Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

He wouldn't therefore be talking like a Scientist who would stop at "there is no evidence" but your standard abusive new atheist.

Just out of interest, have you actually ever come across a "standard abusive new atheist" outside of your fevered imagination? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ekim,

A scientist (or anyone else) wouldn't measure it even in principle because there's no reason tho think there's anything to measure. Writing a notion down does not thereby make it real.

Assumes only things that can be scientifically measured can be real.
Are you adding that only real things are true?

In fact scientific measurement has no unit for how real something is so as with a lot of what is said on this thread you’ve strayed off science and into philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just out of interest, have you actually ever come across a "standard abusive new atheist" outside of your fevered imagination?

Just out of interest. How long does it take you to write one of your long replies?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Assumes only things that can be scientifically measured can be real.

No it doesn't. Try reading what I actually said.

Are you adding that only real things are true?

What are you trying to say here?

In fact scientific measurement has no unit for how real something is so as with a lot of what is said on this thread you’ve strayed off science and into philosophy.

"In fact" you're spouting undiluted gibberish again. Have a cup of tea and a nice garibaldi, take a deep breath AND TRY RESPONDING TO WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID RATHER THAN TO YOUR OWN STRAW MAN VERSION OF IT.

You'll feel better for making the effort, even if the goal is beyond you. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just out of interest. How long does it take you to write one of your long replies?

So that's a "no" then. Thought so. 

[Maeght]

Yes.

So if conscious control of our thought processes is a reality - not an illusion, it would constitute evidence of our supernatural power to direct our own thoughts.

And if it isn't then it doesn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it doesn't. Try reading what I actually said.

What are you trying to say here?

"In fact" you're spouting undiluted gibberish again. Have a cup of tea and a nice garibaldi, take a deep breath AND TRY RESPONDING TO WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID RATHER THAN TO YOUR OWN STRAW MAN VERSION OF IT.

You'll feel better for making the effort, even if the goal is beyond you.

I'm beginning to detect claptrap here like science investigates what is real and science declares religion as
Superstitious mumbo jumbo.
It ain't so.

[Gordon]

I'm beginning to detect claptrap here like science investigates what is real and science declares religion as
Superstitious mumbo jumbo.
It ain't so.

'Science' doesn't 'declare' that at all, Vlad, but let's consider what Christianity advances: that a man (whose existence is likely but not certain) is claimed to be divine and an actual God, this same man is reported as walking on water, then there are claims that this man was dead but didn't stay dead and, gloriously and bizarrely, that 2,000 years later we can be 'saved' by this long-dead chap.

Superstitious mumbo jumbo seems like an apt description.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm beginning to detect claptrap here like science investigates what is real and science declares religion as
Superstitious mumbo jumbo.

You have a remarkable facility for claiming to "detect" all sorts of things that are pretty much the opposite of what people actually say - witness your recent flat out lying re claiming I was advocating scientism for example (for which you've yet to apologise).

Yet again - science addresses only that which it is capable of addressing. It's indifferent to claims of gods, leprechauns and Jack Frost alike because they offer nothing with which science can engage.

Sometimes though religious people stray on to science's turf (about the age of the Earth for example) which is when science falsifies those claims.   

It ain't so.

It ain't true either.

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

One way out of that for the theist though is the god in hiding idea - ie a god who's real, but who has introduced natural processes such that you'd never know it. This is the creationist schtick of a god who buried all those fossils so as to fool us into thinking there were dinosaurs.   

Which would, of course, completely fall foul of Occam being such a bizarre and convoluted explanation when much simpler explanations are totally plausible.

But it also begs the question 'why' - why on earth would some kind of omnipotent god engage in such weird and sneaky activities just to attempt to trick just one species on one planet, noting that I don't think any other species have exercised themselves with finding and trying to understand fossil evidence.

It is, of course, desperate stuff from those trying to escape from the truth that is staring themselves in the face - but then that is the mindset that develops within those that place faith over evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Which would, of course, completely fall foul of Occam being such a bizarre and convoluted explanation when much simpler explanations are totally plausible.

