The God Hypothesis

[Fonceai]

What are you talking about?

This is a debate, not a belief system.

[Kamehameha34]

Hence, the qualifier "in this argument".

[rez]

Quote by: Fonceai Anyone who has chosen a stance has done so by automatically accepting premises that are not yet shown to be proven.

Who or what has proven premises within reality?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: rez Who or what has proven premises within reality?

I think his point is that any logical argument must begin with certain axioms.

For example, in math we assume that, if A=B, and B=C, then A=C. This is an axiom, and is confirmed in daily experience, but is generally accepted to be true rather than being something we prove.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Zhavric In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins defines the god hypothesis as: there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. Dawkins goes on to explain that many theists (and agnostics) would try to isolate this hypothesis by making it a special case. He discusses a term called NOMA which wiki summarizes nicely: In his book Rocks of Ages Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion" [34] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution" [35] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap... Dawkins challenges this seperation for several reasons. First, theists aren't arguing honestly. If scientists were able to prove a sizeable chunk of the New or Old testament to be true it's very doubtful that Christians would ignore this evidence. We wouldn't hear them saying "Science cannot prove god." In the past, apologists have leapt at any chance to prove any part of Christian dogma using science (such as archeology to prove alleged facts of the old testament). Thus, theists are only willing to seperate science & religion when science does not support religion. Second, there is no justification for seperating out god as a special case immune to inquiry. The god hypothesis either is or is not true. We don't have a "godometer" that detects god(s), but this deficiency in our technology does not immunize this specific hypothesis from the realm of science. Consider that for many years, the chemical make-up of a star was completely beyond our perception. However, we eventually were able to determine exactly what makes up stars and measure it. It would have been illogical & useless to declare "the make up of stars is outside the realm of science". Finally, we need to look at why we have a god hypothesis at all. It's used to end an infinite regress. What made us -> what made the planet -> what made the stars -> what made the materials that make stars -> what made the big bang -> ??? Offering god as a hypothesis does not terminate this regress. It isn't an answer, but another question: What made god / how did god come to be? At best theists will say they do not know... which leaves us far worse off than before. At worst, theists will offer one of philosophies most tremendous cop-outs: nothing made god / god always was. Completely without evidence, nothing could cement our ignorance more than this colossal dodge. We have zero evidence for the god hypothesis and considerable evidence suggesting it's false. Discuss.

Dawkin's challenge was specifically aimed at the Judeo-Christian Biblical God, and on this point he has some valid basis for this argument.

First, the observable objective scientific evidence shows no evidence for a hands-on actively judgemental primative Biblical God in the affairs of the universe and humans. The scientific evidence indicates that the apparent cause and effect of events in our world, and the universe has apparent natural explanations.

Second, their is not any evidence either way for the existence of God, IF it is assumed that God acts through natural means, and reflects the nature of the universe as we witness the evidence through science.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Autolykos It seems that, in the past, many scientists began their work because they wanted to reveal God's work. However, it has become increasingly apparent that what science is doing is revealing that neither God nor His work is anywhere to be found. As time has gone on, the counter-reactions to this trend have increased in strength. - Rob

This cannot always be assumed to be true in history. For example, the Greek and Roman scientists, basically approached scientific investigation on more practical goals. Even western scientists like Micahaelangelo, Darwin and others throughout history relied on more practical purpose of their investigations.

Science would be decidedly neutral on the evidence if God was a very natural God and God's creation reflected God.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: shunyadragon Second, their is not any evidence either way for the existence of God, IF it is assumed that God acts through natural means, and reflects the nature of the universe as we witness the evidence through science.

There is evidence, apparent fine tuning, that some interpret as evidence for a god.

This evidence has multiple interpretations, and I believe that by itself, one cannot prove a correct interpretation.

Nevertheless, there is some information that folks interpret as evidence for a god.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Captain Chaos There is evidence, apparent fine tuning, that some interpret as evidence for a god. This evidence has multiple interpretations, and I believe that by itself, one cannot prove a correct interpretation. Nevertheless, there is some information that folks interpret as evidence for a god.

The problem is that ' . . . some interpret as evidence for a God, or maybe Gods, ah . . . turtles all the way down.

