ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (10/27/85)
In article <121@uscvax.UUCP>, kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: > > One of the criteria which is used in deciding whether or not a subject > (theory) is science (scientific) is whether or not it is falsifiable > in principle. Great so far. > > If an astrologer makes a bad prediction it is not > because astrology is bogus but because he misread the signs, or did not > have enough information about a birthdate, or some such nonsense. To those > who believe in astrology, nothing can falsify it. Here's where you start going off track. Has no one who ever gotten into astrology gotten out of it because they realized it was rediculous? People have left astrology and denied its truth and validity even after believing in it whole heartedly. > The same can be said for > religion. If one could prove that God does not exist a true (Christian) > believer would probably take such a proof as a deception perpetrated by > Satan. Thus religion is not falsifiable and whence not a science. Christians, too, fit into the category of having people who have (to use a horrible phrase) 'left the flock' and denied what they once affirmed. Lots of children 'grow out' of their childhood beliefs and there are a number of converted (out of what they were) Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon's and all sorts of cults. These people got out and felt that their religion had been 'falsified'. You're 'would probably' might hold for a great percentage of Christians but it has nothing to do with Christianity. If a specific scientist wouldn't accept proof that the earth revolves around the sun does that mean that science is unfalsifiable or that you're dealing with one (or maybe thousands) or thick-headed people? > Creationism starts with the premise ... What's wrong with starting with a premise? I'll grant you that you'll be more likely to find what you're looking for, but if you as a person are objective (like a creation/scientist could conceivably be) than you'll accept what must be accepted and explain away what truly doesn't fit. > Every observation that discounts this belief is rationalized away ... Again I'll grant you that many creationists rationalize away, throw away and ignore evidence, but that doesn't mean that creationist is a label that proves that anyone who believes God created the Heavens and the Earth does those things. > > Most people that look for evidence for God in nature take the overwhelming > beauty and complexity of nature to be a proof. In reality this is not a > proof but an emotional reaction. > In reality? How did you determine the reality of my thoughts, reactions, impressions? Maybe I unemotionally feel that God created nature. Maybe I can simply look at a mountain and 'know' (subjectively of course) that God created it without getting all mushy inside. > >I will grant that we > >can't prove that humans evolved from some life form a couple million years > >ago, but have you seen creationism proved by observation any time recently? > > Nope, not at all. Just like you can't prove anything that happened in the past. You can show what's more likely, but like you argued above, it would seem to me that the Christians have the upper hand here. They can stick to creationism (in its many and wondrous forms) until it either gets proven or shot to heck and then they can simply go back to an omnipotent, 'mysterious' God whose ways are inscrutable. Just for the sake of asking, what is 'unlikely' about God existing? The fact that it would make life very uncomfortable for a lot of people? What could possibly be unlikely about a God who can answer every question and do anything and be everywhere? I can see easily that the greeks' gods are unlikely. One major problem is that they fall prey to the same original cause dilemna to which something like God (an uncaused cause) is the most plausible explanation. Given the natural laws we know, on the outside it would seem that scientists are rationalizing away problems like matter coming out of nothing and order coming out of disorder. Granted it's somewhat on the outside, but at that level, who looks like they're trying to rationalize? Rick Frey
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/29/85)