But it also begs the question 'why' - why on earth would some kind of omnipotent god engage in such weird and sneaky activities just to attempt to trick just one species on one planet, noting that I don't think any other species have exercised themselves with finding and trying to understand fossil evidence.

It is, of course, desperate stuff from those trying to escape from the truth that is staring themselves in the face - but then that is the mindset that develops within those that place faith over evidence.

Most if not all religious claims fall foul of Occam it seems to me, and why a god would hide by faking evidence after (supposedly) going to so much trouble to show himself via a man/god son who he then arranged to have had brutally killed (but only for a bit) is anyone's guess. Yes, I agree it's desperate stuff - fortunately for me though it's not my desperate stuff       

[Nearly Sane]

Prof,

Most if not all religious claims fall foul of Occam it seems to me, and why a god would hide by faking evidence after (supposedly) going to so much trouble to show himself via a man/god son who he then arranged to have had brutally killed (but only for a bit) is anyone's guess. Yes, I agree it's desperate stuff - fortunately for me though it's not my desperate stuff       

I think that this is a misuse of Occam's razor. The scientific and religious ideas are not similar enough for it to be of use.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that this is a misuse of Occam's razor. The scientific and religious ideas are not similar enough for it to be of use.

Why?

It seems to be a perfectly reasonable use of Occam. We are comparing a situation where we are asked to consider fossils as simply being the long dead bodies of species that may, or may not, still be in existence.

On the other we add an additional (and unnecessary) further entity - god - which we are asked to accept has created a whole raft of 'fake' fossils specifically to try to fool humans for reasons that are unclear. Further that will require (for young earth creationists) that this god has manipulated evidence of earth time again to try to fool humans into thinking these fossils are from animals/plants etc that died millions of years ago.

Seems perfectly amenable to Occam to me, and clearly falls foul of it.

[Nearly Sane]

Why?

It seems to be a perfectly reasonable use of Occam. We are comparing a situation where we are asked to consider fossils as simply being the long dead bodies of species that may, or may not, still be in existence.

On the other we add an additional (and unnecessary) further entity - god - which we are asked to accept has created a whole raft of 'fake' fossils specifically to try to fool humans for reasons that are unclear. Further that will require (for young earth creationists) that this god has manipulated evidence of earth time again to try to fool humans into thinking these fossils are from animals/plants etc that died millions of years ago.

Seems perfectly amenable to Occam to me, and clearly falls foul of it.

Because the 'entity' of a 'god' is in no sense part of a scientific hypothesis. One idea is based around philosophical naturalist approach, the other is not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think that this is a misuse of Occam's razor. The scientific and religious ideas are not similar enough for it to be of use.

I understand the point, but the “fewer assumptions” principle still has a role I think. I might not know for example whether a parent or the Tooth Fairy removes the tooth from under my pillow in the night, but I do know that my parents exist whereas I have to assume the existence of the Tooth Fairy. I think the same principle applies to stories about, say, a resurrection: I don’t know whether it was a conjuring trick (for example) but I do know that conjurers existed, whereas I’d have a huge and additional a priori job to demonstrate a miracle-performing god to give the trick vs miracle options at least some equivalence.         

[ProfessorDavey]

Because the 'entity' of a 'god' is in no sense part of a scientific hypothesis. One idea is based around philosophical naturalist approach, the other is not.

But that presumes the nature of the proposed god. For Occam surely you simply need to determine whether there is a plausible explanation that does not need to add additional and unnecessary entities. The nature of those entities seems irrelevant to me - if they are additional and unnecessary then they fall foul of Occam regardless of their nature.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Because the 'entity' of a 'god' is in no sense part of a scientific hypothesis. One idea is based around philosophical naturalist approach, the other is not.

The Prof can speak for himself, but he would I think disagree - the "the 'entity' of a 'god'" may not be part of the scientific hypothesis, but this god's intervention in material events would be.

