Theists: Why should I believe?

Lion IRC · **#181** by **Lion IRC** » Mar 03, 2010 2:36 am

All scientific theories are provisional.
Including the theory that the universe is uncaused.
And the theory that the universe is a closed system.
And the theory that genetic mutations are truly random.
And the theory that natural selection is completely indirected.
Lion (IRC)

Mr.Samsa · **#182** by **Mr.Samsa** » Mar 03, 2010 2:39 am

Lion IRC wrote:All scientific theories are provisional.
Including the theory that the universe is uncaused.
And the theory that the universe is a closed system.
And the theory that genetic mutations are truly random.
And the theory that natural selection is completely indirected.
Lion (IRC)

...therefore god?

(I direct you to Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong").

Lion IRC · **#183** by **Lion IRC** » Mar 03, 2010 2:49 am

Hi Mr Samsa,
No. Not "....therefore God"
God's existence is not subject to human theories.
By (my) definition God exists no matter what we think about Him.
Lion (IRC)

atrasicarius · **#184** by **atrasicarius** » Mar 03, 2010 2:50 am

Lion IRC wrote:All scientific theories are provisional.
Including the theory that the universe is uncaused.
And the theory that the universe is a closed system.
And the theory that genetic mutations are truly random.
And the theory that natural selection is completely indirected.
Lion (IRC)

Translation: Since there's always a small probability that any scientific theory is incorrect, god exists.

Mr.Samsa · **#185** by **Mr.Samsa** » Mar 03, 2010 3:09 am

Lion IRC wrote:Hi Mr Samsa,
No. Not "....therefore God"
God's existence is not subject to human theories.
By (my) definition God exists no matter what we think about Him.
Lion (IRC)

Then I'm not sure what you were getting at by pointing out that science works by discarding the old and progresses closer and closer to a true approximation of the state of the universe?

jerome · **#186** by **jerome** » Mar 03, 2010 3:10 am

I thought by definition all scientific theories were provisional?

I'm with Mr.Samsa here.

Mr.Samsa · **#187** by **Mr.Samsa** » Mar 03, 2010 3:12 am

jerome wrote:I thought by definition all scientific theories were provisional? I'm with Mr.Samsa here.

Yeah all scientific theories are provisional, this is unarguable. But I don't see how this means all scientific theories are wrong though, as Lion seems to be suggesting?.. :ask:

hackenslash · **#188** by **hackenslash** » Mar 03, 2010 3:15 am

Indeed. Just because our theories are not accepted as being absolutely true pictures of the world, and indeed in some cases we know that they are at the very least incomplete, that doesn't mean that none of our theories are absolutely true pictures of the world. In some cases, the degree of certainty we can reasonably apply to given models is such that they are true beyond reasonable doubt. However; we must always be open to the possibility that they are not, or we aren't being scientific.

jerome · **#189** by **jerome** » Mar 03, 2010 3:19 am

The danger comes when we build beyond the data. I think what Lion is pointing out is that there is an inference from what we know of evolution to atheism, it's not a logical deduction: it's maybe inductive not deductive reasoning? I would have to think about it, but it's certainly an interesting argument, and true enough.

j x

Mr.Samsa · **#190** by **Mr.Samsa** » Mar 03, 2010 3:32 am

jerome wrote:The danger comes when we build beyond the data. I think what Lion is pointing out is that there is an inference from what we know of evolution to atheism, it's not a logical deduction: it's maybe inductive not deductive reasoning? I would have to think about it, but it's certainly an interesting argument, and true enough.

j x

But that would be looking at things a little back asswards. Nobody (or at least I hope nobody here) is suggesting that because science is "true" then god doesn't exist. The argument is: until evidence for god is presented, then there is no reason to believe.

The only responses to this position, that I can think of, are:

1) Here is the evidence for god, or
2) You don't need a reason or evidence to believe in things, because the magical pony on my shoulder told me so.

Xeno · **#191** by **Xeno** » Mar 03, 2010 3:34 am

jerome wrote:The danger comes when we build beyond the data. I think what Lion is pointing out is that there is an inference from what we know of evolution to atheism, it's not a logical deduction: it's maybe inductive not deductive reasoning? I would have to think about it, but it's certainly an interesting argument, and true enough.

j x

Evolution is not the source, let alone the root, of atheism. It is a successful theory explaining something people can otherwise find puzzling. Lion therefore is not pointing out anything relevant.

Your own query on the previous page, attempting to set up god as the null hypothesis, has been covered on earlier pages, if I recall correctly.

jerome · **#192** by **jerome** » Mar 03, 2010 3:37 am

Ah, I'll have a look later. Sure, I know that: I was trying to understand where Lion was coming from.

