Posts by JonathanH

111

FAITH, the biggest excuse for IGNORANCE.

by nicolaou in

when you claim that some impossible account from the bible is true are you doing so because of evidence and honest reasons or simply because you want it to be true?

if the evidence your claim is based upon ends up being proven false would you stop making the claim?.

if your claim is based only on wishful thinking then you are being dishonest with yourself.

JonathanH

@PSacramento

Science doesn't prove anything, it provides evidence to give a probabilty of something being more correct over something else. Logic and Math are the only things which have anything that can be called conclusive proof and only in their respective domains.

It's not a matter of science can't "disprove" (read give evidence against) god, it's that trying to "prove" any negative is an incredibly foolhardy task, rather you assume the negative until you "prove" the positive.

You don't assume leprechauns exist until science disproves them.

111

FAITH, the biggest excuse for IGNORANCE.

by nicolaou in

when you claim that some impossible account from the bible is true are you doing so because of evidence and honest reasons or simply because you want it to be true?

if the evidence your claim is based upon ends up being proven false would you stop making the claim?.

if your claim is based only on wishful thinking then you are being dishonest with yourself.

JonathanH

Quick check in.

You are innocent until proven guilty, Stillthinking. You don't need a defense lawyer to prove you're innocent, you need a defence lawyer to make sure the other guy doesn't just make stuff up. The prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty, otherwise you are free to go. It's not the defense lawyers job to prove that you're innocent. You are assumed innocent. The burden of proof lies on the one claiming you did something.

111

FAITH, the biggest excuse for IGNORANCE.

by nicolaou in

when you claim that some impossible account from the bible is true are you doing so because of evidence and honest reasons or simply because you want it to be true?

if the evidence your claim is based upon ends up being proven false would you stop making the claim?.

if your claim is based only on wishful thinking then you are being dishonest with yourself.

JonathanH

Also just so anyone involved knows, I'll be afk for a bit. I might not be back till saturday morning, just depends on when I get a free moment to continue this lively discussion. But I will definitely check back in as soon as I get a chance.

111

FAITH, the biggest excuse for IGNORANCE.

by nicolaou in

when you claim that some impossible account from the bible is true are you doing so because of evidence and honest reasons or simply because you want it to be true?

if the evidence your claim is based upon ends up being proven false would you stop making the claim?.

if your claim is based only on wishful thinking then you are being dishonest with yourself.

JonathanH

The elijah story was just that, a story. I was using it as an example of god submitting to the scientific method and showing that he can be tested scientifically by the theology that christians subscribe too, I wasn't suggesting that it was in anyway true. Saying people didn't believe jesus is irrelevant because I am not submitting that those stories were factual. In my opinion, nobody believed him because he didn't do it.

Your bringing up multi-universal models and hypothesis only shows your inability to differentiate scientific thinking from religious thinking. Scientists don't "believe" we live in a multiverse, they posit the idea as a mathematical model to test it's explanatory power. It has a degree of explanatory power (at least on paper right now) and thusly get's a possibility of being considered true. If it eventually is found to have a high degree of explanatory power and also predictive power then it would be upgraded to a solid theory and would be considered as naturalistic as our universe. But as of now that hasn't happened, so it is only a model. I doubt James Randy would put it up for scientists working within a particular mathematical model because he would understand the difference between a model, a hypothesis, assigning a probability to something being true, and somebody saying "I can heal lepers with the bible". When somebody says "I can use quantum physics to read your mind!" I'm sure he'd let that person take the test, if somebody said "I can demonstrate that their are multiple planes of reality!" then that person would also have a shot at the million dollars. Because they are not working with a model to explore possibilities, they are making definite supernatural claims.

If a man could make a testable hypothesis as Elijah did (IE, Jesus has given me the power to heal terminal cancer with the bible), and then submitted that to rigorous scientific scrutiny (something along the line of having him do his thing to 100 patients, monitoring the results, and have a control group where the people think somebody is healing them but it's just an experienced magician that knows how faith healing works, compare the results over a period of time, then perhaps have the "real" healer blindfold himself and give him a koran, and then a bible, and then harry potter to test the specificity of the god, and then submit it for peer review to see if some one else can get a similar result by different means and explain how they did it in such a way that excludes that they were using jesus power to heal, or something to that effect. A good scientist could come up with a rigorous test), and passed those tests that would work as valid evidence for the hypothesis as much as anything would. According to Elijah, God would be able and willing to do this. It wouldn't convince everybody, but there are still people out there that think the sun moves around the earth, I think God could be given a pass for submitting sufficient evidence on human terms according to the scientific method.

