I'm a man of the ONLY REAL LOGIC - mathematical logic - As such I'm also a man of science. As a result of my logic I'm also a man who thinks that Intelligent Creation is far more logical than some of the stuff that passes for "science" and as "scientific evidence." And I'm a man who is going to have fun with this...
Quote:
Can Science Prove that God Does Not Exist?
"No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.
The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false. What I intend to show here is not only that unrestricted negatives can be proven, but that a number of them have been proven.
Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.
To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number.
Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.
This is just one of many inconsistencies that have been found in the traditional concept of God. For a more complete review of them, see Theodore Drange, "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey" in Philo (Fall/Winter 1998). Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there is no contradiction. What if they're right? What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.
Phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan are theoretical entities that were postulated in order to explain various phenomena. Phlogiston was postulated to explain heat, the luminiferous ether was postulated to explain the propagation of light waves through empty space, and Vulcan was postulated to explain the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury. Science has shown, however, that these phenomena can be explained without invoking these entities. By demonstrating that these entities are not needed to explain anything, science has proven that they do not exist.
God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.1 In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan. This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God.3
Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. As Plato realized, to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.4
The goodness of an explanation is determined by how much understanding it produces, and the amount of understanding produced by an explanation is determined by how well it systematizes and unifies our knowledge. The extent to which an explanation systematizes and unifies our knowledge can be measured by various criteria of adequacy such as simplicity (the number of assumptions made), scope (the types of phenomena explained), conservatism (fit with existing theory), and fruitfulness (ability to make successful novel predictions).
Supernatural explanations are inherently inferior to natural ones because they do not meet the criteria of adequacy as well. For example, they are usually less simple because they assume the existence of at least one additional type of entity. They usually have less scope because they don't explain how the phenomena in question are produced and thus they raise more questions than they answer. They are usually less conservative because they imply that certain natural laws have been violated. And they are usually less fruitful because they don't make any novel predictions. That is why scientists avoid them.
The realization that the traditional God of theism is not needed to explain anything-that there is nothing for him to do-has led a number of theologians to call for the rejection of this notion of god. In Why Believe in God? Michael Donald Goulder argues that the only intellectually respectable position on the god question is atheism.5 In Why Christianity Must Change or Die, Reverend Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of New Jersey, argues that the traditional theistic conception of God must be replaced by one grounded in human relationships and concerns.6 Both agree with Stephen J. Gould that religion should not be in the business of trying to explain the world.7
What if there was no plausible natural explanation for some phenomena? Would that justify the claim that god caused it? No, for our inability to provide a natural explanation may simply be due to our ignorance of the operative natural forces. Many phenomena that were once attributed to supernatural beings such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and disease can now be explained in purely natural terms. As St. Augustine realized, apparent miracles are not contrary to nature but contrary to our knowledge of nature.8
Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations and the incompleteness of our knowledge, theists would be justified in offering a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon only if they could prove that it is in principle impossible to provide a natural explanation of it. In other words, to undermine the scientific proof for the non-existence of god, theists have to prove an unrestricted negative, namely, that no natural explanation of a phenomenon will be found. And that, I believe, is an unrestricted negative that no theist will ever be able to prove.
To start I need people to understand the differences between a few concepts and the implications on anything you think or believe...
OPINION:a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty
FACT: a concept whose truth can be proved
EVIDENCE : your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief
PROOF: any
factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something
Until something is
PROVEN, if you believe it(religious, scientific, or other) then you ARE "taking it on faith." Don't kid yourself into thinking you "know" anything unless it IS ALREADY
PROVEN.
Quote:
Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time.( opinion--> ) So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.
"They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time" - First off, the most fundamental law of logic is
MATHEMATICAL LAW. The law of non-contradiction is a mathematical law and since a piece cannot be greater than the whole, the law of noncontradiction cannot be the fundamental law of logic.
Also he is excluding one very real possibility, that perhaps the different variations of word of God have been (accidentally and/or intentionally) changed from their original form. That in itself is quite illogical. It's like playing a game of telephone with the defendant's testimony in a court of law - and getting a conviction based off of the last man in the chain declaring that the defendant admitted to murder.
Quote:
To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number.
See what I wrote above. Is the Bible supposed to be the word of God given to men, or the word of St. Anselm?! The author is proposing that since St. Anselm is proposing something he feels is impossible(when he mistranslates what M.C. Anselm wrote to say that God = X = any finite number, and X > infinity).
Who says God is a finite number anyways? MAYBE(opinion not fact) God = infinity aka God is not definable as a finite number but rather an irrational number aka unsolvable formula.
IF that is the case then what M.C. Anselm wrote is true since no number is greater than infinity. If you want to say that infinity is impossible in anything real, then show me where the end of the universe is. You can show me where in the universe is not occupied, but you cannot define the end of space. There is nothing (aka the absence of anything). There and there is no limit to nothing because there is no limit to the size of nothing.
