I'm back again, with a question on origin

[ThatZenoGuy]

Well I would imagine not, seeing as those models were conceived in the minds of scientists with the a priori pre-supposition that God doesn't exist. I wouldn't expect a scientist like that to include God in their theory.

Why would you need to include an unnecessary factor?
You don;t expect scientists to include ghosts, leprechauns, boogeymen men, pasta monsters, pink invisible unicorns, blue potatoes, space Nazis and Allah.

So why include some other supernatural rubbish?

[Spinner198]

Wasn't the video from earlier about the big bounce placed in the alternative to string theory or something? Was it quantum physics or was it something else?

Edit: Loop quantum gravity. That was it. Lucky I landed on the exact line on like my second click.

Yes, that's another model, which takes a cyclic model and tries to work it without string theory. So, only one observable universe but three potential models, none of which have anything to say about god.

Well I would imagine not, seeing as those models were conceived in the minds of scientists with the a priori pre-supposition that God doesn't exist. I wouldn't expect a scientist like that to include God in their theory.

Didn't spot this before.

Carefully read what I said again. The models don't have anything to say about god. "Anything" includes non-existence. Really, you should drop your a priori pre-supposition that scientists have an a priori pre-supposition that god doesn't exist, educate yourself and realise that science doesn't do god.

Doesn't this statement: "science doesn't do god"

Confirm this one: "those models were conceived in the minds of scientists with the a priori pre-supposition that God doesn't exist"

Science isn't an entity nor is it a physical thing, it is something conceived by man and is wholly guided by man. If science doesn't do God it is because the scientist simply doesn't want it to have to do with God. There are plenty of scientists who actually do believe in God. They are blown off of course, because the point isn't that God doesn't work with science, it's that scientists just don't want to work with God. Sure, if you only think of God as this deity that we will never be able to know anything about, that might be true. However that isn't really the case, for reasons I am sure you could guess.

Well I would imagine not, seeing as those models were conceived in the minds of scientists with the a priori pre-supposition that God doesn't exist. I wouldn't expect a scientist like that to include God in their theory.

Why would you need to include an unnecessary factor?
You don;t expect scientists to include ghosts, leprechauns, boogeymen men, pasta monsters, pink invisible unicorns, blue potatoes, space Nazis and Allah.

So why include some other supernatural rubbish?

The universe requires a supernatural. It can't have been simply not caused and it can't be self-caused, so it had to be caused by something, and if that something was also natural then that too must be caused. If something can exist without being caused then it isn't really existing naturally is it?

What exactly is the definition of existing naturally? Or existing supernaturally? If we can only understand things with a natural existence, then why are so many scientists wholly relying on the belief that "Someday we will find the answer"? If scientists want to define these things as natural, even though they don't know the answer, then why set an arbitrary limitation on what they call the supernatural? If you believe in naturalism, then shouldn't everything be knowable, so why automatically neglect a certain idea because you define it as supernatural?

If you don't know the answer yet, then how can you be so sure to write off other answers as false when you believe that no matter what the answer is, that it will be natural and therefore observable? Why define things unknown as natural before you even know what they are or how they work, just to crutch your own theories, while also defying other explanations because you also don't know how they work?

And no, "It's just obvious." is not a legitimate answer. I fail to see the logic behind putting faith in an unknown theory yet denying the faith that others have in known theories, as there will always be unanswered questions. Oh, I do see the logic behind it. It's because you assume that certain theories are automatically false, a priori.

[Ataraxia]

Doesn't this statement: "science doesn't do god"

Confirm this one: "those models were conceived in the minds of scientists with the a priori pre-supposition that God doesn't exist"

No. There is no a priori pre-supposition. Science is intrinsically naturalistic. God is said not to be natural, therefore science can't be used to determine anything about god. Obviously, that includes the existence or non-existence of god.

Science isn't an entity nor is it a physical thing, it is something conceived by man and is wholly guided by man. If science doesn't do God it is because the scientist simply doesn't want it to have to do with God.

No, no, no, no, no. If you think scientists should want science to deal with god, then the onus is on the one proposing what god is. If they propose that god is a naturalistic phenomena, then science has the potential to investigate god, but if god is proposed as not being naturalistic, then science has nothing to say about god.

There are plenty of scientists who actually do believe in God. They are blown off of course, because the point isn't that God doesn't work with science, it's that scientists just don't want to work with God. Sure, if you only think of God as this deity that we will never be able to know anything about, that might be true. However that isn't really the case, for reasons I am sure you could guess.

