Pharyngula

Posted by: otrame | September 2, 2010 9:22 AM

PZ, you know how much the kids hate it when you ask them to "show their work".

Posted by: FossilFishy | September 2, 2010 9:27 AM

Are the units for god metric or imperial? Gotta be imperial because metric makes too much sense.

Posted by: Jeremie Choquette | September 2, 2010 9:31 AM

I think Stephen Hawking created the universe. This whole "physics" thing is just his cover-up.

Posted by: Nnoel | September 2, 2010 9:37 AM

sorry... my post got a bit mangled on this bit, here is the correction...

I'm no religious person, so I'll concede that science can be used to disprove [insert religious book here] , but science being used to disprove 'god'? Which god? What definition of god?

Posted by: scott.anthony.robson | September 2, 2010 9:43 AM

Divinity = goodness/badness

where goodness and badness have the same units.

Therefore, divinity is unitless (dimensionless)

Posted by: Andyo | September 2, 2010 9:53 AM

Oh, to self-answer my #11...

It's from the linked article:

In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe.

No, he di'dn.

Ah, I see what they "read" on that book:

Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, he said: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God."

Oh, he said "God"! He must mean a guy with a beard who snapped his fingers. Of course he couldn't just be using it as a metaphor for something which is non-Goddy at all.

Ah, science reporters. RTFB!

Posted by: dinkum | September 2, 2010 9:59 AM

Stibbons, you're freaking me out.

My first reaction to Nnoel's "Which god?"
was "Yes, have some."

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | September 2, 2010 10:09 AM

Well, the fact that God didn't create the universe doesn't mean he doesn't exist, you know.

Or, to apply the ultimate God-of-the-straw-grasping argument: since logic doesn't apply to God (because he created logic and is therefore above it, dontchaknow) the fact that he didn't create the universe does not imply that he didn't create the universe.

Posted by: bcoppola | September 2, 2010 10:16 AM

Andres#17: Drop the snark and you've got a bright future in theology! :)

Posted by: Sastra | September 2, 2010 10:18 AM

NNoel #7 (8) wrote:

I'm no religious person, so I'll concede that science can be used to disprove [insert religious book here] , but science being used to disprove 'god'? Which god? What definition of god?

Dawkins defines the God Hypothesis as:"... there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it."

He goes specifically after that version, which is pretty generic. But, of course, there are looser forms of supernaturalism which only deal with essences or something like "cosmic consciousness." Science can be invoked against supernaturalism as such by knocking out the need to invoke it as explanation, pointing out that the theory entails certain predictions which have not been met, and examining the nuts and bolts behind the intuitions upon which they rely, and coming up with a solid natural explanation as to why such beliefs might seem so compelling, even if they are false.

Posted by: Ordained Atheist | September 2, 2010 10:23 AM

According to my CV, I have mastered divinity. Yet, I have no idea what that means or how to observe it or measure it. I vote for physics.

Posted by: Darrell E | September 2, 2010 10:42 AM

Posted by: Nnoel | September 2, 2010 9:35 AM

Quote (from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493)

"There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said."

But surely

"There is no place for God in SCIENTIFIC theories"

is all that needs to be said!

Science has to exclude all mention of god in it's search for truth, so how on earth could science be used to find god? (emphasis mine)

Why would you think that? You can posit anything you like and apply the methods of science to it to determine how likely your hypothesis is to be accurate.

And, why would you think that science can't be used to find god? You can certainly define the god you want to "find" such that science would be of no use in finding it, but in that case nothing else will either because such a god could not have any interaction with reality. Besides, most all people do indeed believe things about their gods that can be investigated by science.

You are adhering to a common misconception, the tiresome old fallacy that science doesn't work when it comes to the supernatural. "Supernatural" is just an artificial construct devised by believers so that they have someplace to hide their beliefs from serious examination. Unfortunately for them, science, the process, makes no distinctions between any of the various concepts of different realms of reality that humans have devised. The process of science interrogates that which exists .... period. If it exists, the process of science can, in principle, return useful information about it. If it doesn't exist then, by definition, nothing can ever be known about it by anyone or anything.

I'm no religious person, so I'll concede that science can be used to disprove [insert religious book here] , but science being used to disprove 'god'? Which god? What definition of god?

Whichever god you want. If you make claims about your particular god that require its interaction with reality, which almost all god concepts do, then science can inform you about its existence.

Posted by: Wesley Dodson | September 2, 2010 10:45 AM

There was no nothingness from which we sprung, nor any nothingness toward which we march; the universe was not created by anyone or anything, it is more awesome than that.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | September 2, 2010 10:51 AM

@ Noel:

Of COURSE there is room for "god" in scientific theories. This is what we've been saying all along.

Problem is, no one who argues for the presence of such a thing has been able to produce the slightest scintilla of evidence in favor of such a proposition. That's why all of the theologians, apologists, and mythologists use "arguments" for god.

Theism leaps to a conclusion -- assuming there is a god -- without having done the hard theoretical work. String "theory" (a hypothesis, really not a theory) is now discounted and dead as the proverbial doornail -- but they did the math. Countless other failed hypothesis preceded and will follow -- ALL of them have been and will be based on empirical observation and evidence.

The god hypothesis fails because you can't even describe what it is you're supposed to be looking for. Really, come back when you have a coherent ontology of the thing you're looking for, and a valid and validated methodology to detect said thing, agreed upon by all parties (including us atheists). Then we can start the hard work.

Until then, it's just fairies and unicorns. I find it stunning that we still waste time, money, and human resources defending imaginary creatures and mythology in the 21st Century.

Posted by: Dionysius | September 2, 2010 10:54 AM

Cervantes #5
Stephen Hawking is British.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmp09kZ_wbPsSOsbGic-D_LpJFuVicbMno | September 2, 2010 11:03 AM

As Laplace put it. There is no need for that hypothesis.

Posted by: otrame | September 2, 2010 11:04 AM

Dionysis

Cervantes was being snarky. In the US during the healthcare reform debate some idiot mentioned Hawking and said "Just imagine, if he'd been in the UK the NHS would have decided he was not worth the cost of keeping him alive and then where would we all be?" seemingly unaware that Hawking is British and the NHS has been keeping him alive, along with the incredible efforts of his loved ones.

