RE: Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?
August 17, 2013 at 5:58 pm
(This post was last modified: August 17, 2013 at 6:00 pm by pineapplebunnybounce.)
(August 17, 2013 at 1:53 pm)Theo Zacharias Wrote:(August 10, 2013 at 2:16 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: @theo, it all depends on how you want to define god.
If you want to say god affects the world in ways that known laws of nature do not, then it is reproducible. Because there will be multiple phenomenons that violate the laws of nature, and they can all be analyzed. And since it would happen so many times, the analysis is reproducible.
Not necessarily true.
If God affects the world frequently on the same place/person, then yes it's reproducible and subject to scientific investigation. We can go to the place or meet the person and conduct a scientific experiment to verify the effect.
But if God affects the world frequently but always (or at least most of the time) on a different place/person, then how can we conduct any scientific investigation if we don't know where to go to verify the effect?
No, that's not how it works, control for age, gender, other possible confounding factors and you're good to go. In fact, that design will have greater external validity compared to a "lab type scenario" where the same phenomena happens to the same person over and over again.
I don't think we have to move forward to experiment design when we haven't even have a cause to study these phenomenas though.
long story short: that's not a dilemma, it's done all the time in science.