Yes, there are, and any decent scientist who also happens to be theist will recognise that the scientific method has no bearing on determining the existence/non-existence of god.

[ThatZenoGuy]

The universe requires a supernatural. It can't have been simply not caused and it can't be self-caused, so it had to be caused by something, and if that something was also natural then that too must be caused. If something can exist without being caused then it isn't really existing naturally is it?

This sounds like cause and effect.
Of course, that only works for changes in energy and matter, not the creation of it.
Also, i am going to need some proof that the universe needed a supernatural start.

If you believe in naturalism, then shouldn't everything be knowable, so why automatically neglect a certain idea because you define it as supernatural?

Note that "natural" by definition means "existing in nature".
AKA, exists in reality.

Supernatural is the opposite.

God is supernatural, as there is no proof showing that a god is natural.

I fail to see the logic behind putting faith in an unknown theory yet denying the faith that others have in known theories, as there will always be unanswered questions. Oh, I do see the logic behind it. It's because you assume that certain theories are automatically false, a priori.

A: Modern scientific theories are well thought out, and are worked on by the best of human minds.
B: There is no scientific theory on god, thus it can be ignored.
C: Because there is no theory on god, it is by default, false.

[wheels5894]

Spinner,

If god could be easily accessed and reliably, he would get included in science and we would try and learn more about it and how it causes things. If...  It's like Alternative Medicine(AM) - anything that is shown to work in AM becomes - just Medicine. So if we could reliably contact god, he would be part of the naturalist world view - he just has to show up to join the party.

In fact the only reason we are all here is because no one has ever seen, heard or had messages from a god. Gods are made up - probably for political reasons originally - and have just grown from there, Right at the heart, though, is the tiny problem that there is actually no god. Remember how many god have been proposed -I mean there's something like 4,000 sects of Christianity and far more other gods. Even if there is a tiny possibility that there is a god, how do you know you are thinking of the right one?

[jaimehlers]

Doesn't this statement: "science doesn't do god"

Confirm this one: "those models were conceived in the minds of scientists with the a priori pre-supposition that God doesn't exist"

Nope.  Science can only work within the framework of naturalism.  So it doesn't matter if a scientist believes in God or not; a Christian scientist has to work with the same evidence and models and whatnot as an atheist scientist, or a Buddhist scientist.

Science isn't an entity nor is it a physical thing, it is something conceived by man and is wholly guided by man. If science doesn't do God it is because the scientist simply doesn't want it to have to do with God. There are plenty of scientists who actually do believe in God. They are blown off of course, because the point isn't that God doesn't work with science, it's that scientists just don't want to work with God. Sure, if you only think of God as this deity that we will never be able to know anything about, that might be true. However that isn't really the case, for reasons I am sure you could guess.

Seriously, would you get off of this "a priori pre-supposition of nonexistence" schtick of yours?  Trying to insert God into science is like trying to contain a universal solvent[1] - it simply cannot be done.  If you had something (like the supernatural) that could arbitrarily ignore - or worse, change - physical constraints, then science would not be viable, because it depends on being able to perform repeatable experiments.  Now imagine if something (like, oh, say, God) invisibly changed the parameters of an experiment, so that every time you repeated it, you got a different result.  You wouldn't have any way to tell which set of results were valid, or if any of them were, and neither would anyone else.

Do you get it now?  I don't mean to be rude, but it's really getting tiresome listening to you trying to insist that the reason science doesn't include God is because scientists are biased against God - which is what this "a priori pre-supposition of nonexistence" really means.

The universe requires a supernatural. It can't have been simply not caused and it can't be self-caused, so it had to be caused by something, and if that something was also natural then that too must be caused. If something can exist without being caused then it isn't really existing naturally is it?

So, you're concluding that the supernatural has to exist, not because you have any way to show that it actually does, but because you've defined something natural as something that has a cause, and believe that you have to have something that wasn't caused in order to start the chain of causation.  Talk about your "a priori pre-suppositions"!

What exactly is the definition of existing naturally? Or existing supernaturally? If we can only understand things with a natural existence, then why are so many scientists wholly relying on the belief that "Someday we will find the answer"? If scientists want to define these things as natural, even though they don't know the answer, then why set an arbitrary limitation on what they call the supernatural? If you believe in naturalism, then shouldn't everything be knowable, so why automatically neglect a certain idea because you define it as supernatural?