Posted by: And-U-Say | September 2, 2010 11:15 AM

Darn it, their right! All technical questions should not be answered with evidence, math, or reasoning; but with online polls! PZ, you should have put up a poll for your readers as to whether or not you should have gone to the hospital to check out your heart. Indeed, as to whether or not you should have had stent surgury. Doctors (medical or otherwise), what do those elitists know anyway?

Polls, baby!

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 2, 2010 11:21 AM

God: Hawking 'not necessary'

Oh, I see how theology works: you just think of what you want to say, and then tell people your god said it.

Now can I have my theology doctorate? Oops, I mean,

God: "Give Brownian a theology doctorate. And some groupies. And a pony. And maybe some raisins. Perhaps that's just his head cold talking, but he's really feeling like he hasn't had raisins in a very long time."

Posted by: Tulse | September 2, 2010 11:28 AM

there are ten Dicks in an Oral

Man, what kind of websites do you visit?

Posted by: kagenokami | September 2, 2010 11:47 AM

Another nasty poll to smash. Would you consider voting for a presidential candidate who was an admitted atheist or agnostic?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | September 2, 2010 11:57 AM

I agree with kagenokami #42.

That poll could use some squid love.

Posted by: amphiox | September 2, 2010 12:20 PM

You are adhering to a common misconception, the tiresome old fallacy that science doesn't work when it comes to the supernatural.

It depends I think on how you define "supernatural"/"God".

For science to be able to work on something, it has to be observable and repeatable, since confirmation by reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific method. That means the phenomenon has to obey a set of rules, and that, according to certain definitions, would make it "natural" and not "supernatural".

Similarly, a god that was both observable and reproducible is a god that is subject to some set of rules that govern its behavior, and on certain definitions, such an entity would no longer be "god".

You can certainly define the god you want to "find" such that science would be of no use in finding it, but in that case nothing else will either because such a god could not have any interaction with reality.

You could conceivably have a god that can interact with reality but is not subject to any rules, such that each time it does interact it violates a different set of physical laws, randomly, or based on whim. Scientific methods could in theory observe such interactions, but it would not I think be able to describe it in any coherent way, or formulate any theories concerning it, because each individual observation would be different from every other. You wouldn't even be able to predict when or where the next interaction would take place, meaning you wouldn't be able to plan any attempts to even make observations (all observations would be made entirely on luck alone), and it would very hard to tell the difference between an actual observation and a glitch in your instrumentation or methodology.

Posted by: Jolo5309 | September 2, 2010 1:09 PM

Man, what kind of websites do you visit?

Well ten orals in a dick sounds even worse

Posted by: Tulse | September 2, 2010 1:31 PM

a god that was both observable and reproducible is a god that is subject to some set of rules that govern its behavior, and on certain definitions, such an entity would no longer be "god"

So a god does not have psychological rules, and isn'tpsychologically consistent? Zeus isn't a randy jerk who gets human women pregnant whenever he could? Loki isn't a trickster? Ganesha isn't a remover of obstacles? The Jewish god of the Torah is not vengeful? Jesus doesn't love the little children, all the little children of the world?

We have a science that works to understand the rules that govern behaviour -- it is called psychology. If a god truly is an intelligent entity with a personality, then its behaviour is predictable to a certain degree (much like people's are). If, on the other hand, a god is completely unpredictable, then it is certain not like any god that has been worshipped (and it would be arguable as to whether a completely unpredictable god could even be described as intelligent).

Posted by: Sastra | September 2, 2010 1:57 PM

Nnoel #45 wrote:

I know this sounds lame, but 'god' in most of the CONVINCING definitions (of god) that I read about would better describe 'god' as 'the ground of being', i.e. god is everything, everything is god, all the while that 'ground of being' has an intelligence.

I don't think this definition avoids my critique at #20 -- it would fall under "looser forms of supernaturalism which only deal with essences or something like "cosmic consciousness." No separation between us and God, but still clearly supernatural, in that it gives Mind primacy over physical matter. "Ground of Being" definitions of God which leave this aspect out come perilously close to defining God out of existence by extending the term to any possibility, including a godless naturalism. That would be a bad definition, not a slyly convincing one.

But if God is a disembodied intelligence -- cosmic or otherwise -- I don't think it neatly sidesteps any attempt towards scientific discovery. A person is lead to believe in it based on evidence and experience, which makes it an empirical claim. You can imagine it being scientifically verified, can't you?

For example, your "computer who is really a person" could, in theory, demonstrate this fact under controlled conditions. It's not somehow outside of science's ability to investigate. Scientists who tested such a computer then and got no suggestive results would be perfectly warranted in rejecting the view that this computer looks and behaves exactly like a computer, but becomes a person when only special people are looking.

But the lone special person who relied on the rare special non-standard response is NOT justified in concluding that he is special: it is more likely that he is normal, and mistaken. He needs to rule that out -- for nothing can rule out "I'm special and the rules don't apply to me."

That is what we warn special people about -- particularly so, when it is ourselves. Saying that some fact X is beyond science's purview is saying that it can't be verified objectively, or even between subjects. The "knowers" get to set themselves apart.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 2, 2010 2:04 PM

To put into more context. Mr. Mxlptyk in Superman IS able to change his intrinsic nature. He apparently spent 1000 years as a benevolent being, before getting bored and changing himself into mischievous and in one story decided to change himself into evil.

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | September 2, 2010 2:25 PM

Ing @54:

To put into more context. Mr. Mxlptyk in Superman IS able to change his intrinsic nature.

So, atheists sometimes saying "dog" instead of "god" accounts for God's inability to smite us?

Posted by: amphiox | September 2, 2010 2:39 PM

If a god truly is an intelligent entity with a personality, then its behaviour is predictable to a certain degree (much like people's are).