In article <139@sdcc7.UUCP> ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: >In article <121@uscvax.UUCP>, kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >> >> One of the criteria which is used in deciding whether or not a subject >> (theory) is science (scientific) is whether or not it is falsifiable >> in principle. > >Great so far. >> >> If an astrologer makes a bad prediction it is not >> because astrology is bogus but because he misread the signs, or did not >> have enough information about a birthdate, or some such nonsense. To those >> who believe in astrology, nothing can falsify it. > >Here's where you start going off track. Has no one who ever gotten into >astrology gotten out of it because they realized it was rediculous? People >have left astrology and denied its truth and validity even after believing >in it whole heartedly. The question does not pertain to the history of a particular individual. The question is how are failed predictions treated by the practising astrologer? What theories are used to explain failed or accurate predictions? You will find that accurate predictions are touted as proof that astrology is valid and that failed predictions show the limitations of data or the astrologer. In other words, for the practising astrologer, nothing can falsify his subject. > >> The same can be said for >> religion. If one could prove that God does not exist a true (Christian) >> believer would probably take such a proof as a deception perpetrated by >> Satan. Thus religion is not falsifiable and whence not a science. > >You're 'would probably' might hold for a great percentage of Christians but >it has nothing to do with Christianity. If a specific scientist wouldn't >accept proof that the earth revolves around the sun does that mean that >science is unfalsifiable or that you're dealing with one (or maybe >thousands) or thick-headed people? You are right. The problem is that much of Christianity is based on a concensus of belief by a number of chosen people. The Roman Catholics have the college of cardinals and the pope, many protestant sects have organizations for pastors and elected leaders, and some sects look to a single individual for spiritual truth such as the Moonies. Christianity has always been defined by what people that call themselves christian think and do. > >> Creationism starts with the premise ... > >What's wrong with starting with a premise? I'll grant you that you'll be >more likely to find what you're looking for, but if you as a person are >objective (like a creation/scientist could conceivably be) than you'll >accept what must be accepted and explain away what truly doesn't fit. Nothing is wrong with starting with a premise as long as you do not give it some special status just because it is your premise. You should be just as willing to disprove (as well as prove) any hypothesis that results from the premise. In the case of creationism the premise is that the earth was created by God in a certain way and nothing can be said to disprove it. Creationists give their premise the special status of being true. In science every premise is ultimately challengable. > >> Every observation that discounts this belief is rationalized away ... > >Again I'll grant you that many creationists rationalize away, throw away and >ignore evidence, but that doesn't mean that creationist is a label that >proves that anyone who believes God created the Heavens and the Earth does >those things. That is true. Some Christians take the product of scientific inquiry and say that God is awfully clever to have set things up that way. Creationists on the other hand believe that evolution does not occur. Forget about all those pesky DDT resistant mosquitos out there - they say nothing about natural selection. >Just for the sake of asking, what is 'unlikely' about God existing? The >fact that it would make life very uncomfortable for a lot of people? What >could possibly be unlikely about a God who can answer every question and do >anything and be everywhere? I can see easily that the greeks' gods are >unlikely. One major problem is that they fall prey to the same original >cause dilemna to which something like God (an uncaused cause) is the most >plausible explanation. Given the natural laws we know, on the outside it >would seem that scientists are rationalizing away problems like matter >coming out of nothing and order coming out of disorder. Granted it's >somewhat on the outside, but at that level, who looks like they're trying to >rationalize? > > Rick Frey Why doesn't your God fall prey to that "same original cause dilemma"? Just because you define your god to be the uncaused cause? Just because you define something doesn't make it real. Unicorns and hobgoblins have been defined by people, but they aren't real. This is part of the creationism problem: they define a theory and continue to dogmatically assert it even after it is demonstrated to be false because they have truth (god) defined to be on their side (regardless of which side they are on). So you think a god is likely because of the way man perceives questions of being and order. What are your definitions of order and disorder? When did matter come from nothing? It sounds as though you are assuming that the universe was not and then it was. In order to make this assumption seem reasonable you hypothesize the existence of a an uncaused cause which you call god. Why can't I just assume that the universe is uncaused? What is it about the universe that makes you think it must have been caused by something? Why can't the universe be the uncaused cause? Don't you think that it is rather egocentric for you to assume that there is some being somewhat like yourself that caused everything?
ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (11/04/85)
In article <155@uscvax.UUCP>, kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: > >Here's where you start going off track. Has no one who ever gotten into > >astrology gotten out of it because they realized it was rediculous? People > >have left astrology and denied its truth and validity even after believing > >in it whole heartedly. > > The question does not pertain to the history of a particular individual. The > question is how are failed predictions treated by the practising astrologer? > What theories are used to explain failed or accurate predictions? If the question doesn't pertain to the individual then why do you turn around and say that it is the individual, practising astrologer who must deal with failed predictions? If 'astrology' existed as something aside from the people who pactised it (i.e. an external God or a provable set of laws that operate regardless of the individual practitioners) then what you're saying would make more sense. But since astrology seems to be somewhat subjective, you get back to individual people and then you are going to get into prior experiences, individual tendencies and no simple generalization can categorize what every practitioner of astrology will do. > find that accurate predictions are touted as proof that astrology is valid > and that failed predictions show the limitations of data or the astrologer. > In other words, for the practising astrologer, nothing can falsify his > subject. > Fortunately that's just not true. If people (again we're back to individuals) could competely sell out to something like astrology than you might be right, but people rarely whole-heartedly believe anything. There's always doubt and mistrust and these can be rationalized away in a myriad of different ways. To many things to rationalize or explain away and you get disbelief (i.e. Santa Claus). > > You are right. The problem is that much of Christianity is based on a > concensus of belief by a number of chosen people. The Roman Catholics have > the college of cardinals and the pope, many protestant sects have > organizations for pastors and elected leaders, and some sects look to a single > individual for spiritual truth such as the Moonies. Christianity has always > been defined by what people that call themselves christian think and do. > And very wrongly so. Christianity if it is to live up to its title must be based on what only Christ thought and did. When the Church or men come in and claim to be prophets or additional voices from God, you get a distortion of what the Bible and what Christ said. Granted I'm assuming that the Bible is the word of God, but if it's not, then all religion is subject to the whim of the group of people who are in power or the leader who can write the most books and get them out to the followers. That's the whole essence to why the Bible is so crucial to Christianity. If we can't say that that is the authority, then we're left floating around with no anchor. > > Nothing is wrong with starting with a premise as long as you do not give it > some special status just because it is your premise. You should be just as > willing to disprove (as well as prove) any hypothesis that results from the > premise. In the case of creationism the premise is that the earth was created > by God in a certain way and nothing can be said to disprove it. Creationists > give their premise the special status of being true. In science every > premise is ultimately challengable. > That's a little unfair. A great number of 'Creationists' have abandoned the literal 7 days idea and have tried to understand how Genesis might fit in with evolution. Hebrew scholars have shown that the word used for day was alternately used for period of time throughout the Old Testament. While it might come slowly (if it has to come at all) Christian scientists can turn from what they've believed and even from what they've sworn the Bible to say. Not to many Christians today believe that the earth is the center of the universe, and while it took a great while for that to get around, strongly believed, supposedly Biblically based ideas can be discounted. > > That is true. Some Christians take the product of scientific inquiry and say > that God is awfully clever to have set things up that way. Creationists on > the other hand believe that evolution does not occur. Forget about all those > pesky DDT resistant mosquitos out there - they say nothing about natural > selection. > Not true. No Creationists that I know of will deny environmental adaptation and natural selection, what they deny is that humanity developed due to that process. They don't deny the process, just the conclusion that since it's taking place now (on the small levels we can observe) it must therefor account for how all life developed. > > Why doesn't your God fall prey to that "same original cause dilemma"? Just > because you define your god to be the uncaused cause? Because something must. Since there is something now and we know that something does not come from nothing and since we can imagine as far back as the beginning of time itself and we can ask the question what was before that, your univese that has always existed is simply another uncaused cause. What seems unlikely to me is something that follows natural and orderly laws to seemingly break one of them to just appear (or to simply have been) when God, who claims to have created the laws would be an original cause much more likely to have the ability to create or to have existed eternally. > This is part of the creationism > problem: they define a theory and continue to dogmatically assert it even > after it is demonstrated to be false ... That's simply not true. Isn't our topic unprovable ideas? Are you going to tell me that you can now demonstrate (let alone prove) that evolution IS how life developed and that creation is not? I'd love to see it. > > So you think a god is likely because of the way man perceives questions of > being and order. Did I say that? I think God is likely because of a simple experimentally proven idea that something does not come out of nothing. If everything has to follow laws then to me, this