It would be a mistake to accept the definition of "God" as nothing more than "an unproved first principle", which, after all, could just be an inanimate force. Nobody worships an abstract "unproved first principle" in churches on Sundays, and it is the object of that worship that we are discussing when we use the word "God".

Yes, of course, except for Unitarians and Taoists. If one is going to be an atheist, then one needs to decline belief in all the various definitions of God; something it took me a long time to achieve. Even the inanimate force of Taoism needs persuasive evidence to be accepted, something the universe just doesn't provide.

In the end, atheism, defined as non-belief rather than disbelief, is based on a fairly deep comprehension of the nature of existence, not on some slogan about fairies and Santa Clause.

 

[Copernicus]

Magic powers, even those completely beyond human explanation, are not God. This is the problem with using miracles to convert: they are easy enough to arrange (as any visit to a typical seance will demonstrate).

That doesn't contradict my point. My point was that there are similarities between God and other beings with magical powers. I do not disagree that God is conceptually different from a fairy or a goblin, but there are similarities.

Yes, of course, except for Unitarians and Taoists. If one is going to be an atheist, then one needs to decline belief in all the various definitions of God; something it took me a long time to achieve. Even the inanimate force of Taoism needs persuasive evidence to be accepted, something the universe just doesn't provide.

Unitarians are hardly united in their religious doctrine, and Taoism is similarly diverse. We are not really talking about Taoists and Unitarians, though, are we? Most Theists who argue for God as the "First Cause" are quite conventional Christians, so let's come back to reality. No Christian who goes to church on Sunday is just worshiping a "first principal". They worship an intelligent agent who performs miracles. When we speak of God, that is the kind of being we are talking about. And, frankly, if you look at actual practicing Taoists, as opposed to the more erudite exponents that represent the religion to the world at large, you will find beliefs in much more conventional concepts of gods. The same is true of Buddhism, which takes on a very non-theist aspect in the West, but not so much in the area of the world where it is more of a mainstream religion.

In the end, atheism, defined as non-belief rather than disbelief, is based on a fairly deep comprehension of the nature of existence, not on some slogan about fairies and Santa Clause.

I strongly disagree with the definition of atheism as a mere "lack of belief", although that is a very popular claim among my fellow atheists. It is really a rejection of belief in gods. The rejection may be based upon the perception that there is no credible evidence for the existence of gods, but that belief is still a belief in and of itself. Gods do not exist. Newborn infants fail to have a belief in gods, but that does not make them what most English speakers would call "atheists". (And I am well aware of the fact that some atheists do go to the extreme of calling infants "atheists", but I do not think that that claim reflects conventional English usage.)

BTW, Frank, welcome to REF. Glad to have you aboard.

 

[Thief]

It can render him redundant, though.

Nay....
But a stubborn denial of God can be.

 

[Thief]

I see the lack of evidences of God's existence to be as evidence that he doesn't exist. Until he does appear than I would him as not existing. God is nothing more than imagination, belief, at worse, delusion of the person.

I am sure that you would apply to same person who believe in ghost, fairy, unicorn, ghoul and goblin, vampire, werewolf, elf, etc, to be either imaginative or delusional. Until there are evidences for their existence, then such creature don't exist. Do you think any of these creature exist beyond the literary imagination?

And for that same reason I have applied the same rule to god against ghost, fairy, and other imaginary or literary beings, those that I have already listed in the last paragraph.

All things remain at rest until Something moves them.

That would be God...at the moment...
Let there be light.

Spirit first.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Or maybe science deals with what naturally exists, and maybe, just maybe, that’s all there is. :flower:

Amen...

 

[David M]

One thing I think is a misstatement is the assertion that evolution is a "fact." That is incorrect, or at least misleading, and is just asking for trouble, since facts need proving and there is no proving the results of proper objective scientific observation (part of being "science" is disconfirmability, and if you take that away the matter becomes one dogma or even faith -- precisely where the creationist wants you). Only mathematical theorems and such-like can be proven, and even then the proof is limited to the domain of the axiom system and the inferential rules applied.

When I raise this objection, I sometimes hear that I am nit-picking. Indeed I probably am, except that in this whole subject area is one huge nit pick anyway.

No you are not nit-picking. You are just plain wrong.

Evolution (the change in allele frequencies of a population over time) is an observed fact. It is proven.

You are mistaking evolution with the Theory of Evolution. Even if ToE were overturned tomorrow its replacement would stil have to explain the proven fact that evolution occurs.

 

[Skeptisch]

You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.
Richard Dawkins :devil:

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

I am fully aware of the creationist debate, but I find it a waste of time.

If it's "a waste of time", why are you here doing it ?

Where people get my attention is when, in attacking creationism, they distort or misstate evolutionary theory, in the process confusing the issue and even giving the creationist ammunition.

Sure enough, you insist on using the phrase "evolutionary theory" - a classic error endlessly repeated by creationists.

This is the #1 faithful belief of creationists :
that evolution is a "theory" - mere speculation.

Of course, this is completely an utterly wrong.
In fact - evolution is an observed fact of nature.
AND there is a theory to explain those facts.
But creationists never understand that.