This is a debate that atheists PZ Meyers and Jerry Coyne had recently. PZ says there could be no evidence for god on the basis that the word "god" is so poorly defined, and nobody can agree on exactly what it is or what qualities it possesses, or in what way it even interacts with the universe, it would be impossible to find evidence for it. It would be like testing for the existence of gobbledygook. Jerry Coyne (whom I'm more in line with on this topic) submits that while you may not be able to find evidence for "god" (as being poorly defined) you can hypothetically test and find evidence for a being that created life on earth and inspired the writing of a particular holy book, and has certain qualities such as being "all knowing", and has specific demands on the human race, that will face consequences for disobeying. Even if this being was actually an alien or something, it would be irrelevant because it still fits the definition and can be said to be the "god" people are referencing when they speak of the abrahamic god of the bible.

111

FAITH, the biggest excuse for IGNORANCE.

by nicolaou in

when you claim that some impossible account from the bible is true are you doing so because of evidence and honest reasons or simply because you want it to be true?

if the evidence your claim is based upon ends up being proven false would you stop making the claim?.

if your claim is based only on wishful thinking then you are being dishonest with yourself.

JonathanH

First of all, let's get the idea of proof out of the way. Proof is for logic and mathematics, for everything else there is evidence which lends probability to a claim. More evidence the greater the probablity, and the clearer the picture becomes. But due to "philosophical" reasons, actualy proof can only be offered up in terms of pure mathematics and logic.

As for proving the god hypothesis, Elijah did a "scientific" test of whether or not god exists, and his god specifically (of course any rational person chalks this up to myth, but I will use this as an example). Elijah met with the prophets of baal to do a scientific experiment to offer credible evidence that he had god's blessing and they did not. They got together and both offered sacrifices to be burnt up, the prophets of baal beseeched their god and no fires burned up their sacrifice. Elijah prayed to his god and flames came from the heavens and burned up his sacrifice. It was a perfectly scientific way to go about it. There was a hypothesis, a control group, a prediction, peer review (though he did kill the peer review group afterwards) and it was repeatable (since he did it a few times more to burn up soldiers sent to arrest him).

God willingly submitted himself to a scientific test to prove that he not only existed, but had a preference. Or at least that's how the story goes. Just because the greeks said zeus smited some people doesn't make it so. But that would be a perfectly valid means of testing the god hypothesis, and one that even god (hypothetically) agrees would be a valid way to verify it.

Call me when biologos or William Lane Craig manages to pass James Randy's challenge on the supernatural.

The James Randy challenge for any who are unfamiliar with it, is a challenge that offers up a million dollars to any psychic, faith healer, mystic ect that is willing to come in and put their claims to scientific scrutiny. They have to offer their hypothesis, there has to be control groups, a double blind, predictions, repeated testing and review. So far virtually no one has taken him up on it, and no one has passed it.

111

FAITH, the biggest excuse for IGNORANCE.

by nicolaou in

when you claim that some impossible account from the bible is true are you doing so because of evidence and honest reasons or simply because you want it to be true?

if the evidence your claim is based upon ends up being proven false would you stop making the claim?.

if your claim is based only on wishful thinking then you are being dishonest with yourself.

JonathanH

To put it more accurately, if god did not exist in this universe, or was beyond the human scope of perception, then that would only mean that science would be unable to explain what this god is made of, and how it manages to operate, but the question of whether or not it existed and was involved with our universe would still be a valid question to consider.

111

FAITH, the biggest excuse for IGNORANCE.

by nicolaou in

when you claim that some impossible account from the bible is true are you doing so because of evidence and honest reasons or simply because you want it to be true?

if the evidence your claim is based upon ends up being proven false would you stop making the claim?.

if your claim is based only on wishful thinking then you are being dishonest with yourself.

JonathanH

You do realize that the "evidence: you seek for God is philosophical and not scientific, right?
Scientifc evidence is based on our perception of the natural world as we know it, God is NOT part of that "natural" world (not in the way most see it) nor is God "slave" to our perception.

No, the god hypothesis would still be a scientific one as long as it's theistic. Deism would be philosophical because it would consider something that has nothing to do with our universe (or may be the universe itself). But a theistic god is one that has interaction with the natural world, which is a claim that puts it squarely in the realm of science. As long as religion claims that a specific god is acting in a specific way in our universe it is still a question that can be tested by science. It would only be outside of the scientific scope of the deity in question had absolutely no interaction or preference involving the natural universe.

111

FAITH, the biggest excuse for IGNORANCE.

by nicolaou in

when you claim that some impossible account from the bible is true are you doing so because of evidence and honest reasons or simply because you want it to be true?

if the evidence your claim is based upon ends up being proven false would you stop making the claim?.

if your claim is based only on wishful thinking then you are being dishonest with yourself.

