Posts: 19644
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 12:26 pm
(January 3, 2013 at 12:06 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: (January 3, 2013 at 11:57 am)pocaracas Wrote: The deist god is a potentially valid hypothesis to explain the origin of the Universe.... and little else.
The christian god (or any other religion's) has just a wee bit too much extra... hmmm what's the word?... crap attached that make it much, much, much less likely.
Your first statement to me is all I ask of fair minded people and seems to me a totally valid and fair point . Your second statement I can accept is what you believe and even if much less likely must in light of your first statement be also a hypothesis. aye, but if the deist hypothesis already warrants a very small likelihood, the other one will have an even smaller likelihood of success.
Of course, this likelihood I have put here is just some intuitive probability... mostly based on the answer to "how am I going to test this hypothesis?".... "I can't see any way!".
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 12:27 pm
When you understand the difference between the hypothesis that it is probable that life exists elsewhere(which is based on observation and mathematics), even if the univserse may be too vast for us to directly detect it, and the hypothesis that God created life here on earth(an unfalsifiable claim that is simply an attempt to fill the gaps in knowledge), you will understand the absurdity of your conclusion of what the implication of Dawkins' statement is.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 12:42 pm
(January 3, 2013 at 12:27 pm)Faith No More Wrote: When you understand the difference between the hypothesis that it is probable that life exists elsewhere(which is based on observation and mathematics), even if the univserse may be too vast for us to directly detect it, and the hypothesis that God created life here on earth(an unfalsifiable claim that is simply an attempt to fill the gaps in knowledge), you will understand the absurdity of your conclusion of what the implication of Dawkins' statement is.
Well I would contend that showing that life elsewhere is not an unfalsifiable claim will only come by showing evidence of life elsewhere which is the evidence you require regarding GOD. Until then I see no difference.
Posts: 1601
Threads: 2
Joined: January 2, 2013
Reputation:
32
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 12:54 pm
(This post was last modified: January 3, 2013 at 1:12 pm by Psykhronic.)
(January 3, 2013 at 12:42 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: (January 3, 2013 at 12:27 pm)Faith No More Wrote: When you understand the difference between the hypothesis that it is probable that life exists elsewhere(which is based on observation and mathematics), even if the univserse may be too vast for us to directly detect it, and the hypothesis that God created life here on earth(an unfalsifiable claim that is simply an attempt to fill the gaps in knowledge), you will understand the absurdity of your conclusion of what the implication of Dawkins' statement is.
Well I would contend that showing that life elsewhere is not an unfalsifiable claim will only come by showing evidence of life elsewhere which is the evidence you require regarding GOD. Until then I see no difference.
We have an understanding of what life comprises and the components involved for early biology to thrive, at least in Earthlike conditions. God (who is supposed to be beyond our understanding and comprehension according to many) is made of what exactly? And how could God form?
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Due to the number of galaxies and the number of stars in each it is highly probable that life exists elsewhere, even if life is so improbable as to occur in 1 x 10^12 solar systems. God has been hypothesized as the filler of gaps when we are not certain about an issue. One hypothesis states that it is probable given observations, and one hypothesis states that god exists based on nothing more than our current knowledge does not have a natural explanation for a phenomenon. See the difference now?
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 1:01 pm
(January 3, 2013 at 12:42 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Well I would contend that showing that life elsewhere is not an unfalsifiable claim will only come by showing evidence of life elsewhere which is the evidence you require regarding GOD. Until then I see no difference.
You are incredibly dense. Go look in the mirror. There, I have provided evidence of a living being in the universe. Now you provide evidence for the existence of any god.
If you don't understand the difference between searching for another example of a defined and proven existent vs. searching for evidence of an arbitrary concept, you're hopelessly deluded.
Regarding the OP, here's the exchange just before the bit you pulled out:
Tyson: "Point is, it (life) happened relatively quickly with the most common ingredients in the universe. To now say that life on Earth is unique in the universe would be inexcusably egocentric."
Dawkins: "I agree".
Dawkins was clearly having a go at those that believe life to be unique to Earth.
Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 1:03 pm
(January 3, 2013 at 12:58 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Due to the number of galaxies and the number of stars in each it is highly probable that life exists elsewhere, even if life is so improbable as to occur in 1 x 10^12 solar systems. God has been hypothesized as the filler of gaps when we are not certain about an issue. One hypothesis states that it is probable given observations, and one hypothesis states that god exists based on nothing more than our current knowledge does not have a natural explanation for a phenomenon. See the difference now?
You know well that My GOD is not the god of the gaps so lets not go there. But until life is found you are only talking numbers. As until it is found there can be no certainty. So I stand by what I said earlier.
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Did you not see how I said "probable?" No one has stated with certainty that there is life elsewhere, which is one of the major differences between that claim and the claim of god's existence.
As for the god of the gaps, do you believe that god created life?
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 1601
Threads: 2
Joined: January 2, 2013
Reputation:
32
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 1:12 pm
(January 3, 2013 at 1:03 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: (January 3, 2013 at 12:58 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Due to the number of galaxies and the number of stars in each it is highly probable that life exists elsewhere, even if life is so improbable as to occur in 1 x 10^12 solar systems. God has been hypothesized as the filler of gaps when we are not certain about an issue. One hypothesis states that it is probable given observations, and one hypothesis states that god exists based on nothing more than our current knowledge does not have a natural explanation for a phenomenon. See the difference now?
You know well that My GOD is not the god of the gaps so lets not go there. But until life is found you are only talking numbers. As until it is found there can be no certainty. So I stand by what I said earlier.
There is no such thing as certainty in science.
Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 1:17 pm
(This post was last modified: January 3, 2013 at 1:18 pm by Mark 13:13.)
(January 3, 2013 at 1:01 pm)cato123 Wrote: (January 3, 2013 at 12:42 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Well I would contend that showing that life elsewhere is not an unfalsifiable claim will only come by showing evidence of life elsewhere which is the evidence you require regarding GOD. Until then I see no difference.
You are incredibly dense. Go look in the mirror. There, I have provided evidence of a living being in the universe. Now you provide evidence for the existence of any god.
If you don't understand the difference between searching for another example of a defined and proven existent vs. searching for evidence of an arbitrary concept, you're hopelessly deluded.
Regarding the OP, here's the exchange just before the bit you pulled out:
Tyson: "Point is, it (life) happened relatively quickly with the most common ingredients in the universe. To now say that life on Earth is unique in the universe would be inexcusably egocentric."
Dawkins: "I agree".
Dawkins was clearly having a go at those that believe life to be unique to Earth. Yes it would be egocentric but not provably wrong until evidence turns up. as far as the rest of your comments .. just OLD and I said all I need previously. Accept it, what they said had implications beyond what they were applying them too and those implications are what i'm exposing even if you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that.
(January 3, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: (January 3, 2013 at 1:03 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: You know well that My GOD is not the god of the gaps so lets not go there. But until life is found you are only talking numbers. As until it is found there can be no certainty. So I stand by what I said earlier.
There is no such thing as certainty in science.
I agree apart from according to many on here the certainty that GOD does not exist.
|