One thing I think is a misstatement is the assertion that evolution is a "fact." That is incorrect,

Wrong.
Evolution IS an observed fact of nature.
Just like gravity is an observed fact of nature.
And electricity is an observed fact of nature.
And germs are an observed fact of nature.

AND there is a theory for evolution.
AND there is a theory for gravity.
AND there is a theory for electricity.
AND there is a theory for germs causing disease.

But do creationists like Frank argue that gravity is not a fact?
Or electricity is not a fact?
Or germs are not a fact ?

Of course not !
Because gravity and electricity and germs don't disagree with faithful creationist beliefs.

But evolution DOES !
So creationists never stop endless word-games and ignorant falsehoods about evolution.

since facts need proving and there is no proving the results of proper objective scientific observation

Famouse creationist word-game #2 - nothing in science is "proved".
Well - DUH!

Only mathematical theorems and such-like can be proven, and even then the proof is limited to the domain of the axiom system and the inferential rules applied.

Yes - strictly speaking science does indeed NOT "prove" - that is for maths and logic.

But - science DOES observe evidence.
We observe evidence for gravity,
we observe evidence for electricity,
we observe evidence for germs.

So, gravity and electricity and germs are facts of nature - even if a scientist, speaking carefully and strictly would agree they are not "proven".

But creationists leap on this and argue :
* aha - so science cannot "prove"
* so, evolution is NOT proven
* so, evolution is wrong !
* so - creationism is right!

Which is just silly nonsense.

Do creationists play these games about gravity? electricity? germs?
No !
It's just an ignorant word-game that creationists use to argue against ONE fact of nature that their FAITH disagrees with.

(part of being "science" is disconfirmability, and if you take that away the matter becomes one dogma or even faith -- precisely where the creationist wants you).

Of course part of science is falsifiability.
No-one said otherwise.
No-one is trying to "take it away".
You have it completely backwards - there MUST be falsifiability in science, that's why it cannot be proved.

But - unproven and falsifiable does NOT mean it is FALSE, or likely to be found false.

No, falsifiability means there must conceivably be a way that it could be shown false - and there IS many ways that evolution COULD be found false. (But for creationism there is NOT.)

Let's recap the facts :

Over the last century and more, thousands of scientists in dozens of countries have performed MILLIONS of tests, observations and experiments regarding evolution.

EVERY SINGLE ONE has confirmed evolution is correct.
NOT ONE has falsified evolution.

If there was EVEN ONE - creationists would trumpt it every single post. (Don't bother quote-mining scientists arguing about the DETAILS of evolution - that is NOT arguing AGAINST evolution at all, but creationists repeat this canard all the time. Yes, scientists DO argue about the details of evolution and change them sometimes. NO - that does NOT make it false.)

Meanwhile -
There is NOT ONE piece of scientific evidence for creationism.
There is MUCH argument AGAINST creationism.

When I raise this objection, I sometimes hear that I am nit-picking. Indeed I probably am, except that in this whole subject area is one huge nit pick anyway.

You're not raising an objection or nit-picking at all.
You're preaching creationist falsehoods.
You didn't even bother to READ the thread or the OP before you barged in with your preaching.

Frank -
next time you post about evolution, will you please also address each specific comment to gravity and electricity and germs.

For each sentence in which you claim :
"evolution is blah blah blah ..."
please repeat it for :
"gravity is blah blah blah ..."
"electricity is blah blah blah ..."
"germs are blah blah blah ..."

That will show how valid your arguments are.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

If God exists then He is part of nature. The idea of a God separate, or outside, the rules of existence (my definition of "nature") leads to intolerable contradictions, such as this God building a rock so big he cannot move it. The theist normally replies that this only shows God cannot do something illogical, from which I conclude that God is not so separate from the rest of us after all.

Frank -
THIS thread is about what "theory" means.

Please don't spam it up with preaching about God.
Thanks


Iasion

 

[Copernicus]

I take Frank at his word that he is a "semi-buddhist atheist", and I think that he both rejects creationism and believes in both the fact of evolution and the theoretical explanation of it. The disagreements here seem to be more about the words we use to describe things. Frank should correct me if I've misstated his views.

Sometimes we use the word "evolution" to refer to the theoretical explanation of evolution. When I call evolution a "scientific fact", I am really talking not just about the observed phenomenon, but the claim that natural selection causes it. It is a "scientific fact" that the diameter of the Earth is smaller than the diameter of the sun. Similarly, it is a "scientific fact" that human beings share a common ancestor with other apes. It is interesting that chimps look more like that original common ancestor, but that is true of other evolutionary splits, as well. Hippos look more like their common ancestor than whales do. We are a relatively tall, hairless species of ape with an enlarged brain.

 

[Thief]

Facts...facts.... facts....
and God is the source of them all.

 

[gnostic]

Facts...facts.... facts....
and God is the source of them all.

In what way "God is the source of them all".

 

[Frank Merton]

I take Frank at his word that he is a "semi-Buddhist atheist", and I think that he both rejects creationism and believes in both the fact of evolution and the theoretical explanation of it. The disagreements here seem to be more about the words we use to describe things. Frank should correct me if I've misstated his views.