I would say that such a god, being subject to the laws of psychology, would be "natural", and subject to scientific inquiry. But it would not be omnipotent, as it's conscious will becomes subject to its own psychology (psychoses?). If your definition of god does not require omniscience or omnipotence, then that's of course fine, but you could just as easily call such an entity a superhuman ETI and leave it at that.

For example, Zeus is clearly not omnipotent as he does not appear to be able to resist his own randy urges, most of the time (even when doing so would most definitely have been in his own self-interest).

If, on the other hand, a god is completely unpredictable, then it is certain not like any god that has been worshipped (and it would be arguable as to whether a completely unpredictable god could even be described as intelligent).

Quite true. Most of the gods that have ever been described by humans aren't actually "supernatural" according to the modern understanding of that term. Most of them have origin myths that are in fact fully mundane and natural, and their worshipers viewed them as fully integrated parts of the natural world, subject to at least some natural rules (what is prayer if not an attempt to apply knowledge of rules governing your god of choice's behavior in order to manipulate it into doing something for you?). And each in turn, subject to the scientific method, got discredited as scientific understanding progressed.

The concept of a wholly "supernatural" god, the whole idea that reality can be split into "natural" and "supernatural" components, is actually pretty recent, and really arose in response to the growing influence of science - a feeble philosophical attempt to insulate the god of the day from the march of intellectual progress.

Posted by: amphiox | September 2, 2010 2:47 PM

And not only checked, but checked multiple times by people who know the subject in question intimately.

Posted by: Colin S. Miller | September 2, 2010 4:29 PM

Dionysis #30,
the "Oh wait -- is there something wrong with that assertion?" indicates that Cervantes knows that Hawking is British, and was being all ironical.

Posted by: Darrell E | September 2, 2010 4:52 PM

Posted by: amphiox | September 2, 2010 12:20 PM

You are adhering to a common misconception, the tiresome old fallacy that science doesn't work when it comes to the supernatural.

It depends I think on how you define "supernatural"/"God".

For science to be able to work on something, it has to be observable and repeatable, since confirmation by reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific method. That means the phenomenon has to obey a set of rules, and that, according to certain definitions, would make it "natural" and not "supernatural".

Devising a definition of supernatural that fits whatever it is you want it to has no bearing on reality. I don't agree that a phenomenon has to be repeatable. If over time you accumulate well documented observations of unique phenomena occurring in your otherwise orderly reality, then the uniqueness of those phenomena is an observed repeated trait that those phenomena have in common.

It would not matter if reality were some bizarre existence that made no sense. The process that we call science would still be the only game in town for trying to understand anything about it. Call it natural, supernatural, whatever you want. If it actually exists, if it can affect you in any way, the process we call science can be used to generate useful information about it. It is of course possible that some phenomena will never be understood.

For science to be able to work on something, it has to be observable.....

If it is not observable in any way it does not exist. In that case, why worry about it? It can not affect you in any way.

You can certainly define the god you want to "find" such that science would be of no use in finding it, but in that case nothing else will either because such a god could not have any interaction with reality.

You could conceivably have a god that can interact with reality but is not subject to any rules, such that each time it does interact it violates a different set of physical laws, randomly, or based on whim. Scientific methods could in theory observe such interactions, but it would not I think be able to describe it in any coherent way, or formulate any theories concerning it, because each individual observation would be different from every other. You wouldn't even be able to predict when or where the next interaction would take place, meaning you wouldn't be able to plan any attempts to even make observations (all observations would be made entirely on luck alone), and it would very hard to tell the difference between an actual observation and a glitch in your instrumentation or methodology.

Sure, you can make up anything that you want. Is there any reason to think that such a god exists, or that such a god is necessary to explain anything about our reality? I would like to point out that if you were to use the above as a serious hypothesis you could use the methods of science to investigate its veracity by searching the records for phenomena that have the traits that you have just postulated. Furthermore if the god's actions produce results that are purposeful or have any discernable patterns, regardless of how incomprehensible the individual events are, then you have the little creep. And if its actions don't then why is there any reason to suppose it exists?

My main point is, regardless of how disorderly, bizarre, mundane or clockwork like existence may be, or could be, the process that we call science is the only method available for reaching any kind of accurate understanding about it. If existence were such that it just didn't make sense and the methods of science could not yield any useful information about it, in whole or in part, then we would just be shit out of luck as far as trying to understand it. However, that turns out not to be the case.

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 2, 2010 5:56 PM

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | September 2, 2010 6:22 PM

@55

If the authority IS an expert, it's not a fallacy to rely on his/her opinion. You do this all the time -- you don't question your doctor every time she writes a prescription for an antibiotic.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy when the authority being appealed to is speaking outside of her area of expertise.

For example, if you say "Glenn Beck believes...", that would be an appeal to authority. Because Glenn Beck is a moron who doesn't have authoritative knowledge of any subject.

Stephen Hawking, on the other hand, is an eminent physicist whose opinions on the origins of the universe matter.

End of lesson on logical fallacies. Please try to invoke it correctly the next time.

Posted by: Mokum | September 2, 2010 8:09 PM

Now we know that God did not create the universe I wonder: what was He doing at the time?

Posted by: echidna | September 2, 2010 9:13 PM

but almost none of us /actually/ understand what Hawkings bloody said

Speak for yourself. Yes, QM is tricky to understand, and it sure isn't intuitive, but it's not beyond reach if you study it long enough.

I, like everyone else, would by lying if I said that I understand Hawking to the same depth as Hawking does.

A brief history of time is written for ordinary people, and if it is out of reach for you at the moment, then I suggest reading more physics (Einstein and Feynman write beautifully) until you do understand. If you do not want to do this, then at least recognise that your opinion is uninformed.

Posted by: PerthCat | September 2, 2010 10:33 PM

Finally, a local poll worthy of being pharyngulated :)

http://www.watoday.com.au/technology/sci-tech/god-did-not-create-universe-hawking-20100903-14rva.html

Poll: Do you agree with Stephen Hawking's conclusion that no divine force was needed to create the universe?

Yes - spontaneous creation is a plausible theory
71%
No - the universe could not have been created without divine force
29%
Total votes: 8817.