Also consider that
pi can only be 100% accurately defined as an irrational number aka unsolvable formula (you will be calculating forever - always getting more accurate but never 100
and therefore cannot truly be defined as a number. 3.14 is a estimate - a poor estimate.
Quote:
Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.
100% opinion. "Perfectly just" and "perfectly merciful" are subjective, and the author is just subjecting them to his opinion. Who says "perfectly just" means that everyone gets punished and "perfectly merciful" means everyone gets let off the hook. In our world sometimes murderers don't get caught until 60 years after the fact, but for 60 years they thought they got away scot-free.
Considering that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and many other religions believe in an afterlife. Hindus believe in reincarnation where as your deeds as a human influence what creature you are reborn as. ASSUMING that any one religion is right, or even just assuming that for any unknown/unimagined reason, that death is not the end, who is to say that anyone gets off scot-free ever. Just punishment or reward could be administered well after death. Equally someone could be forgiven (based off of a just system of measure) for what they have done, and this also could be administered after death maybe even after a certain degree of punishment has been delivered. But forgiveness is not a "freebie". This is covered in the Bible thoroughly(and is just as thoroughly ignored by most "Christians" lol) but since I'm not trying to preach a sermon, I'm not going over that now.
Quote:
This is just one of many inconsistencies that have been found in the traditional concept of God. For a more complete review of them, see Theodore Drange, "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey" in Philo (Fall/Winter 1998). Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there is no contradiction. What if they're right? What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.
Phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan are theoretical entities that were postulated in order to explain various phenomena. Phlogiston was postulated to explain heat, the luminiferous ether was postulated to explain the propagation of light waves through empty space, and Vulcan was postulated to explain the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury. Science has shown, however, that these phenomena can be explained without invoking these entities. By demonstrating that these entities are not needed to explain anything, science has proven that they do not exist.
Well the author picked out some bad examples to praise science with. Makes my job way easier though
Luminiferous aether - Isaac Newton - scientific theory about light and heat later proven wrong
planet Vulcan - French mathematician Urbain Le Verrier - theoretical planet based only on calculus calculations - later proven not to exist.
Phlogiston - old scientific theory regarding combustion later proven wrong
All of these had "evidence" and they gave a potential alternative to religious theories.
Looking at these theories now they do seem rather silly but based on information available at the time they where viable and mostly considered to be fact by the scientific community.
He forgot one though - the
pure atheist's "Darwinian evolution"(bad term since Darwin believed in God) - The current favorite THEORY(not FACT until 100% proven) with insufficient evidence and no proof(evidence is NOT proof - see definition above). Lets see here TONS of missing information and lack of PROOF(not evidence). They say it will be proven in time(exactly what Bush said about the Iraq WMD - lol). Until then atheist must "take it on faith" - LOL.
Don't get me wrong I do believe in evolution just I don't think it is 100% random. Christianity has just as much(maybe more) evidence as Atheism. No PROOF either way and people need to realize that NOW. But people on both sides tend to focus on what supports what they believe is true and dismiss what doesn't fit their point of view. This is also VERY true of politics as well.
Quote:
God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things.
- opinion. Sort of self-serving evidence. Kind of like how Liberals are wrong because I have conservative views. LOL
Quote:
Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.
Correct - they postulate other theories. Kind of like how ancient religion X and Religion Y give alternative theories to Christianity. See point directly above.
Quote:
1 In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan. This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God.3
full of opinion. "that God is not needed to explain anything" - and the point is? Having an alternative doesn't mean you are correct.
By the author's logic - having the Spaghetti Monster alternative means there is no reason to believe in science - as long as if offers an alternative explanation then we don't need science - LOL.
"This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God" - Playing the numbers game? Doesn't Christianity use their "majority of the world population is Christian" argument as "evidence" that it is they are right?! LOL this only gets better the more I read. PLUS - the author is inflating the stat by adding people who are uncertain - to those who are actually dedicated atheist. Those who admit they aren't really certain get my intellectual respect. "A wise man is someone who realizes there is much he does not know."
Quote:
Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. As Plato realized, to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.4
That applies to many ancient religions - not Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and probably others. These do NOT attempt to explain every thing that is hard to understand. On the contrary there are no "fiery chariot" aka the sun theories in the Bible for example. Contrary to most other religions which where the result of early man explaining the unknown, Christianity leaves more questions than it answers. That is 100% inconsistent with a artificial belief system created to do explain the unknown. So that common atheist theory - when applied to Christianity - falls victim to "the law of non-contradiction."
Quote:
The goodness of an explanation is determined by how much understanding it produces, and the amount of understanding produced by an explanation is determined by how well it systematizes and unifies our knowledge. The extent to which an explanation systematizes and unifies our knowledge can be measured by various criteria of adequacy such as simplicity (the number of assumptions made), scope (the types of phenomena explained), conservatism (fit with existing theory), and fruitfulness (ability to make successful novel predictions).