Of course I reject creationism: it is stupid. However, I generally refrain from engaging creationists since I think that is a waste of time.

I avoid the word "fact" in dealing with scientific matters; even direct measurements can be subject to revision -- in other words, we can only have degrees of assurance we are right about any scientific understanding (although often it gets so close to certainty that I suppose it is nit-picking to insist on a difference).

In the case of creationism, since there is a significant population of adherents to this alternative view (creationism is not a theory, however, as it brings no understanding), I think that even though one's confidence in evolutionary theory is close to 100%, it is best to avoid dogmatic words like "fact." Doing otherwise makes it easy for the creationists to jump to the conclusion that evolutionists are just like themselves, adherents of a doctrine or of a faith.

Sometimes we use the word "evolution" to refer to the theoretical explanation of evolution. When I call evolution a "scientific fact", I am really talking not just about the observed phenomenon, but the claim that natural selection causes it.

I would quibble with the view that natural selection causes evolution: it is one of the causes, almost certainly the main cause, but other phenomena enter into matters. Also, there is the issue of the meaning of the word "cause." The real cause of evolutionary change is the introduction of character variation, and this stems mainly from genetic mutation. This is the effective cause, while things like natural selection are more of a directive force.

 

[Frank Merton]

I can see, reading through the messages, that this board has a few participants that are really emotional about their anti-religious views, so emotional that they jump to all sorts of conclusions about anyone who disagrees even the slightest bit with their pronouncements.

This is not healthy. I don't believe in God or gods, etc., but I am quite able to handle my emotions when I talk with those who do. The same applies when I talk about evolution.

One thing a scientist (or any seeker for understanding) needs to do is to avoid dogmatism, and asserting that anything is a "fact" is dogmatism.

 

[Skeptisch]

This is not healthy. I don't believe in God or gods, etc., but I am quite able to handle my emotions when I talk with those who do. The same applies when I talk about evolution.

This was posted before but more of us should learn to live by it:

"Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another." — Carl Sagan

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Of course I reject creationism: it is stupid. However, I generally refrain from engaging creationists since I think that is a waste of time.

Yet here you are, hitting most of the creationist high notes :

* repeatedly adding the word "theory" when ever you say "evolution"
* insisting evolution is not a fact
* insisting theories are not facts
* insisting there IS evidence for God
* insisting there re NO facts at all.

Your posts contain pretty much what a creationist's would.

I avoid the word "fact" in dealing with scientific matters; even direct measurements can be subject to revision -- in other words, we can only have degrees of assurance we are right about any scientific understanding (although often it gets so close to certainty that I suppose it is nit-picking to insist on a difference).

Then you are wrong, and you don't understand what a "fact" is, nor do you understand how science works.

I think that even though one's confidence in evolutionary theory is close to 100%, it is best to avoid dogmatic words like "fact."

Wrong.
Evolution IS a fact of nature - it IS observed, it HAS been observed.

AND - there is a theory to explain those facts. Unfortunately Frank, you keep ignoring this point and repeating your false beliefs.

Why do ignore my posts, Frank ?
Why didn't you express this point about gravity or electricty or germs like I asked you ?

Here, let me do it for you -

I think that even though one's confidence in gravitational theory is close to 100%, it is best to avoid dogmatic words like "fact."

I think that even though one's confidence in electric theory is close to 100%, it is best to avoid dogmatic words like "fact."

See how utterly stupid it is to insist gravity or electricty or germs are not a fact ?

Doing otherwise makes it easy for the creationists to jump to the conclusion that evolutionists are just like themselves, adherents of a doctrine or of a faith.

Rubbish.
Science is based on facts and observations. Evolution is a fact because it has been observed. AND there is a theory to explain those facts - but creationists are unable to grasp this simple concept.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with faith - you have it completely and utterly backwards - you are simply repeating all the stupid nonsense we always hear from creationists.

I would quibble with the view that natural selection causes evolution: it is one of the causes, almost certainly the main cause, but other phenomena enter into matters.

Which is exactly what science claims - that it is one of the causes, exactly like the poster above said !

But here you are trying some bizarre game that has no basis in reality. No-one claimed it's the ONLY cause at all !

Sadly, you don't appear able to read or comprehend what people write. First you burst in here WITHOUT even READING the OP or the thread, insisting NO-ONE else had it correct - when you hadn't even READ the thread !

Now you refuse to answer the questions I ask, but you repeat all the creationist claims that have long been disproved.

Evolution is an observed fact of nature, AND there is a theory to exolain it. But Frank will never admit that, instead we can expect more word games - especially the favuorite tactic of creationists in insisting of adding the word "theory" to "evolution" every time they use it. Falsely implying that evolution is a theory.

But did Frank answer my point about the theory of gravity?
No.
Because gravity doesn't interfere with faithful beliefs.

And did Frank answer my point about the theory of electricty?
No.
Because electricity doesn't interfere with faithful beliefs.


But evolution DOES conflict with some religious beliefs, so ignorant people argue endlessly about this "theory".


Iasion