Posted by: Nnoel | September 3, 2010 5:23 AM

So I'm a bit disappointed by all the comments on here with absolute knowledge of the limits of god...

Tulse @#50

"So a god does not have psychological rules, and isn't psychologically consistent?"

and as well..

"If a god truly is an intelligent entity with a personality, then its behavior is predictable to a certain degree ...[snip]...(and it would be arguable as to whether a completely unpredictable god could even be described as intelligent)."

ummm... see you are claiming knowledge or trying to apply logic that too me is just crazy. There are (to my mind) hundreds of ways you could be wrong! I'm completely unpredictable! putting aside the obvious consistencies that come with being a biological entity, if you only knew me by my external actions, even my limited intelligence could show you 'completely random' behavior, not hard at all!

Sastra @#52

"A person is lead to believe in it based on evidence and experience, which makes it an empirical claim. You can imagine it being scientifically verified, can't you? "

but a few sentences before you said...

"gives Mind primacy over physical matter"

well see doesn't that mean subjective is all that exists? matter from mind instead of mind from matter means objectivity is just an illusion. That said, all sorts of things can be untestable in the subjective, in fact, yoga claims to be a science that only operates in the subjective, i.e. The results are repeatable, but have to be individually verified personally by each person, with no objective evidence to indicative success of or failure of each 'experiment', which to be is not empirical evidence

Sastra, the rest of your post appears to misintrepret my 'computer who is actually a person' analogy, as that was my analogy for 'god', and as I stated god is also all there there is, i.e. everything, I was trying to convey that just because (for example) all science experiments never discover any 'god-like' behavior in nature, that doesn't rule out that the same nature could infact not follow the rules discovered by science and do it's own thing whenever it chooses (and combine that with 'all is subjective' and I believe some interesting possibilities appear).

Ing @#53

"Besides, a being that is unable to change its own nature, is by definition not all powerful."

Another of those disappointing statements about the limitations of god. nuff said. (even though i kinda agree, with what certainty can we know this?)

Darrel E @#64

"The process that we call science would still be the only game in town for trying to understand anything about it."

what you say is partially true, but not really (in my opinion). Basically, using a scientific approach to generate subjective results would be completely the right way to go about things, but would not result in 'evidence' that science could appreciate. Consider what I say, I know I sound crazy, but I might just not be.

you also said...

"If it is not observable in any way it does not exist. In that case, why worry about it? It can not affect you in any way."

'not observable in any way' is a lazy answer, as "exploring your subjective world" would be one suggestion I'd make to observe 'the ground of being', and whats the point? well yes as you already stated his/it's/her non-existence, it wouldn't have a point, but you lazily came to the non-existence claim :-P personally, I wanna be best friends with the most powerful 'thing' in existence, and I;ll add that it appears to be (and has proved so) a most rewarding friendship. :-)

you also said

"My main point is ...[snip]... the process that we call science is the only method available for reaching any kind of accurate understanding about it. If existence were such that it just didn't make sense and the methods of science could not yield any useful information about it, in whole or in part, then we would just be shit out of luck"

Consider the subjective, my main point is 'Consider the subjective', I mean our whole world is subjective, we just 'believe' (based on evidence) that there is a objective world, but lotsa scientific theories have fallen by the way side that were initially supported with evidence, objectivity may be next, how would you falsify (the true scientific method) my claim that objectivity is just an illusion? Any response claiming repeatability and verifiable evidence of the objective isn't good enough I'm afraid (it's just god pretending to be reality :-p)

love you all!

Posted by: John Morales | September 3, 2010 6:16 AM

PS

... how would you falsify (the true scientific method) my claim that objectivity is just an illusion?

Care to put a blindfold on and walk across a busy road? :)

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | September 3, 2010 6:39 AM

#77

that was my analogy for 'god', and as I stated god is also all there there is

So why need an analogy?
You are trying to posit a deity...you fail because any half decent deity would not require an analogy.

I was trying to convey that just because (for example) all science experiments never discover any 'god-like' behavior in nature, that doesn't rule out that the same nature could infact not follow the rules discovered by science and do it's own thing whenever it chooses (and combine that with 'all is subjective' and I believe some interesting possibilities appear).

You mean there are Pink Unicorns and Leprechauns and fairies at the bottom of every garden?
Who would have thought it....

Fucking total codswollop...
Constructing your own version of reality does not help your delusion...simply because it is a delusion...capiche sherlock!

Posted by: KG | September 3, 2010 6:51 AM

...as proven by the fact that you quote Sastra's: "gives Mind primacy over physical matter" as if this were her belief. She is simply saying that your woolly notion of God is covered by the alternatives she gave@20. Here is the phrase in context:

I don't think this definition avoids my critique at #20 -- it would fall under "looser forms of supernaturalism which only deal with essences or something like "cosmic consciousness." No separation between us and God, but still clearly supernatural, in that it gives Mind primacy over physical matter. "Ground of Being" definitions of God which leave this aspect out come perilously close to defining God out of existence by extending the term to any possibility, including a godless naturalism. That would be a bad definition, not a slyly convincing one.

She is quite clearly saying that giving "Mind primacy over matter" is supernaturalism, not that she believes in it. Sastra does not believe in the supernatural; she is a "godless naturalist".

In summary, a fine example of the way squashy wooists like you just see what you want to see.

Posted by: Nnoel | September 3, 2010 7:09 AM

KG @#83

My apologies, to Sastra as well, I was merely responding to the idea that was brought up, as it describes my view quite well, never thought I was attributing those beliefs to Sastra.

If i recall correctly, the whole 'god is unpredictable, science requires repeatability', means the science can't test the supernatural, and that's where the unpredictable deity/ground of being has it's wiggle room to escape science's glare.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 3, 2010 7:20 AM

If i recall correctly, the whole 'god is unpredictable, science requires repeatability', means the science can't test the supernatural

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | September 3, 2010 7:58 AM

#85

If i recall correctly, the whole 'god is unpredictable, science requires repeatability'

But the supposed unpredictability of god is not strictly true, cos the world is apparently lucky to have a tacky little compendium of schizophrenic articles supposedly penned by the almighty doofus that outline, sometimes precisely, how god actually ticks?

