Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[jeremyp]

If you take it that any 'god' is a supernatural entity then it would be unfalsifiable by a naturalist methodology.

If a god intervenes in the Universe, it is detectable by scientific means in principle. The only way Vlad could be sure of his claim is if God does not intervene in the Universe and, of course, his god is notorious for intervening in the Universe.

[jeremyp]

His independent existence from time space and matter and energy.

So God doesn't intervene in the Universe. That's equivalent to "no god" from our point of view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If a god intervenes in the Universe, it is detectable by scientific means in principle. The only way Vlad could be sure of his claim is if God does not intervene in the Universe and, of course, his god is notorious for intervening in the Universe.

Since God's interventions are miraculous and non repeated, how amenable to science is that? On the other hand since science does not do God it has nothing finally to say about God's interventions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So God doesn't intervene in the Universe. That's equivalent to "no od" from our point of view.

Independent existence does not mean no intervention. It means God does not depend on the universe for his/her existence.

[jeremyp]

What are your grounds for thinking it improbable? Why do you not take it seriously since it is an either or question.

Either I will win the lottery tonight or I won't. Do you have grounds for thinking for thinking it is improbable that I will win? (Bear in mind that, for me to do so, somebody else has got to give me a ticket.)

Just because something is an either-or situation does not mean that both possibilities are equally probable.

[Nearly Sane]

If a god intervenes in the Universe, it is detectable by scientific means in principle. The only way Vlad could be sure of his claim is if God does not intervene in the Universe and, of course, his god is notorious for intervening in the Universe.

No, because the assumption in science is that all causes are natural. Everything that happens could be caused by supernatural pixies, or leprechauns, or a 'god' but we would have no way of establishing this without some form of supernatural method.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

...empiricist and naturalistic philosophy...

Your problem here is that logic itself is a product of "empiricist and naturalistic philosophy". If you want to play on that territory by trying to demonstrate logically your faith beliefs then you can't complain when people use the same method to identify where you go wrong.

If you don't like that, then find some other means to demonstrate your beliefs. We both know though don't we that this is where you always make a sharp exit, so there we have it: a choice between wrong arguments or unqualified assertions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since God's interventions are miraculous and non repeated,...

Translation: "It's magic innit".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Either I will win the lottery tonight or I won't. Do you have grounds for thinking for thinking it is improbable that I will win? (Bear in mind that, for me to do so, somebody else has got to give me a ticket.)

Just because something is an either-or situation does not mean that both possibilities are equally probable.

We know how improbable winning the lottery is. We have no measure of the probability or improbability of God.
If you have some figures I would be happy to see them.

On the other hand a finely tuned universe throws up calculated improbabilities which favour a tuner and militate against chance.

[jeremyp]

Since God's interventions are miraculous and non repeated, how amenable to science is that?

There was only one Big Bang but science has detected it.

On the other hand since science does not do God it has nothing finally to say about God's interventions.

We already know that you can't justify the assertion "science doesn't do god". Why are you still waffling on about it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There was only one Big Bang but science has detected it.

But God was neither factored in nor out. Because science doesn't do God. You seem to be arguing that was so therefore God improbable. That seems fallacious.

[jeremyp]

No, because the assumption in science is that all causes are natural.

Rubbish.

Everything that happens could be caused by supernatural pixies, or leprechauns, or a 'god' but we would have no way of establishing this without some form of supernatural method.

The term "natural" doesn't define science. Science defines the natural. If we find a way to detect these supernatural pixies, they immediately stop being supernatural and start being natural.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We know how improbable winning the lottery is. We have no measure of the probability or improbability of God.
If you have some figures I would be happy to see them.

We know how improbable winning the lottery is. We have no measure of the probability or improbability of leprechauns.
If you have some figures I would be happy to see them.

On the other hand a finely tuned universe throws up calculated improbabilities which favour a tuner and militate against chance.

Ooh, look at that. Despite your earlier protestations to the contrary you've now reverted to your earlier claim that you think there is a "fine tuned" universe that implies a tuner. You may recall that I blew that piece of circular reasoning out of the water awhile back, but hey - as a dog returns to its vomit eh?

[jeremyp]

But God was neither factored in nor out.

I didn't say it was.

I brought up the Big Bang to demolish your unfounded assertion that not being repeated means science can't deal with it.

Because science doesn't do God.

You keep saying that, but you cannot provide a shred of evidence that it is true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Translation: "It's magic innit".

No, many of my own actions are miraculous. For example before I showed up back on religionethics the board was moribund, tumbleweed populated the threads, cobwebs hung like curtains from the quality of debate. I deigned to come back amongst you and a fragrance permeated the threads. A breeze cast out the cobwebs and colour returned to the board.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But God was neither factored in nor out. Because science doesn't do God.

But nor does anything else. That's your problem remember?

You seem to be arguing that was so therefore God improbable. That seems fallacious.

No he wasn't. What he was arguing was that any guess - god and leprechauns alike - is by magnitudes more likely to be not true than it is to be true.

[jeremyp]

We know how improbable winning the lottery is. We have no measure of the probability or improbability of God.
If you have some figures I would be happy to see them.

If you have any evidence that this figment of your imagination you call "God" exists, I'd be happy to see it.

On the other hand a finely tuned universe throws up calculated improbabilities which favour a tuner and militate against chance.

Who tuned the tuner?

[Nearly Sane]

Rubbish.
The term "natural" doesn't define science. Science defines the natural. If we find a way to detect these supernatural pixies, they immediately stop being supernatural and start being natural.

Completely arse about face. Science is based on an assumption of naturalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your problem here is that logic itself is a product of "empiricist and naturalistic philosophy". If you want to play

Utter shit. Neither philosophical empiricism nor naturalistic philosophy can be reached by methodological empiricism or methodological naturalism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, many of my own actions are miraculous. For example before I showed up back on religionethics the board was moribund, tumbleweed populated the threads, cobwebs hung like curtains from the quality of debate. I deigned to come back amongst you and a fragrance permeated the threads. A breeze cast out the cobwebs and colour returned to the board.

Yes, but only if you think "colour" is a synonym for "trolling". 

[jeremyp]

Completely arse about face. Science is based on an assumption of naturalism.

Rubbish.

Lightning was considered supernatural by our ancestors then science found out what causes it and it became natural

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Utter shit. Neither philosophical empiricism nor naturalistic philosophy can be reached by methodological empiricism or methodological naturalism.

Oh dear. Still, on the bright side it's Saturday - they bring you cocoa and a nice garibaldi on Saturdays don't they...

[Nearly Sane]

Rubbish.

Lightning was considered supernatural by our ancestors then science found out what causes it and it became natural

Sorry, this is just a very bad argument from you. That there were and are supernatural claims of causes does not mean thar science shows the causes are natural without already assuming that causes are natural. Please show how you can rule out something that is unfalsifiable?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Sorry, this is just a very bad argument from you. That there were and are supernatural claims of causes does not mean thar science shows the causes are natural without already assuming that causes are natural. Please show how you can rule out something that is unfalsifiable?

Not so sure about that. Vlad’s a fan of god of the gaps fallacy (“X can’t be explained naturalistically, therefore it’s supernatural”). Jeremy was just pointing out I think that the absence currently of a naturalistic explanation does not justify the assumption of a supernatural one. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Not so sure about that. Vlad’s a fan of god of the gaps fallacy (“X can’t be explained naturalistically, therefore it’s supernatural”). Jeremy was just pointing out I think that the absence currently of a naturalistic explanation does not justify the assumption of a supernatural one.

No, jeremyp definitely claims (a) that supernatural causes can be ruled out, and (b) that science is not based on methodological naturalism.