law prohibits big bangs and eternally existant universes but does not prohibit Gods who say they have created these laws and universes. > Why can't I just assume that the universe is uncaused? > What is it about the universe that makes you think it must have been caused > by something? Why can't the universe be the uncaused cause? Simply because uncaused causes are improbable in themselves. I used to try to tell my Dad I never did anything bad that happened. Instead of making up a story that could possibly explain it, I just said I don't know, it happened. My dad never bought it and I can't either. If we're going to get mystic, in my mind you can't get mystic when dealing with things like natural laws. > Don't you think that it is rather egocentric for you to assume that > there is some being somewhat like yourself that caused everything? It could be, but how 'like me' is God? He doesn't have a physical body, a shape, a sex, an age, he has no physical attributes or tie to this physical world other than having created it. How similar are we? Secondly, the main similarity we do have is that we can both tell right from wrong (an ability He says He gave us) and He has asked us to become as much like Himself as we can. I'm not saying that God is like me, I'm saying that we are like God and only because He chose to create us that way. Rick Frey "He it is who reduces rulers to nothing and makes the judges of the earth meaningless. Scarcely have they been planted, scarcely they have been sown Scarcely has their stock taken root in the earth but He merely blows on them and they wither and the storm carries them away like stubble. To whom then will you liken Me that I should be his equal?" Isaiah 40:23-25
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (11/07/85)
In article <151@sdcc7.UUCP> ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: >In article <155@uscvax.UUCP>, kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >> >> Nothing is wrong with starting with a premise as long as you do not give it >> some special status just because it is your premise. You should be just as >> willing to disprove (as well as prove) any hypothesis that results from the >> premise. In the case of creationism the premise is that the earth was created >> by God in a certain way and nothing can be said to disprove it. Creationists >> give their premise the special status of being true. In science every >> premise is ultimately challengable. >> >That's a little unfair. A great number of 'Creationists' have abandoned the >literal 7 days idea and have tried to understand how Genesis might fit in >with evolution. Hebrew scholars have shown that the word used for day was >alternately used for period of time throughout the Old Testament. While it >might come slowly (if it has to come at all) Christian scientists can turn >from what they've believed and even from what they've sworn the Bible to say. >Not to many Christians today believe that the earth is the center of the >universe, and while it took a great while for that to get around, strongly >believed, supposedly Biblically based ideas can be discounted. Why did creationists have this 7 day theory in the first place? Was it through observation and scientific inquiry? No, it was religion. Now, it is unfair of me to say that creationism isn't science because some creationists are trying to work scientific theories into their Bible interpretations. Give me a break. Why/how is interpretting the stories in a book science? >> >> Why doesn't your God fall prey to that "same original cause dilemma"? Just >> because you define your god to be the uncaused cause? > >Because something must. Since there is something now and we know that >something does not come from nothing and since we can imagine as far back as >the beginning of time itself and we can ask the question what was before that, >your univese that has always existed is simply another uncaused cause. What >seems unlikely to me is something that follows natural and orderly laws to >seemingly break one of them to just appear (or to simply have been) when God, >who claims to have created the laws would be an original cause much more >likely to have the ability to create or to have existed eternally. > >> >> So you think a god is likely because of the way man perceives questions of >> being and order. > >Did I say that? I think God is likely because of a simple experimentally >proven idea that something does not come out of nothing. If everything has >to follow laws then to me, this law prohibits big bangs and eternally >existant universes but does not prohibit Gods who say they have created these >laws and universes. So you do believe that God is not subject to your original cause dilemma merely because you defined him that way. Now, for your experiment that starts with nothing and ends up with nothing: describe it and tell me how it proves your conclusion. > >> Why can't I just assume that the universe is uncaused? >> What is it about the universe that makes you think it must have been caused >> by something? Why can't the universe be the uncaused cause? > >Simply because uncaused causes are improbable in themselves. I used to try >to tell my Dad I never did anything bad that happened. Instead of making up >a story that could possibly explain it, I just said I don't know, it >happened. My dad never bought it and I can't either. If we're going to get >mystic, in my mind you can't get mystic when dealing with things like natural >laws. > If uncaused causes are improbable then so is the uncaused cause you call God.
myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (11/07/85)
(Rick Frey) writes: >Just for the sake of asking, what is 'unlikely' about God existing? I don't think unlikely is a good word... perhaps watered down.. This is old hash I know, but if it requires a god to create this universe (99% of which is big burning spheres of the simplest kind of matter known) then what is required to create something so much more complex as a creator of a universe? -- Myke Reynolds Office of Telecommunications and Networking Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke "Drawing from my fine command of the english language, I said nothing."