In fact the idea is that mankind is created in the image of the same almighty doofus, and as unpredictable as human beings can be we can predict they will not actually be sensible to any meaningful degree and if by chance they sporadically are then not for long.

Although ostensibly unpredictable, human psychology can offer a template of sorts and some understanding.
By studying the so called created, it might indeed be possible to study the creator?

But of course that's absolutely impossible in reality, cos the supernatural fucker is just stunted imagination and ignorance up a dark alley without a clue.

It can be accepted that the point of the aforementioned 'unpredictability' mantra offered by the religiously crippled is just to provide convenient wiggle room for a delusion on the run, and although that tactic might have got 'em out of jail in the past, it seems reality and rationality is encroaching on all sides and them gaps is getting smaller, fewer available and certainly less secure, in fact seems the game is more or less up!

Except the 'sunbeams' ain't got the memo yet!

Posted by: Nnoel | September 3, 2010 9:36 AM

Nerd of Redhead, OM @#86

umm... ok. Sounds like the Potatoe salad calling the Mixed Leaf salad 'mixed up!' :-P

We could show evidence for a deity, even one without total repeatability

Yeah I replied (as have others) that I believe your wrong, but thanks for the input anyway.

Ing @#87

There's mo mechanism to cause tissue damage because the brain things there should be damage there

Is starvation a 'mechanism' a ruler could use over a population? is mismanagement a 'mechanism'? perhaps a clunky word, but you get the picture.

Or were you referring to damage from 'external' sources, as I equate the external as actually internal (referring to 'all is mind') such that you say the mind has no mechanism to hurt the body therefore I'm wrong?

To that I'd say that if all is mind then the 'mind' being referenced too here is not the blobby bit of fat we carry in our heads, which gives the illusion of thought, I'm referring more to the awareness which we feel as ourselves. It's opening a bit of a can of worms trying to define the 'mind' of which i speak, but needless to say it is something slightly more profound than our brains (it creates our brains for one thing).

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | September 3, 2010 9:47 AM

#89

But I stand, I do not run, and I ask the question, falsify my statement that objectivity could be an illusion.

But if that objectivity is reported as precisely conforming to results that can be quantified qualified even predicted in other disciplines in other areas undergoing different analysis of different phenomena and the results are identical...how likely is it to be actually illusionary?

Geology...Palaeontology...Biology...Chemistry Physics...Cosmology...etc etc etc...in fact every scientific discipline practised on this planet operates and produces a body of work using that one constant objectivity which is the accepted Scientific Method.
And the results are near enough identical to be statistically overwhelming in favour of the objectivity employed.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 3, 2010 9:51 AM

ok ok, you got me, the practice is not always as easy as the theory, but if I'm to stick to my beliefs then you are me and I'm you and there is nothing to separate anyone from anyone or anything, and I love me, so I love you! :-P

If I were you, I'd kill ourselves

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 3, 2010 10:02 AM

I provide no defense for religion, let it run an hide from your inquiry.

But I stand, I do not run, and I ask the question, falsify my statement that objectivity could be an illusion. I'm going no where, as no one has answered me to any degree that satisfies my curiosity on the question.

The difference between a consistent illusionary world that we can't escape from or alter with gnostic knowledge and an objective world is too menial to bother with. You can build useful stuff from the objective model, while the illusionary one just has you running around to people who actually think and work for a living telling them "EVERYTHING YOU DO IS WRONG WRNOG WRONG" then telling them "I LOVE YOU" and running away imaging people wouldn't treat you like an annoying freak.

umm... roftl!!!! I'm not going to use your imagination for you!

Why not if you ARE me? This is a testable claim. Make me use our imagination.

Posted by: Nnoel | September 3, 2010 10:46 AM

Ing@#93

What the fuck were you trying to say. Damage to the body comes from physical sources.

and i'm asserting that it is possible that all things 'physical' are just an illusion, that objectivity does not exists, akin to calling everything a dream, a dream can be real by one definition (it is really a dream [a noun and a verb in the dictionary] ), but in relation to what we normally call 'wakefulness', a dream is but an illusion, in the same way I'm calling 'reality' a dream of something else, what can the dream know of the dreamer?

Anubis Bloodsin the third @#92

But if that objectivity is reported as precisely conforming to results that can be quantified qualified even predicted in other disciplines in other areas undergoing different analysis of different phenomena and the results are identical...how likely is it to be actually illusionary?

If 'the dream' wasn't so precise that it has fooled 'the west' for how many decades, then it wouldn't be very hard to pierce the illusion, but I'm obviously talking about an illusion that is incredibly internally consistent.

How likely? Well I consider claims of remote viewing, ghosts, visitations from the dead in dreams, and all other manner of phenomena as evidence AGAINST 'materialism', of course from a materialistic point of view is it easy to dismiss those phenomena, but as no one can falsify the claim that all is mind, how prudent it is not to at least consider the world through a different lens?

Ing @#96

Did you come here to confirm your world view by surrounding yourself with 'yes men'? If you did I can imagine how my comments are butting into your world and upsetting your equilibrium, and my apologies for that.

I'm here to expand my world view by engaging those that don't necessarily agree with me.

The difference between a consistent illusionary world that we can't escape from or alter with gnostic knowledge and an objective world is too menial to bother with.

Thats a straw man of my position, can't alter with gnostic knowledge? I beg to differ, but you'd have to give your subject world a bit more credit, and 'belief' becomes the tool to alter the world, as I 'believe' that all is belief, we are confined to this material plane and these material bodies because on some level we 'believe' it to be that way. Consider someone with a fear of banana's, it's an unconscious 'belief' about banana's that drives their behavior, not the conscious 'knowledge' that bananas are essentially inanimate objects, in the same way that the irrational belief of bananas is instilled into someone as a youngster (Dawkins talks about our tendency to form unquestioning belief as children in 'The God Delusion'), society and our parents instill beliefs of reality in the same way. I have to admit that is a possibility. Any suggestions on how I can rule out that possibility?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 3, 2010 10:56 AM

Nnoel show how you can be so open minded the brain falls out

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 3, 2010 11:01 AM

You have an amazing thin weak standard of evidence.

better

Posted by: Nnoel | September 3, 2010 11:03 AM

Ing @#99

I'm an intellectual light weight am I? I'll refrain from judging your intellect, as I couldn't possibly do so with ANY accuracy, but I've noticed many things you and others have decided one way or another that I dont think could possible be known with such fervor, but that's just the way it appears, it could be otherwise, maybe you all are omniscient in some manner, who knows !!