I have a much better question for you.  How can you tell if something isn't caused, since that's evidently necessary to tell that it's supernatural?  In short, how can you possibly tell the difference between something natural and something supernatural?  How do you tell the difference between something that has natural causes and something that has supernatural causes?  And if you can't do that, how can you tell that there is anything supernatural in the first place?  Simply deciding that it must exist because you've defined yourself into a corner doesn't suffice.

If you don't know the answer yet, then how can you be so sure to write off other answers as false when you believe that no matter what the answer is, that it will be natural and therefore observable? Why define things unknown as natural before you even know what they are or how they work, just to crutch your own theories, while also defying other explanations because you also don't know how they work?

That's entirely the point of how science works.  Scientists don't write off answers as false unless they have evidence that shows that they aren't viable answers.  That means science hasn't proved God false...but it also can't prove God true, because if God exists, it's outside of what science is capable of doing.  If there is some supernatural - or, for that matter, things that are natural but not observable to us - science cannot prove that those things don't exist, because it can only work with what it knows to exist.  That means that until someone figures out how to observe and quantify those things, they will continue to remain outside the realm of science.

And no, "It's just obvious." is not a legitimate answer. I fail to see the logic behind putting faith in an unknown theory yet denying the faith that others have in known theories, as there will always be unanswered questions. Oh, I do see the logic behind it. It's because you assume that certain theories are automatically false, a priori.

Science does not work by faith.  Indeed, if you're relying on faith, you're not performing science at all.  So your point here is totally moot.  Science doesn't assume that things that are unobservable are false.  It does not assume anything about them, and therefore cannot work with them.

1.	something that can dissolve anything it touches

[Spinner198]

There is an a priori assumption. Once again you seem to think that just because science can't define God or be used to determine anything about God, that it somehow means that therefore any theory involving God is unscientific, which is another claim entirely.

There is a difference between understanding that through science we can't determine what or who God is, and believing that the assumptions of science therefore means that there is no possible chance that God could exist therefore every scientific theory must work in the realm that he does not exist.

[Azdgari]

Science could certainly be used to investigate a god that believers had not deliberately hidden somewhere where it has no discernable effect on reality.

Why do you think that was done, anyway?

[jaimehlers]

There is an a priori assumption. Once again you seem to think that just because science can't define God or be used to determine anything about God, that it somehow means that therefore any theory involving God is unscientific, which is another claim entirely.

Did you even bother to read my post, or did you just spend a few seconds skimming it before you wrote this, Spinner?  Because it's more than a little insulting for you to just outright dismiss it entirely, to not even so much as mention anything I said in my own post let alone rebut it, and continue to insist that there must be an a priori assumption because you really truly and honestly believe that there is one.

If you want to be taken seriously, you cannot just blow off what other people say when it doesn't fit into any neat little a priori preconceptions you might just happen to have.  That just comes across like you have your fingers plugged in your ears, refusing to listen to anything that might contradict what you already believe to be the case.  I hope I don't need to spell out exactly how you look by doing that, but I will if I have to, and you won't like it at all.

There is a difference between understanding that through science we can't determine what or who God is, and believing that the assumptions of science therefore means that there is no possible chance that God could exist therefore every scientific theory must work in the realm that he does not exist.

Don't give me that, Spinner.  If you had bothered to actually read my post, you would have realized that the position I was actually taking was nowhere near what you insinuate here.  For example, I said that science doesn't assume that things which are unobservable are false; that it cannot assume anything about them at all, and therefore cannot work with them.  That means if your God is not observable by science, that science cannot assume anything about it, even whether or not he exists.

So you tell me how that can possibly be made to mean "there is no possible chance that God could exist".

Not only that, but I made a pretty good point about how a being which could change the parameters of science at will would render science effectively useless.  Since science has turned out to be exceptionally reliable - we get the same results from experiments done using the same parameters, among other things - it argues against such a being.  It doesn't mean that there are no such things as gods, or that there's no such thing as the supernatural, but it pretty strongly suggests that they can't simply rewrite the laws of physics when the whim takes them.

Can you respond to what I actually wrote, Spinner?  Or will you come back yet again with the same dogged insistence on an "a priori pre-supposition", even though I've pretty clearly demonstrated that there is no such thing?

[ThatZenoGuy]

There is an a priori assumption. Once again you seem to think that just because science can't define God or be used to determine anything about God, that it somehow means that therefore any theory involving God is unscientific, which is another claim entirely.