JonathanH

oh lord, I didn't visit the first one on reasonable faith, but then I clicked on it and realized it's william lane craig's website. That guy is bat**** crazy. Just because he knows how to form a syllogism doesn't make him reasonable. This is the guy that said killing babies is a good thing because they get to go to heaven instead of living on earth, and that the worst part of the old testament genocides is that it must have really been hard for the israelites to slaughter so many innocent people. It must have really hurt them. He's not logical, he's barely sane, and definitely not reasonable. He, like biologos, has managed to make a name for himself by looking smarter than the people picketing dead soldiers funerals with anti-gay slogans. By comparison to kirk cameron, he's a genius, but he's still not reasonable, and he definitely doesn't proffer evidence of god. At best he offers old syllogisms that from the standpoint of formal sentential logic hold up, but have no basis in reality.

111

FAITH, the biggest excuse for IGNORANCE.

by nicolaou in

when you claim that some impossible account from the bible is true are you doing so because of evidence and honest reasons or simply because you want it to be true?

if the evidence your claim is based upon ends up being proven false would you stop making the claim?.

if your claim is based only on wishful thinking then you are being dishonest with yourself.

JonathanH

I've been to biologos plenty of times. It doesn't offer evidence of god, rather it's main goal seems to be to try and argue that god isn't superflous by marrying liberal christianity to areas of science where there might still be room for god. It's what's known as "accommadationist" science. It's merely an attempt to show that god is not disproven by science (and I've already talked about disproving things), but offers little in the way of actually offering evidence FOR god(s).

When it does it rests on the same tired arguments of ID (or theistic evolution as they call it there) and fine tuning that have been put in their place time after time. Biologos has clout in the liberal religious community, but it seems to be largely based on it looking more scientific than your average baptist flyer claiming the earth is 6000 years old. But it's arguments are only marginally better than what you find in the "Life how did it get here: By evolution or creation" book published by our dear friends, the Watchtower. They attempt to give themselves credibility by sidestepping some of the stupider objections (such as thermodynamics disproving evolution), but still simply rely on god of the gaps while saying "be careful to avoid the god of the gaps argument."

It engages more in philosophy to try and marry religious ideas (specifically liberal christian ones) with science, but does little to nothing to actually offer up evidence for it's claims, merely alluding to possibilities. It's hardly something that offers rational evidence to the notion that deities exist.

111

FAITH, the biggest excuse for IGNORANCE.

by nicolaou in

when you claim that some impossible account from the bible is true are you doing so because of evidence and honest reasons or simply because you want it to be true?

if the evidence your claim is based upon ends up being proven false would you stop making the claim?.

if your claim is based only on wishful thinking then you are being dishonest with yourself.

JonathanH

I feel the need to clarify my statement that was misrepresented above by stillthinking.

I never claimed that making an assumption is stupid and one should never assume anything, I said that equating faith to being a mere assumption makes faith meaningless in any religious sense. I doubt many christians would say that the core of Jesus message was to just assume he would save you, or that god wants you to just make the assumption that he's real and the bible is his word. Equating faith with assumption takes out a considerable amount of power and majesty from such commands.

My saying that was in response to someone who had been making the claim that we have faith in alot of things, but in doing so he was equating faith to being defined as an assumption based on induction. At no point did I imply that one should never assume things.

Further more on proving Jesus isn't real, the poster "Jeff" is correct in saying realists don't need to prove negatives. Not because they are special, but because proving negatives is a logical fallacy. It's possible to demonstrate that there is an orange ball in my house, but in the absence of an orange ball it will be nearly impossible to demonstrate that there isn't an orange ball in my house. The reason for that being there will always be some possibility that I missed it, or that the size of the ball was not specified, maybe it's smaller than you thought it was, or what do you mean by "orange" or "ball"? The question can remain murky indefinitely if the person posing the question wishes it to be so. Satisfying the query to the point that there exists zero possibility that the ball is still somewhere in my house is a gargantuan task. So instead of proving a negative, the negative is assumed until the positive is shown. We assume that there is no orange ball in the house unless you can demonstrate that there IS an orange ball in the house. We assume there are no leprechauns until a leprechaun is shown, we don't assume leprechauns are real until somebody shows conclusively that they aren't real, because no such evidence can realistically be put forth.

Proving that 2000 years ago there was no man named Jesus that taught people and performed miracles is a nigh impossible task, just like proving there is no teapot orbitting Venus is a nigh impossible task. So it can be safely assumed that such a man did not exist until it can be shown conclusively that he did. Just like we assume that Odin is not real, and that Ragnarok is not imminent unless ample evidence is shown that there is an Odin and that we are screwed. Notice I say "ample" because with extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is required. If I claim I saw a cat, a simple photograph would suffice to convince people that is true. If I say I saw a singing flying cat made out of a poptart with rainbows flowing majestically out of him whilst he flew through space, a mere youtube video would not be seen as conclusive evidence of the truth of my claim.