Unknown Quantities

[Elok]

Does anybody else here ever get the feeling that we constantly argue outside topics that we have grounds to support? I'm not talking about specific posters here; I'm thinking more of a general quirk of the human mind. This is a bad example, but look at the obnoxiously ongoing is-there-a-god argument. If god does exist, s/he is naturally going to stand at such a basic level of reality as to be indeterminate by any methods. I've said this before and didn't really get an answer, but how do you test for the presence of an omnipresent being? How do you base a test for which there is no possible way of receiving negative results? If god is everywhere, s/he is part of the scenery, so to speak, and by accustomed presence might very well be imperceptible. The answer comes back: "the existence of god is ridiculously improbable." How does one get odds for that sort of thing? Out of a survey of 3000 parallel universes, how many were discovered to have come into being as a result of deity-related circumstances? Here it's just a trick of semantics that causes the problem, but hopefully you get my point. It's a fundamental aspect of reality we don't have the experience to measure. That's just an example that came to mind-I'm not trying to harass atheists specifically. It's much easier to identify fallacies in others than it is to see your own.
Or evolution. It cannot be proved or disproved sans time travel. And the idea that there are two possibilities(god made it versus organisms with disadvantageous traits and/or mutations are killed off in a gradual process of refinement of traits of a species, combined with advantageous traits being propagated, all within the context of environment-specific stimuli) are all there is, well, it seems absurd. Lamarck was definitely wrong, so far as we can tell; the effects of exercise or effort are not transmitted between generations. But it feels odd that there are no other possibilities besides those two. The theory is far too convoluted to be proven by any means as a mechanism of biological development, and there could be some other, equally bizarre explanation. Who knows? Do we just argue unfounded specifics for our own peace of mind, or is there another reason?

I think I've been reading too much Shakespeare. Blame the class.

[Ramo]

Well, the idea that God is improbable is based (for me) upon the principle of empiricism, the idea that one can generalize previous experience (which, for me, has been justified in general by my previous experience). I've never dealt with an omnipotent being, nor have seen any evidence for one, so it likely doesn't exist.

[yavoon]

ur being a fair bit historically short sighted in ur ideas of what's possible or explainable.

but I think we argue about those things for the same reason edmund hillary climbed mt. everest.

[loinburger]

The whole point to coming up with and arguing over theories, convoluted or otherwise, is to find an accurate and useful explanation for various phenomena. It's not always possible to objectively determine the accuracy of a theory, particularly with God on the playing field (since as soon as an omnipotent being is introduced then all explanations must include the caveat "Unless God exists and He did something differently"), but it is usually much more meaningful to determine the usefulness of a theory. F'rinstance, Newtonian Physics is an inaccurate theory, but it is still useful since it is more easily applied than Relativity or Quantum Mechanics and since the errors introduced by ignoring relativistic or quantum phenomena are usually negligible. The same holds true with evolution -- it's possible that God created the world and all of life approximately six thousand years ago (or one hundred years ago, for that matter) since it is impossible to prove that an omnipotent entity like God does not exist (an omnipotent being could surely hide itself from us), but this YEC theory fails to be as useful as evolutionary theory since it generates no testable predictions (e.g. "Overuse of pesticides will merely result in pesticide-resistant pests") and is extremely narrow in its scope as a hypothesis. Will we eventually develop an improved theory that demonstrates that evolutionary theory (or at least our current evolutionary theory) is inaccurate? Sure, just as we will eventually develop a theory that improves upon Relativity and/or Quantum Mechanics. The existence of these improved theories does not make evolutionary theory, Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics any less useful, though.

It's for this reason that I generally don't argue about the existence of God, since in my experience theories about God usually aren't very useful. You just can't predict what an omnipotent being is going to do next, particularly when all of our experiences of said omnipotent being are necessarily flawed due to our own non-omnipotence.

[yavoon]

eventually? string theory.

[loinburger]

The trouble with string theory, AFAIK, is that it's not falsifiable. It fits the data, but it doesn't make any falsifiable predictions either.

[yavoon]

well its not an arbitrary theory, it has consequences. it was meant to fit the data but to say its not falsifiable is a misnomer.

relativities second postule fits the data too.

[Japher]

it is usually much more meaningful to determine the usefulness of a theory

and that is why we argue. It is not so much the point/jist of the matter that is being argued by the basis for each side. Good debaters make the other side realize that their opinion on these matters are unjustifiable, made in haste, or just plain stupid.

Of course we argue things that we have no grounds to argue, but this leads not to knowledge, but to understanding of the thought process the create these grounds.

I argue things all the time that I have no factual data for, no real care to argue about, and no real basis for an argument. Why? Because sometimes not having opinion is just not caring, other times it is just plain ignorance.

[Ben Kenobi]

but to understanding of the thought process the create these grounds.

Well said Japher.

We debate to improve our positions. Even if we may not change our minds, we try to improve on why we believe what we do.

Elok:

Proofs/tests for the existence of God?

I'm paraphrasing CS Lewis here.

Supposing you study rocks, all the initiative is on your side. The rocks cannot do anything to stop you from examining them. When you study animals, the initiative is somewhat on the side of the animal. You can study them, but you have to be increasingly careful to do so.

If you are studying people, the initiative is shared equally between you and the subject. If a person does not want to be studied, you will not be able to do so, as opposed to the animals and the rocks. You have to gain the trust of the other person.

Finally, we have God. There is nothing we can do to make God to anything. The initiative is entirely on God's side.

Let me know if this helps any. It's from Mere Christianity

[yavoon]

obiwan that only hides behind the supposition that god is beyond us. which although a nice place to hide, is of no use or value. things of equal value are, "you are just a brain in a jar."

[Ben Kenobi]

obiwan that only hides behind the supposition that god is beyond us.

Yavoon:

But He is not beyond us, only because He chooses to allow us to reach Him. If He does not want to talk to us, we will not reach Him.

[yavoon]

=D

[Giancarlo]

Obiwan, I am atheist existentialist.. prove I am wrong. Fact is you can't.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fez:

Do we have the time?

First we need to categorise admissible evidence.
What do you make of biblical sources?

[Giancarlo]

The Bible is not a source at all for me. I dismiss it immediately. Call it ignorant, just the way I operate. Not to mention I have had a year in Christian school. There is NO WAY you can disprove my beliefs.