There is a difference between understanding that through science we can't determine what or who God is, and believing that the assumptions of science therefore means that there is no possible chance that God could exist therefore every scientific theory must work in the realm that he does not exist.

Gah.

Look, in the history of mankind, there has never been evidence of god, a theory of god, or anything related to god that is higher than an unbacked hypothesis.

Because of this, the current logical option is to say that we do not know god exists.

If the option is not chosen, you are making an argument from ignorance.

*edited to fix thingmajig*

[jaimehlers]

Gah.

Look, in the history of mankind, there has never been evidence of god, a theory of god, or anything related to god that is higher than an unbacked hypothesis.

Because of this, the current logical option is to say god does not exist.

If the option is not chosen, you are making an argument from ignorance.

No, the best logical option is to say that we don't know if it exists, but the chances against it are high (due to the total lack of evidence of a god that interferes or interfered in the lives of its worshipers), and therefore there's no reason to act as if it exists.

[Ataraxia]

There is an a priori assumption. Once again you seem to think that just because science can't define God or be used to determine anything about God, that it somehow means that therefore any theory involving God is unscientific, which is another claim entirely.

It is unscientific, by definition. It's your own fault that god is because of the way you define it. If you believe god created nature then he has to be outside it. Plus, if you posit god as having the ability to do anything, then you can't determine when god does or doesn't something using the scientific method. You have removed god from science, it's not science that has removed god from it, so please stop projecting a problem you have created for yourself.

There is a difference between understanding that through science we can't determine what or who God is, and believing that the assumptions of science therefore means that there is no possible chance that God could exist therefore every scientific theory must work in the realm that he does not exist.

Why are you ignoring what you're being told? Science does not do this. If science was a living entity, it would be agnostic and apathetic towards any god claims.

[Spinner198]

There is an a priori assumption. Once again you seem to think that just because science can't define God or be used to determine anything about God, that it somehow means that therefore any theory involving God is unscientific, which is another claim entirely.

There is a difference between understanding that through science we can't determine what or who God is, and believing that the assumptions of science therefore means that there is no possible chance that God could exist therefore every scientific theory must work in the realm that he does not exist.

Gah.

Look, in the history of mankind, there has never been evidence of god, a theory of god, or anything related to god that is higher than an unbacked hypothesis.

Because of this, the current logical option is to say that we do not know god exists.

If the option is not chosen, you are making an argument from ignorance.

*edited to fix thingmajig*

Evidence or a theory of the nature of God is not necessary for a supernatural explanation to be possible. I am not talking about explaining the nature of God, or explaining how the supernatural works.

Evidence is also a vague term. Depending on the person, they can view any single thing as either perfect evidence or not evidence at all. While the Bible could be viewed as evidence, atheists often write it off for various reasons. Not every evidence is perfect, as proof has the same prerequisite as evidence, that something is only proof according to how willing a person is to accept it as proof.

Saying there is no evidence for a supernatural origin, or a creator, is arguing from a biased perspective. Like saying that a downed tree couldn't possibly be evidence of strong wind because you believe that it is evidence of a lightning strike.

This isn't to say that evidence does not exist, but that the interpretation of evidence one way does not automatically reject the possibility for it to be interpreted another way.

Gah.

Look, in the history of mankind, there has never been evidence of god, a theory of god, or anything related to god that is higher than an unbacked hypothesis.

Because of this, the current logical option is to say god does not exist.

If the option is not chosen, you are making an argument from ignorance.

No, the best logical option is to say that we don't know if it exists, but the chances against it are high (due to the total lack of evidence of a god that interferes or interfered in the lives of its worshipers), and therefore there's no reason to act as if it exists.

If you are actually viewing the evidence that God interferes or interfered in the lives of its worshipers, yet you claim it is just 'coincidence' or 'nonsense' then of course you won't be able to see such evidence for what it is. It is circular logic to say "God doesn't exist, therefore he does not actively interfere or work in the lives of his followers. If God doesn't interfere or work in the lives of his followers, that must mean he doesn't exist."

There is an a priori assumption. Once again you seem to think that just because science can't define God or be used to determine anything about God, that it somehow means that therefore any theory involving God is unscientific, which is another claim entirely.

It is unscientific, by definition. It's your own fault that god is because of the way you define it. If you believe god created nature then he has to be outside it. Plus, if you posit god as having the ability to do anything, then you can't determine when god does or doesn't something using the scientific method. You have removed god from science, it's not science that has removed god from it, so please stop projecting a problem you have created for yourself.

