Elton John: ban organised religion

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Perfection
I actually find his argument to be remarkably similar. The only differences is a consider his notions to be a scientifically valid argument based off the principle of parsimony and that such an argument is strong enough to render God for all useful purposes nonexistant. I don't like getting caught up in annoying philosophical skepticsm.

You missed his central point. It is his beleif that God does not exist. He did not provide an argument in favor of it. Unless I misread what he wrote.

JM

[Pekka]

I don't thinl one has to proof something like that. If you claim something, the burden of proof is on them.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Relax bro. He's asking reasonable questions, there's no need to get condescending when the only qualification you have over most other people here is a few percentile difference in the ability to do calculus. You once told me you're a bad teacher because you don't like being questioned... well there's no need to dislike being questioned!

That's rather like saying that use of scientific method doesn't necessarily make it science. I'd agree to the extent that I agree with modern science, but I'd disagree because scientific method will inevitably tend to the best science, given the available evidence. We have quantum theory now, whereas we didn't 200 years ago, so the best scientific theory will include it.

Science need not concern strict observations, otherwise you relegate theoretical physics to being a branch of philosophy. The God hypothesis makes certain predictions which can be tested. Whether that is in a lab or a thought experiment is besides the point. If all scientists are like you, of course then they wouldn't like that because that would involve their judgements being questioned.

If there is a God, then I thank him because not all scientists are like you; most of them that I know are lovely people that love a good debate and enjoy being questioned .

I am a bad teacher because I dislike being questioned in the front of the class. I am fine being questioned at other times.

String theory is currently not physics, it is mathematics waiting for technology (or mathematics) to reach the point where it can become science.

From Wikipedia : "Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning[1]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Please note the discussion of evidence. It is crucial for the use of the scientific method.

Please tell me what predictions the 'God hypothesis' entails? I promise that I will include you in the authorship for the resulting paper, although I would probably put myself as PI (it would surely get Nature, maybe even a Nobel Prize!).

Jon Miller
(I know, I just replied to Whaleboy again..)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


You're confusing colloquial "belief" with the correct usage of "belief". I "believe" there is a God implies faith.

Actually Id say thats rather a matter of controversy in the history of religion. Historically there were aristotelians, both in Christianity and Islam, who were quite sure they had proved G-d syllogistically and that their belief was not based on faith, and they were opposed by those who affirmed faith. And Id say its questionable in what sense plenty of modern day religious existentialists, who consider themselves "believers", are possesed of "faith".

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Geronimo
AFAIKT the scientific viewpoint with respect to God would be that it is not scientifically relevant as it is not testable.

Similarily one could hold a scientific viewpoint that the possible existance of an undetectable flying spaghetti monster is not scientifically relevant. It would not be necessary to concur with the view that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

That's the traditional viewpoint, which by and large works. I say that principles like parsimony (which I would call part of scientific philosophy) can put it in the rubbish bin. Why should I remain agnostic on thoroughly stupid things like FSM? Dismiss it and move on.

Originally posted by Geronimo
I see. So if I declare that there is no other intelligent life anywhere in the universe then that is not a declaration of a belief?

Indeed, however it is a claim that (arguably) does go against currently accepted scientific theory. To be accepted as valid you would have to argue that current theory is flawed or misinterpreted.

[Fake Boris]

Inexistence is not a positive property. You negate an object by lack of observing conclusive evidence of its existence.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Inexistence is not a positive property. You negate an object by lack of observing conclusive evidence of its existence.

Did you read the rest of the thread? If not, I recommend it. Or else just read a history of physics for some understanding of the scientific process.

JM

[Whaleboy]

(I know, I just replied to Whaleboy again..)

Your dirty little secret is safe with me!

Please note the discussion of evidence. It is crucial for the use of the scientific method.

Fair enough, in that scientific method is more than simply applied Occam's razor. I think, however, that reinforces the point I was making.

Please tell me what predictions the 'God hypothesis' entails?

Let's see...
-Life and the universe will demonstrate strong evidence of design, or there should at least be evidence of God in his supposed creation
-Authorship of biblical texts can be demonstrated to be of divine origin (this assumes that we take God to be God of the bible... you could ignore that and thus ignore this prediction).
-Assuming God is knowable, then God exists, and thus God can in principle be tested (even if we lack the means, see your apt point on string theory).
-If God is good and omnipotent, then pretty much any theodicy-based question will test God

Historically there were aristotelians, both in Christianity and Islam, who were quite sure they had proved G-d syllogistically and that their belief was not based on faith, and they were opposed by those who affirmed faith. And Id say its questionable in what sense plenty of modern day religious existentialists, who consider themselves "believers", are possesed of "faith".

This is true, but how much of that is honest, and how much of that is a desire to show to naive skeptics *cough* that God was a logical view? I prefer to take Douglas Adams' view, that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, and one detracts from the other when applied to a given question.

Why take a leap [of faith] across a great chasm when there is a perfectly good suspension bridge?

[Whaleboy]

That's the traditional viewpoint, which by and large works. I say that principles like parsimony (which I would call part of scientific philosophy) can put it in the rubbish bin. Why should I remain agnostic on thoroughly stupid things like FSM? Dismiss it and move on.

Agreed, it stinks of agnosticism in principle; probably motivated by political correctness .

Did you read the rest of the thread? If not, I recommend it. Or else just read a history of physics for some understanding of the scientific process.

He's right though isn't he?

Proponent & Opponent: Square 1
Proponent: Positive Proposition A
Opponent: Where's your evidence?
Proponent: Ah...
Opponent: Back to Square 1

[Whaleboy]

I am a bad teacher because I dislike being questioned in the front of the class. I am fine being questioned at other times.

Evidently not though

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Fair enough, in that scientific method is more than simply applied Occam's razor. I think, however, that reinforces the point I was making.

Note that Occam's Razor wasn't discussed at all. Also, note that Occam's Razor has been wrong in the past.

JM

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Did you read the rest of the thread? If not, I recommend it. Or else just read a history of physics for some understanding of the scientific process.

JM

Yup. And this is the best you can come up with:

Just because there is no experimental evidence, doesn't mean something doesn't exist.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Agreed, it stinks of agnosticism in principle; probably motivated by political correctness .



He's right though isn't he?

Proponent & Opponent: Square 1
Proponent: Positive Proposition A
Opponent: Where's your evidence?
Proponent: Ah...
Opponent: Back to Square 1

You are missing the point. I am not trying to prove god(s) existence. I am arguing against atheists who say it is disproved. I am the one saying, where is your evidence.

My beleif in God is a beleif, based upon Faith. And I recognise it as such.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yup. And this is the best you can come up with:

Just because there is no experimental evidence, doesn't mean something doesn't exist.

Nope, read what I said about quarks. There was no experimental evidence until last century. That doesn't mean that they didn't exist before last century.

JM

[Whaleboy]

Note that Occam's Razor wasn't discussed at all. Also, note that Occam's Razor has been wrong in the past.

True, Occam's Razor in the 18th Century would favour Newton over Einstein, of Einstein's conclusions had no accompanying evidence.

In that situation, concurring with Newton would be more logical, since as you correctly point out, evidence is the clincher.