[nutronjon]

Moderation note: These posts originally appeared in the User Feedback thread "really frustrated". They were moved to the Theology forum, because they began addressing questions concerning the idea of God, rather than complaints and complements about hypography and/or its administration.

I can appreciate the necessity to carefully word everything, because this is a science forum. However, I am a bit confused about why it is wrong to saying God is the stuff of the universe and organizing forces, without saying this a point of view or a possibility every time, and it is not wrong to say, God doesn't exist- as a matter of fact?


I thought Preaching/Proselytizing meant something more that saying we can think of God as the stuff of universe and organizing forces?

I am also curious about the coincidence of getting two penalties soon after someone was told to stop insulting me. I think pointing out that some scientist are agreeable to accepting the existence of God, should have prevented the second penalty given because I didn't meet a requirement of proving some scientist are thinking along the same lines as I am. I have not been aware the rule that says if you can not prove what you are saying you can be penalized, and there does seem to be a double standard, that men of science have pointed out. It is not proven a God does not exist, and yet mods don't seem to demanding prove from these God doesn't exist folks. I don't think they are penalized for possibly offending someone when they state God exist as a matter of fact?

[InfiniteNow]

When one asserts that "purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns" it is not logically equivalent to saying that "unicorns and leprechauns don't exist."


One statement assumes a priori the existence of the entity, and then further posits some result of that existence.

The other statement says that there is zero evidence or reason to accept the existence of said entity, and therefore it can be logically assumed not part of reality until empiricism shows otherwise.

Inherent in the second is the willingness to change one's mind. That same willingness does not apply to a mind which has already decided these things exist despite the absence of evidence, need, or explanatory power.

[Overdog]

What INow said is right nutron.

It is NOT un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable does not exist, because it is a falsifiable hypothesis.

It IS un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable DOES exist, because this hypothesis is not falsifiable.

It is as simple as that.

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.

Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.

Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically. On the other hand, a statement like "there exist parallel universes which cannot interact with our universe" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether such a universe does or does not exist.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Likewise the statement "God Exists" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether God does or does not exist.

[REASON]

While both of you guys are absolutely correct, her argument to this could be that by equating god with nature, god is therefore obsrervable, testable, and falsifiable in that studying nature is studying god.

What's missing in this situation is a reasonable scientific explanation for why it becomes necessary, beneficial, or in any way logical to assign the label of *god* to what is being observed in nature. It is therefore relegated to a personal opinion. This has been explained in countless ways by numerous people.

Another reason why it is not acceptable to just simply allow the notion that nature is god to be cast about in this site is that it could have the effect of misrepresenting the authentic scientific position in the matter to the general public.

From the perspective of science, nature is not god, and will continue not to be god no matter how much someone wants it to be recognized by the scientific community as such.

What I find really frustrating is that this simple concept has to be reiterated ad infinitum.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by REASON

What I find really frustrating is that this simple concept has to be reiterated ad infinitum.

Yes, but I am still a bit confused about why it is wrong to saying God is the stuff of the universe.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Yes, but I am still a bit confused about why it is wrong to saying God is the stuff of the universe.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Overdog

It is NOT un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable does not exist, because it is a falsifiable hypothesis.

It IS un-scientific to hypothesize that something unobservable DOES exist, because this hypothesis is not falsifiable.

I’d take this a bit further.

If something is unobservable, then by definition, it can’t be observed by any experiment. Thus, the existence of something truly unobserveable – not merely difficult to observe, such as, say, a quark – is unfalsifiable, and any reference to it unscientific.

Originally Posted by Overdog

Likewise the statement "God Exists" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether God does or does not exist.

I disagree. One can, taking the description of God from any of various religious texts, fairly easily design God-detecting experiments. For example, Exodus 7 details an account of a public test of the existence of several competing gods, and their relative strength, in which, in order to convince an unbelieving Egyptian leader of the reality of the Jewish God, Egyptian magician and the legendary Jewish leader Aaron throw down wooden staffs which are then miraculously transformed into snakes. One can design an experiment directly from these accounts – say, have a devout believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible throw down a staff in the presence of a non-believer (with the modern improvement of a video recorder in hand), the null experimental result being defined as the staff not turning into a snake.

The hypothesis that the God described in a particular Bible verse exists is not unfalsifiable. Rather it has been shown false.

Alternately, one can define the pantheistic version of God as “that in nature the consideration of which sometimes fills some scientifically knowledgeable person with awe”. One can define measurable characteristics (eg: pupil dilation, blink rate, heart and breath rate, etc.) as indicative of a state of awe, and conduct an experiment in which a scientifically knowledgeable person exhibits these characteristics when considering some aspect of nature. This experiment can “prove the existence of God”, according to this particular definition of God.

A problem, the one underlying confusion and disagreement such as that I perceive between nutronjon and infinitenow, is due, I think, to the conflation of strongly different definitions concepts (which have associated definitions) of God. I’m confident that many people, and most hypographers, are easily able to avoid conflating the staffs-to-serpents concept of God with the pantheistic awe-in-the-face-of-nature one. More people, I think, have difficulty avoiding conflation of the pantheistic concept of God with the concept of a God that causes less Biblical miracles, such as telepathy and prognostication.

[InfiniteNow]

All the more reason to avoid use of such an ambiguously defined three letter word, and just stick with the one that works and doesn't carry such baggage. It's just nature.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by REASON

What's missing in this situation is a reasonable scientific explanation for why it becomes necessary, beneficial, or in any way logical to assign the label of *god* to what is being observed in nature. It is therefore relegated to a personal opinion.

I can offer only personal opinion, and hints at experimental design to verify it, but I’ll try for an explanation of this.

Science is done by humans. Humans ability to do anything involved their brains’ limbic systems, brain structures associated with strong emotions and motivation. By associating activities such as the scientific study of nature with strong emotions such as reverence and awe, one strengthens their limbic reinforcers. Used properly, these feelings enhance the performance of science.

I hypothesize a positive correlation and causative link between limbic system activity and related neurochemistry and scientific competence and excellence.

However, I think this “limbic system management”, while it may, and in some well known cases, such as Albert Einsten, involve use of the term God, doesn’t require it. I believe people including staunch atheists for whom the term “God” rarely if ever comes to mind, or vehement ones who powerfully despises the term, are as capable of the technique as such people as those intimately comfortable with the idea Spinoza’s God.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by CraigD

One can, taking the description of God from any of various religious texts, fairly easily design God-detecting experiments. For example, Exodus 7 details an account of a public test of the existence of several competing gods, and their relative strength, in which, in order to convince an unbelieving Egyptian leader of the reality of the Jewish God, Egyptian magician and the legendary Jewish leader Aaron throw down wooden staffs which are then miraculously transformed into snakes. One can design an experiment directly from these accounts – say, have a devout believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible throw down a staff in the presence of a non-believer (with the modern improvement of a video recorder in hand), the null experimental result being defined as the staff not turning into a snake.

The hypothesis that the God described in a particular Bible verse exists is not unfalsifiable. Rather it has been shown false.

Alternately, one can define the pantheistic version of God as “that in nature the consideration of which sometimes fills some scientifically knowledgeable person with awe”. One can define measurable characteristics (eg: pupil dilation, blink rate, heart and breath rate, etc.) as indicative of a state of awe, and conduct an experiment in which a scientifically knowledgeable person exhibits these characteristics when considering some aspect of nature. This experiment can “prove the existence of God”, according to this particular definition of God.

Of course you are right, when God is defined with specific particulars that allow experiments to be conducted.

But the simple statement "God exists" provides nothing specific to test.