There is a difference between understanding that through science we can't determine what or who God is, and believing that the assumptions of science therefore means that there is no possible chance that God could exist therefore every scientific theory must work in the realm that he does not exist.

Why are you ignoring what you're being told? Science does not do this. If science was a living entity, it would be agnostic and apathetic towards any god claims.

Please stop mistaking what I am saying. Just because science can't directly work with God doesn't mean that science can't come to a supernatural conclusion. I also don't see the logic behind stating that God didn't do something just because we can't prove or disprove what he did via the scientific method.

Once again, we do have knowledge of what God did via the Bible. We aren't going in completely blind. The Bible gives us the origin story. But we don't need to be able to apply the scientific method to God creating the universe out of nothing in order to be able to conclude that that is what happened.

Ignoring God and leaving him out of science is the same as stating he does not exist. If God did exist, then he would be the first cause, he would be the answer that scientists seek. So when science answers these questions with an answer that does not involve God, that means that these scientists are excluding God.

If science was a living entity, it might not be able to explain absolutely everything, but that doesn't mean it would automatically reject certain explanations. It wouldn't be agnostic or apathetic towards anything.

If science seeks the answer, then there shouldn't be any possibility that is by definition impossible for science to conclude. If God does exist, then a science that can't arrive at a God conclusion is flawed. Just because science can't fully explain every single aspect of something, doesn't mean that it can't consider it to possibly exist.

Saying "Science is the only possible means to obtain a correct answer. Science can only arrive at natural conclusions, therefore a natural conclusion must be the correct answer." is a logical fallacy. It relies upon your own assumptions to be true. A science that can't arrive at any possible conclusion is a science limited by bias, whether it can fully explain the conclusion or not.

[wheels5894]

Well just take the supernatural - that's ghosts as well as gods and angels and demons. Do you know anyone who has actually seen on of these things?

[Spinner198]

Well just take the supernatural - that's ghosts as well as gods and angels and demons. Do you know anyone who has actually seen on of these things?

The disciples first come to mind.

Besides, if somebody did claim to actually see God or a spirit, how do you think the majority of people would respond to them? That they are insane. A society that only accepts these alleged observations as insane, yet also demands these observations actually happen in order for the proof of God to exist, is contradictory.

[Ataraxia]

Spinner,

Can you provide an example of something that exists that can't be evidence for god?

[Spinner198]

Spinner,

Can you provide an example of something that exists that can't be evidence for god?

Like I said earlier, evidence is something we ourselves judge. Something is evidence because we come to the conclusion that it is. To an atheist, nothing might be evidence for God, while to a theist, everything could be evidence for God. Evidence relies on the observer and can't just be put into an overlapping "Is evidence" or "Isn't evidence" classification system.

In theory however, if God does exist, that means everything we observe was created by God, therefore everything we observe would be evidence for God. But if God does not exist, that means nothing we observe was created by God, therefore nothing we observe would be evidence for God.

So I guess it depends on your pre-supposition of how the universe exists in the first place. Imo, the universe had to have a first cause that was also uncaused. Since something that exists naturally must have a cause, that means that whatever the uncaused first cause was, it was not natural.

[Quesi]

Evidence is also a vague term. Depending on the person, they can view any single thing as either perfect evidence or not evidence at all.

This is true!  My daughter just won a chess tournament[1] wearing a leopard print headband.  Is this evidence that wearing a leopard print headband improves her game?

I keep "seeing" a young man who recently died.  I keep "seeing" him walking down the street, a half a block away.  Is this evidence that although he is dead, he still walks among us?

After a hit and run, I was certain the car was a two door.  Another witness is certain it was a four door.  Are we both right?  We saw it.  Isn't that evidence?

You see, all of this stuff is pretty subjective.  It isn't really proof of anything.  That is why scientists use something called the scientific method.  The scientific method requires the creation of a hypothesis, and then a method to test the hypothesis.  And just saying "it worked!" isn't good enough.  Other scientists need to be able to replicate the experiment under the same conditions.  And then somebody is going to test it by altering a little bit here and there, to see if there are any other factors that could impact on the outcome. 

That is how science proves things. 

 

1.	actually she just came in 3rd place, but I was proud and she was excited

[Ataraxia]

Spinner,

Can you provide an example of something that exists that can't be evidence for god?