This paradox creates a non-sequitor situation, because the consequences of whether the universe is deliborately 'fine-tuned' or the scenario that the universe is simply the way it is because of natural circumstance, does not even offer sufficient definition for Okkam's Razor to make a cut. If it did it would probably chose 'natural' because there is no other evidence for a supernatural origin.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: shunyadragon The problem is that ' . . . some interpret as evidence for a God, or maybe Gods, ah . . . turtles all the way down. This paradox creates a non-sequitor situation, because the consequences of whether the universe is deliborately 'fine-tuned' or the scenario that the universe is simply the way it is because of natural circumstance, does not even offer sufficient definition for Okkam's Razor to make a cut. If it did it would probably chose 'natural' because there is no other evidence for a supernatural origin.

Near Death Experiences could be considered such evidence.

Regardless, I was just pointing out that there is some evidence for a god, even though it can be interpreted in mulitple ways.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Near Death Experiences could be considered such evidence. Regardless, I was just pointing out that there is some evidence for a god, even though it can be interpreted in mulitple ways.

My point is the 'evidence for a 'Source' some call God' should not be so open to interpretation to dilute the nature of the conclusion that would loose on the cutting board of Okkam's Razor.

Actually I believe there is evidence, but this evidence, does not have the 'traditional cultural context' of peoples visions in a relatively few recorded near death experiences, or in the limited scientific context of 'fine-tuning'.

For the evidence to be convincing in any way it must be more unifirm and universal over all human experience in history, and not selective.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: S. Dragon For the evidence to be convincing in any way it must be more unifirm and universal over all human experience in history, and not selective.

Yes well... If a god actually wanted you to believe in it, you would.


As for occam's razor. I challenge you to come up with a single real-world example where the application of occam's razor is actually correct?

[Jack]

As for occam's razor. I challenge you to come up with a single real-world example where the application of occam's razor is actually correct?

Here's one.
We often used OR in essence on the help desks I've worked on. When attempting to diagnose a computer or network problem with several possible causes, applying OR allows you to decide what the most likely starting point should be for troubleshooting.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood Here's one. We often used OR in essence on the help desks I've worked on. When attempting to diagnose a computer or network problem with several possible causes, applying OR allows you to decide what the most likely starting point should be for troubleshooting.

referring to help desk experience:
This is not necessarily pointing you towards the solution involving the least number of entities. Instead, you are looking for the most likely answer based on prior experiece. That is nothing more than saying that the most likely answer, based on prior experience, is the answer that is most likely. That is not the same as occam's razor.


Also, the tale you pointed to is not an example of occam's razor. Why? because the possible explantions of the problem did not have equal explanatory power.

[Captain Chaos]

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Jack]

I did qualify my answer with "in essence".
I'm not a fan of OR, so I don't claim to understand all its permutations. I do know, especially when approaching a network problem, we used a flow-chart to list all the possible causes of the problem, then worked our way through eliminating the ones that were less likely until we arrived at the solution that seemed the most likely and most probable. Once that possibility was excluded, we moved on to the second most likely, etc.

[Fonceai]

OR is a great way to approach a computer problem.

I, for one, use it constantly.

Instead of trying to much around with registries, software, hardware, and all sorts of other minutiae, I start with the simplest solution first.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood I did qualify my answer with "in essence". I'm not a fan of OR, so I don't claim to understand all its permutations. I do know, especially when approaching a network problem, we used a flow-chart to list all the possible causes of the problem, then worked our way through eliminating the ones that were less likely until we arrived at the solution that seemed the most likely and most probable. Once that possibility was excluded, we moved on to the second most likely, etc.

Occam's Razor just says not to multiply unneccessary entities. This makes sense in solving computer problems - as a guideline to creating the most efficient process. It does not make sense as a means of determining which of multiple problems is the likely cause. Why? Because the number of entities is not a good determination of the likelihood of the cause of a programming error.

I maintain that the vast majority of real-world applications of Occam's Razor are not, in fact, actual applications of Occam's Razor.

Many atheists like to use Occam's Razor to support their view. However, the way they use it always breaks down to little more than just an appeal to intuition.