[Nearly Sane]

But that presumes the nature of the proposed gid. For Occam surely you simply need to determine whether there is a plausible explanation that does not need to add additional and unnecessary entities. The nature of those entities seems irrelevant to me - if they are additional and unnecessary then they fall foul of Occam regardless of their nature.

In one you are making a scientific judgement, and I think applying Occam in its scientific sense, and in the other which is not a scientific idea, applying it in its philosophical sense. Add to that that in its scientific sense, it can never be used to rule out something, it seems to me that you are making a complete guddle of it.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I understand the point, but the “fewer assumptions” principle still has a role I think. I might not know for example whether a parent or the Tooth Fairy removes the tooth from under my pillow in the night, but I do know that my parents exist whereas I have to assume the existence of the Tooth Fairy. I think the same principle applies to stories about, say, a resurrection: I don’t know whether it was a conjuring trick (for example) but I do know that conjurers existed, whereas I’d have a huge and additional a priori job to demonstrate a miracle-performing god to give the trick vs miracle options at least some equivalence.       

As covered in my latest reply to Prof D, you both seems to be using Occam in both its scientific and philosophical.sense and that makes the argument just a mess.

[ProfessorDavey]

In one you are making a scientific judgement, and I think applying Occam in its scientific sense, and in the other which is not a scientific idea, applying it in its philosophical sense. Add to that that in its scientific sense, it can never be used to rule out something, it seems to me that you are making a complete guddle of it.

Occam is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one and therefore is amenable to both scientific and non-scientific explanations.

It simply posits that the preferred explanation would be the one with the fewest necessary entities. Requiring a god to create and then hide fossils provides an additional entity, but also an unnecessary one, as there is a a perfectly plausible explanation that doesn't require this additional god entity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

As covered in my latest reply to Prof D, you both seems to be using Occam in both its scientific and philosophical.sense and that makes the argument just a mess.

Surely Occam is a test in reason or logic (ie, not science or faith) isn't it? What you populate it with matters not for its purposes - it's just a matter of counting and comparing the number of assumptions each proposition requires.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Surely Occam is a test in reason or logic (ie, not science or faith) isn't it? What you populate it with matters not for its purposes - it's just a matter of counting and comparing the number of assumptions each proposition requires.

It has both a philosophical use where the ideas need to be based on the same assumptions - which here they are not, and a scientific use where it's not in any sense definitive but it seems to me is part of the approach of both you and Prof D here.

I think, as is often the case, that the attempt to address non naturalist claims with naturalist approaches ends up in a mess, and gives too much credit to the claims.

Anyhoo, I think that's done what is a relatively abstruse point is enough for my limited attention span.
 

[ProfessorDavey]

NS,

Surely Occam is a test in reason or logic (ie, not science or faith) isn't it? What you populate it with matters not for its purposes - it's just a matter of counting and comparing the number of assumptions each proposition requires.

Exactly.

And actually in over 35 years in scientific research I don't think I've ever heard a scientist posit Occam. That's because it is a philosophical construct based on fewest necessary entities. In fact it isn't really compatible with science which proposes the best explanation (rather than the simplest) explanation for the evidence. So it is entirety common - indeed almost universal in biological research - for scientist to determine that although we have a reasonable explanation it isn't the best explanation and in order to make it better further complexity is required to be added. Almost an anti-Occam approach.

But then Occam is based on relatively simplistic explanations for phenomena - albeit ones that cut out things that are unnecessary.

Where Occam does play a part (although never mentioned as such) is in design for manufacture, which typically proposes that the best design is the one with the fewest separate components that need to be manufactured in order to work.

[ProfessorDavey]

It has both a philosophical use where the ideas need to be based on the same assumptions - which here they are not, and a scientific use where it's not in any sense definitive but it seems to me is part of the approach of both you and Prof D here.

See above - I've never known Occam to be a component of scientific investigation - and I'm a professional scientist.

[Nearly Sane]

See above - I've never known Occam to be a component of scientific investigation - and I'm a professional scientist.

https://www.livescience.com/what-is-occams-razor