Like I said earlier, evidence is something we ourselves judge. Something is evidence because we come to the conclusion that it is. To an atheist, nothing might be evidence for God, while to a theist, everything could be evidence for God. Evidence relies on the observer and can't just be put into an overlapping "Is evidence" or "Isn't evidence" classification system.

In theory however, if God does exist, that means everything we observe was created by God, therefore everything we observe would be evidence for God. But if God does not exist, that means nothing we observe was created by God, therefore nothing we observe would be evidence for God.

Do you fancy having a stab at answering the question now?

[Spinner198]

Evidence is also a vague term. Depending on the person, they can view any single thing as either perfect evidence or not evidence at all.

This is true!  My daughter just won a chess tournament[1] wearing a leopard print headband.  Is this evidence that wearing a leopard print headband improves her game?

I keep "seeing" a young man who recently died.  I keep "seeing" him walking down the street, a half a block away.  Is this evidence that although he is dead, he still walks among us?

After a hit and run, I was certain the car was a two door.  Another witness is certain it was a four door.  Are we both right?  We saw it.  Isn't that evidence?

You see, all of this stuff is pretty subjective.  It isn't really proof of anything.  That is why scientists use something called the scientific method.  The scientific method requires the creation of a hypothesis, and then a method to test the hypothesis.  And just saying "it worked!" isn't good enough.  Other scientists need to be able to replicate the experiment under the same conditions.  And then somebody is going to test it by altering a little bit here and there, to see if there are any other factors that could impact on the outcome. 

That is how science proves things.

1.	actually she just came in 3rd place, but I was proud and she was excited

So what happens when science can't rely on observations, such as the case of the origin of the universe and whether or not God exists? Often times faulty evidence is exposed quite quickly, but this is obviously not such a case.

Spinner,

Can you provide an example of something that exists that can't be evidence for god?

Like I said earlier, evidence is something we ourselves judge. Something is evidence because we come to the conclusion that it is. To an atheist, nothing might be evidence for God, while to a theist, everything could be evidence for God. Evidence relies on the observer and can't just be put into an overlapping "Is evidence" or "Isn't evidence" classification system.

In theory however, if God does exist, that means everything we observe was created by God, therefore everything we observe would be evidence for God. But if God does not exist, that means nothing we observe was created by God, therefore nothing we observe would be evidence for God.

Do you fancy having a stab at answering the question now?

The question is the actual problem. If I answer it truthfully, according to my own beliefs, I would say no. But you would find that to be an incorrect answer because according to your beliefs, the answer would be "Yes, everything."

Another problem with the question is that you use the word "Can't" instead of "Isn't" implying that something by its very nature (whether it was created or not) wouldn't be evidence for God under any conceivable circumstance.

[magicmiles]

My daughter just won a chess tournament[1] wearing a leopard print headband.  Is this evidence that wearing a leopard print headband improves her game?

1.	actually she just came in 3rd place, but I was proud and she was excited

It could be, to some people. That is Spinner's point, I believe.

I keep "seeing" a young man who recently died.  I keep "seeing" him walking down the street, a half a block away.  Is this evidence that although he is dead, he still walks among us?

"seeing". Does he have quotation marks around him? Or do you not physically see him in the same way you see a yellow cab? if you truly physically see him, this could be sufficient evidence for some people to believe in life after death. Probably not for many.

After a hit and run, I was certain the car was a two door.  Another witness is certain it was a four door.  Are we both right?  We saw it.  Isn't that evidence?

Both testimonies are evidence. If both testimonies are considered, it would be evidence to some that either a 2 or 4 door vehicle was involved.

You see, all of this stuff is pretty subjective.  It isn't really proof of anything.  That is why scientists use something called the scientific method.  The scientific method requires the creation of a hypothesis, and then a method to test the hypothesis.  And just saying "it worked!" isn't good enough.  Other scientists need to be able to replicate the experiment under the same conditions.  And then somebody is going to test it by altering a little bit here and there, to see if there are any other factors that could impact on the outcome. 

That is how science proves things.

even with this process there needs to be a shared agreement about what outcomes are to be accepted as necessary evidence that a hypothesis is proven.

[jaimehlers]

If you are actually viewing the evidence that God interferes or interfered in the lives of its worshipers, yet you claim it is just 'coincidence' or 'nonsense' then of course you won't be able to see such evidence for what it is. It is circular logic to say "God doesn't exist, therefore he does not actively interfere or work in the lives of his followers. If God doesn't interfere or work in the lives of his followers, that must mean he doesn't exist."