Posted by: Nnoel | September 3, 2010 11:13 AM

Rev. BigDumbChimp @#101

You have an amazing thin standard of evidence.

Perhaps, but consider that I am suggesting a different 'paradigm' to that currently accepted by science, and using that paradigm to investigate quality of evidence, all evidence CAN ONLY BE SUBJECTIVE, so all the subjective claims of 'I saw this', or 'I did that' are not so weak anymore.

By Thomas Kuhn's definitions of paradigms, it isn't entirely fair to judge one paradigm's evidence by another paradigms standards, so by what standards are my evidences weak?

Also, I accept the weak nature of the evidence, but I use it more along the lines of 'no smoke without fire', perhaps sometimes there is no fire in a smoky room, but you cant dismiss the possibility completely.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 3, 2010 11:19 AM

Perhaps, but consider that I am suggesting a different 'paradigm' to that currently accepted by science, and using that paradigm to investigate quality of evidence, all evidence CAN ONLY BE SUBJECTIVE, so all the subjective claims of 'I saw this', or 'I did that' are not so weak anymore.

Yes they are. It's just another appeal to other ways of knowing and equally weak.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | September 3, 2010 11:51 AM

Nnoel: If you want to demonstrate your claimed lack of predictability, write something that actually makes sense.

I bet a hot dog and chips that the very next thing that you post is as batshit insane as everything else you have posted*.

*Although for technical reasons that I have not the time to divulge, I a neither an inductivist nor a Bayesian.

Posted by: Nnoel | September 3, 2010 12:02 PM

lol, I think I've exhausted the well of intelligent response in here.

It was fun, thanks for the discussion.

Posted by: KG | September 3, 2010 12:06 PM

By Thomas Kuhn's definitions of paradigms, it isn't entirely fair to judge one paradigm's evidence by another paradigms standards, so by what standards are my evidences weak? - Nnoel

Setting aside the problems with Kuhn's account of how science works, you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. By "paradigm", Kuhn did not mean "something a blithering idiot pulled out of his arse".

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 3, 2010 12:11 PM

I think I've exhausted the well of intelligent response in here.

No you didn't...so since that's evidence get back here and defend yourself.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 3, 2010 12:14 PM

I'm an intellectual light weight am I?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 3, 2010 12:40 PM

But again, I'm not here to insult anyone's intelligence,

Really do love you all! :)

Contradiction right there. Ugh makes me want to punch a Telatubby

Posted by: Sastra | September 3, 2010 12:40 PM

Nnoel #89 wrote:

But I stand, I do not run, and I ask the question, falsify my statement that objectivity could be an illusion. I'm going no where, as no one has answered me to any degree that satisfies my curiosity on the question.

What you seem to be proposing here is idealistic monism -- the belief that everything physical is made out of the mental. Although, technically speaking, this isn't mind/body substance dualism, it carries many of the same implications, and is a difference without a distinction -- both views are what I'd term "supernaturalism."

As you point out in #98, verified "claims of remote viewing, ghosts, visitations from the dead in dreams, and all other manner of phenomena" would all falsify materialistic monism, and leave us with a choice between dualism and idealistic monism. Frankly, I've no idea how we could choose between them, under those circumstances. Do you?

But here's what's significant: the fact that naturalism can be falsified means that your seemingly unassailable, unfalsifiable position is not impervious to scientific investigation. You can't say that there is evidence which would add special, conclusive support to a view, but nothing that could possibly make this view less likely. The lack of such conclusive evidence is now evidence against.

Science can say something even about idealism (matter from mind) -- that it makes predictions which are not supported, and fails to explain why the predictions made by materialism (mind from matter) are supported. Idealism now has to be held against the evidence, therefore, and be made unfalsifiable.

So why isn't this a strong position? Because it places you, the believer, in a situation where you can't be wrong. You can't change your mind. You can't discover and grow. You can claim to "know" something in a way that makes you infallible.

If you consider yourself a seeker after truth, a humble questioner, then that is NOT a good place to put yourself in. That is the problem.

If we are wrong, we know what would make us change our minds. Can you say the same?

If not, that should bother you. Think about it.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 3, 2010 12:47 PM

Bte Nnoel. I personally have a variety of social levels people fall into. There are varying degrees of relation I recognize. LOVE is up there in the very exclusive category. Trying to self promote yourself in relationship levels is offensive and rude. So no, please do not love me. I want that saved for people who know me enough so that it means something.

Posted by: Sastra | September 3, 2010 12:56 PM

If you consider yourself a seeker after truth, a humble questioner, then that is NOT a good place to put yourself in. That is the problem.

This could also apply to a hypothetical "you" -- people in general. I'm not assuming that you actually hold the view you're proposing. I think you implied somewhere that you don't, but wonder if science could be used to undermine it.

I think it could. As I said upthread, science is a search for objectivity, an attempt to model reality by achieving consensus among equals: those "ways of knowing" which are not scientific always assume there are special people above the need for self-correction, and these people interpret without interpreting.

But we can't do that. We humans all err. Our biases and prejudices make us err. The scientific method strives to help us eliminate those biases as much as we can.

Subjective means of knowing, on the other hand, enshrine bias. It's all bias towards the self. Trust yourself, believe, nobody can check you against error, for you don't need it. This is not going to lift you above 'ego' towards an enlightened state of acceptance. It's ego, itself -- and one with a closed mind which can't be opened.

The opposite of where you (or others) usually want to go with this 'paradigmn shift.'