Lion IRC · **#193** by **Lion IRC** » Mar 03, 2010 3:51 am

I actually think ALL of the theories I listed are pretty weak indeed.
And I find it surprising that "random mutation" - a pivotal part of "evolution" which plenty of scientists regard as a proven fact - actually amounts to being the exact same thing of which theists are accused - "God of the gaps."
We don't know what causes something so we will call it "random" or "spontaneous" or "uncaused".
Lion (IRC)

jerome · **#194** by **jerome** » Mar 03, 2010 3:53 am

Lion, have a look at this thread

nontheism/non-theists-why-should-i-not-believe-t1293.html

atrasicarius · **#195** by **atrasicarius** » Mar 03, 2010 3:55 am

Lion IRC wrote:I actually think ALL of the theories I listed are pretty weak indeed.
And I find it surprising that "random mutation" - a pivotal part of "evolution" which plenty of scientists regard as a proven fact - actually amounts to being the exact same thing of which theists are accused - "God of the gaps."
We don't know what causes something so we will call it "random" or "spontaneous" or "uncaused".
Lion (IRC)

/face
When you roll a die, a random face comes up. That doesnt mean you dont know how the dice was rolled or something, it just means that it could have been any number of numbers, but it was one particular one instead. The mechanics of genetic mutation are very well understood. "Random" simply means that it's uncontrolled and could be any number of mutations. Please learn about a subject before you try and disprove it, kthx.

atrasicarius · **#196** by **atrasicarius** » Mar 03, 2010 3:57 am

jerome wrote:Lion, have a look at this thread

nontheism/non-theists-why-should-i-not-believe-t1293.html

Oh, dont direct him towards that thread. I'm currently lol'ing at the philosophical circles you're running around everyone, and if he shows up, it's just gonna turn into another theist ass kicking thread. We can have one of those any time.

Spearthrower · **#197** by **Spearthrower** » Mar 03, 2010 4:11 am

michael^3 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Give it your best shot through logic and reason - no regurgitation of dogma though, if you please, I have heard it before and it didn't convince me.

Why should intelligent people accept the god hypothesis as valid?

It's not a matter of "should". It's simply the understanding that, ultimately, nothing in this world will really satisfy you.

Michael3 - sanja has a valid reason for not fully understanding the word "should" in the English language - you don't!

Should, when used as a modal of obligation only ever means 'advice' at its strongest - one does not feel obliged to do it.

Should is also used in a conditional sense: i.e. "This is a mess! What should we do?"

Clearly, I was referring to the latter.

So have you got anything to say or just want to pretend you know my character?

For the record, this universe I find myself in is a very satisfying place for me! :cheers:

Viraldi · **#198** by **Viraldi** » Mar 03, 2010 4:13 am

Lion IRC wrote:And I find it surprising that "random mutation" - a pivotal part of "evolution" which plenty of scientists regard as a proven fact - actually amounts to being the exact same thing of which theists are accused - "God of the gaps."
We don't know what causes something so we will call it "random" or "spontaneous" or "uncaused".
Lion (IRC)

What, lIke tautomerism, depurination, deamination, and slipped strand mispairing? I remember directing you to Calilasseia's stock of canard refutations beforehand in RDF:

Caliasseia wrote:In rigorous scientific parlance, "random", with respect to mutations, means "we have insufficient information about the actual process that took place at the requisite time". This is because scientists have known for decades, once again, that mutations arise from well defined natural processes, and indeed, any decent textbook on the subject should list several of these, given that the Wikipedia page on mutations covers the topic in considerable depth. Go here, scroll down to the text "Induced mutations on the molecular level can be caused by:", and read on from that point. When you have done this, and you have learned that scientists have classified a number of well defined chemical reactions leading to mutations, you will be in a position to understand why the critical thinkers here regard the creationist use of "random" to mean "duh, it just happened" with particularly withering disdain. When scientists speak of "random" mutations, what they really mean is "one of these processes took place, but we don't have the detailed observational data to determine which of these processes took place, when it took place, and at what point it took place, in this particular instance. Though of course, anyone with a decent background in research genetics can back-track to an ancestral state for the gene in question. Indeed, as several scientific papers in the literature testify eloquently, resurrecting ancient genes is now a routine part of genetics research.

I should leave Calilasseia to do this sort of response, though, it is titled particularly for said creationists. :eh:

Spearthrower · **#199** by **Spearthrower** » Mar 03, 2010 4:15 am

Lion IRC wrote:Hi Mr Samsa,
No. Not "....therefore God"
God's existence is not subject to human theories.
By (my) definition God exists no matter what we think about Him.
Lion (IRC)

Ergo, this being resides in the gaps between our knowledge, and always shifts out to a new gap as soon as inquiry breaches the ambiguity space it resides in. This then presumably permits theists to continue making baseless assertion off the back of their invisible pink unicorn.

Spearthrower · **#200** by **Spearthrower** » Mar 03, 2010 4:20 am

Lion IRC wrote:I actually think ALL of the theories I listed are pretty weak indeed.
And I find it surprising that "random mutation" - a pivotal part of "evolution" which plenty of scientists regard as a proven fact - actually amounts to being the exact same thing of which theists are accused - "God of the gaps."
We don't know what causes something so we will call it "random" or "spontaneous" or "uncaused".
Lion (IRC)

Erm... well if you did the necessary research you wouldn't be blinded by your own ignorance of the topic.

I can flip a coin..... I know all the causal agents, and the settings, conditions and possible influencers.... yet the coin will randomly be a head or tails.

Saying that something is random is not saying that its unknowable, but rather that the result of the process cannot be predicted.

If you wish to pursue this line of reasoning you will soon be on the "How can we know what's real" desperate last stand of pushing an outdated and repeatedly falsified god hypothesis into an explanation of reality where it clearly fails to solve anything and simply creates more unknown and unexplained complexity.

Theists: Why should I believe?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: Theists: Why should I believe?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Who is online