How about, instead of responding to something I directed at someone else, you respond to the earlier post I directed at you, Spinner?  And while you're at it, how about you start actually reading my posts instead of making up strawmen?  Because, honestly, you're coming across as someone who has an agenda that you intend to prove, by hook or by crook, and that destroys any credibility you might have.

[jaimehlers]

It could be, to some people. That is Spinner's point, I believe.

Spinner's overall point, quite clearly, is "scientists have an 'a priori pre-conception' that God doesn't exist", and he isn't willing to listen to anything anyone says that contradicts this, no matter what arguments or evidence they might show.  He's even used strawman arguments when what someone (specifically me) actually writes doesn't jive with what he already believes.  This does not lead me to give his argument any credence.  Indeed, he hasn't shown any evidence that scientists actually have this "a priori pre-conception" he keeps talking about.

Before you defend him any further, magicmiles, you should take some time to read the entire thread, especially the parts where he abandoned the pretense that he ever had an actual question on origins, and instead showed that he just wanted to prove that scientists had this "a priori pre-conception".  He's gone even farther into left field since then.

[Ataraxia]

Spinner,

Can you provide an example of something that exists that can't be evidence for god?

Like I said earlier, evidence is something we ourselves judge. Something is evidence because we come to the conclusion that it is. To an atheist, nothing might be evidence for God, while to a theist, everything could be evidence for God. Evidence relies on the observer and can't just be put into an overlapping "Is evidence" or "Isn't evidence" classification system.

In theory however, if God does exist, that means everything we observe was created by God, therefore everything we observe would be evidence for God. But if God does not exist, that means nothing we observe was created by God, therefore nothing we observe would be evidence for God.

Do you fancy having a stab at answering the question now?

The question is the actual problem. If I answer it truthfully, according to my own beliefs, I would say no. But you would find that to be an incorrect answer because according to your beliefs, the answer would be "Yes, everything."

Another problem with the question is that you use the word "Can't" instead of "Isn't" implying that something by its very nature (whether it was created or not) wouldn't be evidence for God under any conceivable circumstance.

Because I'm a generous kinda chap, I'll say that your straw man is unintentional. My answer isn't "Yes, everything", my answer is "Fuck knows".

None of that matters, though. What does matter is that you can't provide an example because you conclude everything can be evidence for god. That's a problem, as it renders evidence as meaningless and useless because you have nothing to contrast.

[Spinner198]

If you are actually viewing the evidence that God interferes or interfered in the lives of its worshipers, yet you claim it is just 'coincidence' or 'nonsense' then of course you won't be able to see such evidence for what it is. It is circular logic to say "God doesn't exist, therefore he does not actively interfere or work in the lives of his followers. If God doesn't interfere or work in the lives of his followers, that must mean he doesn't exist."

How about, instead of responding to something I directed at someone else, you respond to the earlier post I directed at you, Spinner?  And while you're at it, how about you start actually reading my posts instead of making up strawmen?  Because, honestly, you're coming across as someone who has an agenda that you intend to prove, by hook or by crook, and that destroys any credibility you might have.

I assume this is what you are referring to: "I have a much better question for you.  How can you tell if something isn't caused, since that's evidently necessary to tell that it's supernatural?  In short, how can you possibly tell the difference between something natural and something supernatural?  How do you tell the difference between something that has natural causes and something that has supernatural causes?  And if you can't do that, how can you tell that there is anything supernatural in the first place?  Simply deciding that it must exist because you've defined yourself into a corner doesn't suffice."

I don't see the necessity to knowing the difference between the natural and the supernatural, or the difference between something that is caused naturally or caused supernaturally. It wouldn't change the facts or the truths.

From a theistic perspective, the difference between the natural and supernatural doesn't matter, as it is unimportant. These are terms that I have to use when debating naturalists. So it would only make sense that naturalists are the ones defining both. The concept of nature vs. supernature is only necessary in apologetics when debating against naturalists. It is not required to understand a single thing about theology or God. Rather, they are words used by naturalists to describe the difference between what they believe themselves to be able to work with and what they believe themselves to not be able to work with.

From a creationists perspective there is no such arbitrary limitation put upon God or the universe in general. We understand the laws of physics and logic apply to things of this universe but not to God in the same way, but that doesn't mean that they are two completely separate and opposite existences.

I should be asking you this question. What do you think makes something natural compared to supernatural and vice versa? Asking me to define the two words would be like asking a creationist to define speciation; something that simply does not exist in a creationist theory of origin or existence.