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 3, 2010 1:13 PM

...science is a search for objectivity, an attempt to model reality by achieving consensus among equals: those "ways of knowing" which are not scientific always assume there are special people above the need for self-correction, and these people interpret without interpreting.      But we can't do that. We humans all err. Our biases and prejudices make us err. The scientific method strives to help us eliminate those biases as much as we can.      Subjective means of knowing, on the other hand, enshrine bias. It's all bias towards the self. Trust yourself, believe, nobody can check you against error, for you don't need it. This is not going to lift you above 'ego' towards an enlightened state of acceptance. It's ego, itself -- and one with a closed mind which can't be opened.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | September 3, 2010 1:31 PM

Nnoel, So how do you think we would remember Patrick Henry if he had in fact said:

Give me ambiguity! or give me something else.

Actually, you pretty much hit the nail on the head when you suggested that the definition of "God"/"Gods" is so vague that it is impossible to disprove. The thing is that science does not deal in "proof". Rather, the point is that there is absolutely nothing in human experience that indicates the need for the supernatural. And since science should not introduce unnecessary complications, belief in God is of unscientific. That doesn't mean it is even wrong, but if one is to believe in God, then what is to stop us from believing all sorts of contrary to fact beliefs?

Supernaturalism is a recipe for wasted time and irrationality.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 3, 2010 3:15 PM

All i'm saying is that science is not ideal for finding god, if someone could take me by the hand and show me god in the external world, point at him and say 'there she is', then all this discussion on the internet would be moot. But we've look 'outside ourselves', I'm suggesting looking inward instead.

Except that is just convenient pleading.

"You can't know God by the same ways we know every single thing else in this world. You have to use special ways of knowing"

Not once has any other way of knowing been reliable in telling us anything. You can't just claim that a special way of knowing is required without anything to back that up.

If that was true there would be no way to know anything and be in anyway reliably accurate.

Everything would be subject to special ways of knowing and any claim could never been proven false because there would always be claims to some other way of knowing.

It's ridiculous and childish.

Posted by: Sastra | September 3, 2010 3:33 PM

Nnoel #131 wrote:

All i'm saying is that science is not ideal for finding god, if someone could take me by the hand and show me god in the external world, point at him and say 'there she is', then all this discussion on the internet would be moot.

There is a difference between starting out by "trying to find God" and starting out by trying to determine if God exists. The first method will always succeed.

But we've look 'outside ourselves', I'm suggesting looking inward instead.

That first method will always succeed because of what you say here: if you can't find objective confirmation, why not seek subjective confirmation? Frame the problem so that intuitions, feelings, insights, hunches, and "deep senses" will count in favor of the thing you seek. It can't lose. It can't be checked against alternatives. Seek and ye shall find.

And you can't find out you've been wrong.

Now to hawkins comments, i've been trying to demonstrate that science isn't the tool to find god...

What if it is the right tool -- and the answer is "no?"

Ask yourself this: if science suddenly "found" God -- miracles, esp, mystical experiences, ghosts, reincarnation or other such phenomena were clearly demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt -- would you then say that, since science is the wrong tool to use on the supernatural, all of this means nothing, and everyone should ignore it and just go on being godless materialists?

Heads you win; tails we lose. Don't. Do. That. To. Yourself.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 3, 2010 4:43 PM

There are two possibilities for god. There's a philosophical, deist deity who just sort of hangs around in the background, not doing anything, not manifesting, completely supernatural. The other type of god is an interventionist, prayer answering god who has material attributes. Science cannot study the deist god but can study the intervening god.

Science can detect and study the normal, every day god the vast majority of people believe in. This is the god who answers prayers (or not, as the case may be). While science can find evidence for such a god no unambiguous evidence has ever been found. So the chances of such a god existing are very slight.

The deist god can't be detected but since it doesn't do anything then it's exactly like no god at all. In either case, a very low probability god or an effectively non-existent god are the equivalent of no god. Which is why most atheists, particularly the ones who hang out here, say there's no god. If evidence of a god does miraculously appear, then we'll rethink our position.

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 3, 2010 9:50 PM

And God, is he exists, is about reality. If he's not, he doesn't exist.

or: he's as good as nonexistent.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | September 3, 2010 10:32 PM

Seems like noel is also a liar as well as deluded, for he states in #119

I would say that most of the responses claiming that I believe a bunch of woo woo would be more appropriate it you all knew my full set of beliefs, and I've said all along that it is just a 'possibility', I've stated nothing as fact, or attempted to state nothing as fact, more about considering ideas, didn't some famous intellect say it's the mark a rational mind to be able to consider an idea without believing in the idea?

yet earlier in post #76 he says:

personally, I wanna be best friends with the most powerful 'thing' in existence, and I;ll (sic) add that it appears to be (and has proved so) a most rewarding friendship. :-)

The first sentence could simply be regarded as a stance based on a loosely worded form of Pascal's wager, perhaps a CYA position. But then his very next second sentence crucifies him, so to speak, to his own cross of lies.

So we have yet another of the deluded, making with the word salad, pretending to be a philosopher. Much to the chagrin of the good ones I imagine, again.

Posted by: Nnoel | September 4, 2010 5:39 AM

so still on my phone over here

John, I said full set of beliefs, you lose! :-P

Tis himself, your comment starts with a false dichotomy, and this whole "we know what god is, and clearly that thing doesn't exist", is excatly the problem i have with Hawkins supposed statement (after its mangled by the media)

Sastra, i do not on a daily basis use government funding to research the world around me, that is to say, if i was saying these things while trying to find a cure for cancer, then telling me my method's I'm describing are a bit dodgy would be appropriate, but we're describing something that could possibly be out of science's reach (for the reasons i've given) therefore i think it's appropriate.

I only ask the question, but it appears people are fearful of considering the consequences. Ask a religious person "what if there is no god" and they'll start talking how much they'd rape and murder, which i think is a defensive tactic to not really consider the idea, cause considering the idea to them would betray their 'god'. Have atheists got reasons to have defensive answers to 'what if the objective world was just an illusion?'. That is all, consider the idea, and considering the idea, one cannot immediately show evidence to reject the idea, and there are many tales of the unexplained (twins having intutions about each across continents, eastern religions having the same basic idea, kids claiming intimate knowledge of past lives, etc etc) to give one pause to think about.