I disagree. The worth of an explanation is determined by one factor - how accurate it is. SInce we lack complete knowledge of all things, we can only estimate this in terms of feasibility and probability. But these measurements are only so good. Beside the fact we can only determine the probability of something based solely off of our limited knowledge at hand - there is the inherent flaw in probability as a whole.
A theory(despite being religious or scientific) is either true or it is false. Almost doesn't cut it. Nothing is perhaps more dangerous or destructive than a partial truth. The probability of there being a God means NOTHING no matter how low or high you think those chances are. There either IS or IS NOT a God. Period. Just because you think there is not one does not mean there is not. Equally me believing there is does not mean there is. Like most things, that is a 2 - way street.
Fact is there are just as big gaping holes in the evolution theory as there are in Christianity(mostly due to having not attempted to explain many things). Funny thing that most people are so self-assuredly blind in their beliefs to see that they can fit together to fill the holes.
Quote:
Supernatural explanations are inherently inferior to natural ones because they do not meet the criteria of adequacy as well. For example, they are usually less simple because they assume the existence of at least one additional type of entity. They usually have less scope because they don't explain how the phenomena in question are produced and thus they raise more questions than they answer. They are usually less conservative because they imply that certain natural laws have been violated. And they are usually less fruitful because they don't make any novel predictions. That is why scientists avoid them.
First off this is also 99% opinion. The only valid point was "because they don't explain how the phenomena in question are produced and thus they raise more questions than they answer." That is true. There is no explanation as to why god exist, nor is there an attempt to answer that question. Can I have an explanation as to where the hell the "super-atom" came from?!(well I think I came from God - but what is the atheist explanation?) And then where did (whatever the "super-atom" came from) come from? I see NO adequacy advantage to the atheist solution.
Furthermore assuming that the contents of the Bible where originally given from God(As I believe - although I think they where probably mistranslated and changed for personal power reasons), you must consider that God would have been giving his word to a far more primitive man. Think about it. How would you explain the universe's physics to a 5 year old? Major dumbing down. Plus you may be more concerned with showing your child how to live. Like trying to tell stories to get across a point. Take circumcism. Just another zany commandment? Until recent hygiene advancements made it less necessary, this prevented a LOT of infections in that area. Sounds zany but it had a real purpose.
Quote:
The realization that the traditional God of theism is not needed to explain anything-that there is nothing for him to do-has led a number of theologians to call for the rejection of this notion of god. In Why Believe in God? Michael Donald Goulder argues that the only intellectually respectable position on the god question is atheism.5 In Why Christianity Must Change or Die, Reverend Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of New Jersey, argues that the traditional theistic conception of God must be replaced by one grounded in human relationships and concerns.6 Both agree with Stephen J. Gould that religion should not be in the business of trying to explain the world.7
LOL no opinions here. "In Why Believe in God? Michael Donald Goulder argues that the only intellectually respectable position on the god question is atheism" - good for him. A republican argues that the only respectable position on politics is on the right wing agenda platform. A Democrat argues that the only respectable position on politics is on the left wing agenda platform. So him saying that makes him correct? LOL.
Quote:
What if there was no plausible natural explanation for some phenomena? Would that justify the claim that god caused it? No, for our inability to provide a natural explanation may simply be due to our ignorance of the operative natural forces. Many phenomena that were once attributed to supernatural beings such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and disease can now be explained in purely natural terms. As St. Augustine realized, apparent miracles are not contrary to nature but contrary to our knowledge of nature.8
Using the examples of "Phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan" as provided above - I demonstrated that science has also attributed natural phenomena to false theories. The only difference is that there where no "gods," but there where other make-believe concepts like phlogiston(a weightless, colorless, and scentless substance which all flammable substances where once thought to have - later proven non-existent). Some where just as fantastic and far-fetched as any Greek legend.
Quote:
Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations and the incompleteness of our knowledge, theists would be justified in offering a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon only if they could prove that it is in principle impossible to provide a natural explanation of it. In other words, to undermine the scientific proof for the non-existence of god, theists have to prove an unrestricted negative, namely, that no natural explanation of a phenomenon will be found. And that, I believe, is an unrestricted negative that no theist will ever be able to prove.
cough(baseless opinion)cough
Some proof the author has there. I wish the cure for cancer was so easy. Lets pick a chemical with a name that sounds good, something we hope has a good chance, theorise that is a cure for all things(We'll have faith that it isn't hazardous), and prove its works later.
Don't get me wrong I fully believe in science(REAL science). But honestly much of that gaping hole theory isn't scientific at all. I think the author summarized the main problem rather nicely right here -
Quote:
Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.Quote:
Yep that states the problem perfectly. It amazes me that isn't seen as a problem.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