[Spinner198]

Spinner,

Can you provide an example of something that exists that can't be evidence for god?

Like I said earlier, evidence is something we ourselves judge. Something is evidence because we come to the conclusion that it is. To an atheist, nothing might be evidence for God, while to a theist, everything could be evidence for God. Evidence relies on the observer and can't just be put into an overlapping "Is evidence" or "Isn't evidence" classification system.

In theory however, if God does exist, that means everything we observe was created by God, therefore everything we observe would be evidence for God. But if God does not exist, that means nothing we observe was created by God, therefore nothing we observe would be evidence for God.

Do you fancy having a stab at answering the question now?

The question is the actual problem. If I answer it truthfully, according to my own beliefs, I would say no. But you would find that to be an incorrect answer because according to your beliefs, the answer would be "Yes, everything."

Another problem with the question is that you use the word "Can't" instead of "Isn't" implying that something by its very nature (whether it was created or not) wouldn't be evidence for God under any conceivable circumstance.

Because I'm a generous kinda chap, I'll say that your straw man is unintentional. My answer isn't "Yes, everything", my answer is "Fuck knows".

None of that matters, though. What does matter is that you can't provide an example because you conclude everything can be evidence for god. That's a problem, as it renders evidence as meaningless and useless because you have nothing to contrast.

I personally don't think that evidence is sufficient to proving God. I believe that the best way to show the likelihood of God's existence is to show that the opposition is simply not possible. This goes back to origin, infinite regress, a necessitated first cause, etc.

[Ataraxia]

I personally don't think that evidence is sufficient to proving God. I believe that the best way to show the likelihood of God's existence is to show that the opposition is simply not possible. This goes back to origin, infinite regress, a necessitated first cause, etc.

Ignorance and incredulity does not show that no god is not possible.

[shnozzola]

I personally don't think that evidence is sufficient to proving God. I believe that the best way to show the likelihood of God's existence is to show that the opposition is simply not possible. This goes back to origin, infinite regress, a necessitated first cause, etc.

Question for you Spinner.  Some folks that study astrophysics are proposing that there was a universe before the big bang, and that universes may "big bang" into existence over and over, essentially meaning that there never was a beginning, a first cause.  How do you feel about that possibility?  I can look for a link if you want, it has been a while, but I'm sure I can find it.

[Ataraxia]

Please stop mistaking what I am saying. Just because science can't directly work with God doesn't mean that science can't come to a supernatural conclusion. I also don't see the logic behind stating that God didn't do something just because we can't prove or disprove what he did via the scientific method.

Once again, we do have knowledge of what God did via the Bible. We aren't going in completely blind. The Bible gives us the origin story. But we don't need to be able to apply the scientific method to God creating the universe out of nothing in order to be able to conclude that that is what happened.

Ignoring God and leaving him out of science is the same as stating he does not exist. If God did exist, then he would be the first cause, he would be the answer that scientists seek. So when science answers these questions with an answer that does not involve God, that means that these scientists are excluding God.

If science was a living entity, it might not be able to explain absolutely everything, but that doesn't mean it would automatically reject certain explanations. It wouldn't be agnostic or apathetic towards anything.

If science seeks the answer, then there shouldn't be any possibility that is by definition impossible for science to conclude. If God does exist, then a science that can't arrive at a God conclusion is flawed. Just because science can't fully explain every single aspect of something, doesn't mean that it can't consider it to possibly exist.

Saying "Science is the only possible means to obtain a correct answer. Science can only arrive at natural conclusions, therefore a natural conclusion must be the correct answer." is a logical fallacy. It relies upon your own assumptions to be true. A science that can't arrive at any possible conclusion is a science limited by bias, whether it can fully explain the conclusion or not.

I don't know where to start with the straw men and inaccuracies here because it is strewn with them, so I'm just going to cut to the chase.... again.

Science is methodologically naturalistic. It doesn't assume god exists. It doesn't assume god doesn't exist. It doesn't assume god did something. It doesn't assume god didn't do something. Science can only arrive at natural conclusions, but that does not eliminate god from being the cause of those natural conclusions.

You've got this bee stuck in your bonnet where science (or scientists) is out there to show god doesn't exist because it starts with the assumption that god doesn't exist. It really, really isn't doing that. Science doesn't give a toss. I fear you are projecting your parallel assumption to gain some leverage and equal footing with science, but you've started a competition with an opponent not competing for the same trophy. You'd have better luck platting fog.