Posted by: John Morales | September 4, 2010 6:19 AM

Nnoel, you're disingenuous.

Have atheists got reasons to have defensive answers to 'what if the objective world was just an illusion?'.

The alternative is solipsism, a point you futilely keep trying to handwave away.

Posted by: Nnoel | September 4, 2010 7:41 AM

Tis himself, u said one option was he has material attributes, i'm suggesting he is in fact the only material, as he provides the illusion. And then u state if so then science can study him, well i say science can only study him if god chooses to allow it, thats is to say, thats a third option in my eyes, hence false dichotomy.

John, u have an understanding on the word solipsism thats takes its meaning from your current 'cosmology' (as people dont like the word 'paradigm'), yes i suppose it is solipsism in my understanding, 1 god thinking himslf into millions of people and then forgetting he is one and thinking he is the many.

KG, i can run the thought experiment in my head that objectivity is an illusion, but the responses i've been getting don't appear to have done the same. It is an internally consistant idea, it does not contradict itself, external evidence doesn't contradict it, and the only response i can recognize is 'then that makes u think u special' or 'special means of knowing are useless' etc, it is the impression i get. Akin to the religious person claiming he'd rape or murder, it is appeals to why one shouldn't think that way rathher than how thinking about the idea shows itself to be wrong. That is why i think pll are fearful of considering it.

KG, u said its not worth consider, but i'm not asking science to be done that way, otherwise u prob be right, i'm just relating that way of thinking to show Hawkings conclusions to be hasty, if he choose not to think that way, power to him, but he then cant make conclusions is all i'm saying

KG, i loved your next part, as it is the standard response that could not have been fully researched. There IS evidence, twins really do have intuitions about each other, it happens all the time, it is well documented, but never is one twin sitting in a scientists lab during a double blind experiment, as these phenomenon cannot be reproduced at will. I need give no other evidence, even tho there is much else. But, science is biding its time waiting for a materialistic answer rather than throwing out materialism altogether, and so it should, if it jumped to conclusions so easy it wouldn't get very far.

That evidence can have multiple solutions, but people assume there cant be evidence becuase they have already made up their minds before considering the evidence, " there cant be evidence becuase it isn't true, so why look", religious people do it all the time, not cuase they are religious, but becuase they are human. You stated there isn't evidence, but my investigations have shown me different. You are calling an awful lot of people liars, as that is the only way 'there isn't evidence' (and its subjective, so testimonies are the only evidence), and thats what religious people do as well to defend their ideas, "evil world wide conspiracy of satanist evilutionist peddling smut for the devil" would be a regular religious response.

Ok, thats me done for now, phone commenting is of the devil!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 4, 2010 7:56 AM

Nnoel #146

Tis himself, u said one option was he has material attributes, i'm suggesting he is in fact the only material, as he provides the illusion. And then u state if so then science can study him, well i say science can only study him if god chooses to allow it, thats is to say, thats a third option in my eyes, hence false dichotomy.

Nope, saying god wants to fool science, and by extension humanity, is equivalent to saying god doesn't manifest itself. Your false dichotomy has evaporated again.

Posted by: Nnoel | September 4, 2010 8:27 AM

Tis himself, i asked someone else above to use their imagination, soo, umm, do that. In the real world, god is not revealed to us (if he is there), so perhaps he's not there, perhaps he doesn't want objective evidence of his existance to exist, options options options, not either or so there no god.

KG, I'm only interested in the real world, u seam to live only in a clinical world of recorded evidence, the realworld is messier than that. I already stated these things dont happen on demand, and who would expect them too. Where is the evidence of what u had for breakfast, until u show me conclusive proof i wont believe you, it didn't happen. Fuckwit :-P i have seen many people (on tv no less) testifying to have experienced these, is the world full of liars? Also, these evidences have to be examined in the right way, holding them up to materialistic standards and saying 'well science may know the answer one day, or they were just lying or mistaken' may make u feel better about your worldview, but it's not a true search.

Its like i'm suggesting a fantasy land where gravity is reversed, and then i ask you what happens when an apple 'falls', and u insisting it will still hit the floor, that is what i meant when i said no response shows they are actually 'considering the idea without believing it', insisting on the same standard of evidence for both paradigms is truely showing a lack of thought on your part, in my opinion.

Again, science is great, keep up the good work science men, just dont claim absolute knowledge where absolute knowledge is not known.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 4, 2010 10:45 AM

Nnoel #150

Tis himself, i asked someone else above to use their imagination, soo, umm, do that. In the real world, god is not revealed to us (if he is there), so perhaps he's not there, perhaps he doesn't want objective evidence of his existance to exist, options options options, not either or so there no god.

Pretending some far-fetched argument doesn't boil down to one of the two choices I've offered isn't "using my imagination," it's "refusing to accept reality." It doesn't make any difference why a god doesn't manifest itself, if it doesn't manifest itself then it remains undetectable.

Posted by: ian.pulsford | September 4, 2010 3:00 PM

Nnoel, you can speculate about where a god exists or not ad infinitum, and you're free to believe one exists wherever you want, leprechauns in your socks too. Believing doesn't make it so, or all those suckers who bought The Secret would all be Bazillionaires already.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 4, 2010 3:51 PM

nnoel,

You keep using this word evidence. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: Kyle N | September 4, 2010 6:29 PM

@157

"paradigm shit"

[Sic?] :)

Posted by: Nnoel | September 4, 2010 7:32 PM

Sastra i agree completely that the suggestion i'm making is untestable, because it is essentially unfalsifiable, but that doesn't change the fact that it could be true. That is why i say reality is messier than we like, the scienctific method is a great tool, but it could be possible that it cant give all the answers.

Would all religious people become rapists if we discover there is no god? Will planes fall from the skies and computers stop working if we discover objectivity to be a mere illusion?

P.S yeah i'd keep a close eye on the religious if we discover theres no god, but i'm not worried for planes and computers :-D

Posted by: Garth Patrick | September 5, 2010 2:34 AM

Gravity is not something that one "believes in".