Science, faith, and theists

[Michael]

Thankyou Tony! I shall take a look.

[Diablo]

So to recap, Brian said ...


Can anyone suggest to Brian how this 'bringing my belief into the lab' might actually be done?

It seems to me that, for differing reasons, we're all saying it can't be done (or at least no-one is saying how it can be done which, in practice, amounts to the same thing).

I sense we might be at the end of this particular line of conversation, so I shall leave it there unless anyone does chip in with ideas of specific experiments.

The burden of proof lies with the person making that assertion. If your god exists then prove it. Whether you do it in the lab or not is your choice. Don't expect other people to devise tests for something that is your invention.

Nothing yet. How long should we wait? 2000 years?

[Dawsonite]

At first sight we might observe:
1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause
2) The universe has a beginning

ergo

The universe has a cause.

This is a valid syllogism, except for the evidence for the two premises. Or do you have such evidence?

[Diablo]

The burden of proof lies with the person making that assertion. If your god exists then prove it. Whether you do it in the lab or not is your choice. Don't expect other people to devise tests for something that is your invention.

Nothing yet. How long should we wait? 2000 years?

Nothing yet.

---

At first sight we might observe:
1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause
2) The universe has a beginning

ergo

The universe has a cause.

This is a valid syllogism, except for the evidence for the two premises. Or do you have such evidence?

No he doesn't, 'cos there isn't any.

---

So to recap, Brian said ...


Can anyone suggest to Brian how this 'bringing my belief into the lab' might actually be done?

It seems to me that, for differing reasons, we're all saying it can't be done (or at least no-one is saying how it can be done which, in practice, amounts to the same thing).

I sense we might be at the end of this particular line of conversation, so I shall leave it there unless anyone does chip in with ideas of specific experiments.

The burden of proof lies with the person making that assertion. If your god exists then prove it. Whether you do it in the lab or not is your choice. Don't expect other people to devise tests for something that is your invention.

Anything yet, Mikey?

[Michael]

Well, I have given you something to work with Diablo. But no-one so far can say how it might be tested in a lab.

But I'm happy to give you another, to see where we might go with it. It was actually key in my conversion. It is the sense of the numinous that I, and others, have. If I see a tree parsimony, and plain common sense, suggests that I believe a tree exists until there is good reason to believe otherwise. Likewise I trust the sense of the numen until I have good reason to believe otherwise. I accept I can't be sure; I take some risk, but it seems a reasonable risk (especially considering how it would appear to have led to good positive decisions and changes in my life).

So the challenge is 'how would I test in the lab whether the sense of the numinous reflects a numen, or whether it is delusional?'.

So there's a second bite of the cherry for you. I'm happy to respond to any specific ideas on experiments. To recap, Brian's suggestion to me was to take my faith in to the lab, so the question is how do we do that?

Happy lab planning :-)

---

At first sight we might observe:
1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause
2) The universe has a beginning

ergo

The universe has a cause.

This is a valid syllogism, except for the evidence for the two premises. Or do you have such evidence?

Sure,

Number 1 is our universal experience (even quantum effects require a quantum vacuum with fluctuating energy, and Pauli's exclusion principle shows us how even quantum events are interconnected in mysterious ways). The simple basic fact is that I don't see large amounts of matter spontaneously appear in my kitchen or lounge, though admittedly I did wake up once with a parking cone mysteriously on my head. Ex nihilo appearance of universes, or even stars or planets, or just rocks or stones, is not something we see in our everyday lives, so premise premise 1 has face validity (parking cones excepted). Number 2 is evidenced by an expanding universe (so projecting back, the usual view is that the universe, including time itself, is about 15 billion years old). A physical evidence of this is the increasing red shift of more distant stars.

So these are not unreasonable premises for a prima facie case. They appear, at face value at least, to be supported by our view of science and give us sufficient interest to want to go further. I see syllogisms like this not as proof, but as showing faith in a creator (or, using this syllogism alone, a creative cause) is not unreasonable. So one attribute we assign to 'God' is the creative cause of the universe. So again the question comes back to how do we, in the lab, test between these and any other alternative plausible hypotheses (such as an infinite regress of universes)?

[Minimalist]

Please state the evidence so that we may examine it for testable criteria

Sure, the prima facie evidence (not proof) of a creator is that there is something rather than nothing.

We do not your silly god for that.

[The Grand Nudger]

So these are not unreasonable premises for a prima facie case.

Sure, for a cause. Creator doesn't follow.

They appear, at face value at least, to be supported by our view of science and give us sufficient interest to want to go further. I see syllogisms like this not as proof, but as showing faith in a creator (or, using this syllogism alone, a creative cause) is not unreasonable.

Except for the massive leap you took. Your syllogism would make acceptance of a cause "not unreasonable", sure. I suspect that we're going to go off the deep end when we try to make this syllogism stretch.

So one attribute we assign to 'God' is the creative cause of the universe. So again the question comes back to how do we, in the lab, test between these and any other alternative plausible hypotheses (such as an infinite regress of universes)?

-Or waffles being the cause- your syllogism allows for that equally as well as the god you want to plug in. You set the bar too high to start, it's not god or infinite regress. We haven't left god or breakfast food territory yet.

[naimless]

To be blatantly honest the people that were the best at science in my school were also religious.

Many prominent scientists and scientific education systems have dogmas, and adhering to these set in stone principles progresses one up the ladder.

[Dawsonite]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the syllogism could be re-stated as follows:

1) It is reasonable to posit that everything that has a beginning has a cause, but there is no hard evidence of this;
2) The universe may have had beginning, but this is only one of several possibilities and depends on the definition of the word "beginning";
ergo
It is within the realm of possibility that the universe has a cause.

Is this accurate?

[Ben Davis]

I sense we might be at the end of this particular line of conversation, so I shall leave it there unless anyone does chip in with ideas of specific experiments.

...erm, my post, Michael?

Sure, the prima facie evidence (not proof) of a creator is that there is something rather than nothing.

That's a shoddy first-pass analysis. If this is representative of your standard of evidence, you're not even going to get your supposition off the ground. 2 main points here:

1. You've shifted the goalposts from 'god' to 'creator' (remember, your statement is 'God exists'). Further, because yours is a specific Catholic god, your evidence would need to account for discrete, defined attributes of that god.

2. That's not evidence for a creator, just for existence. For it to be evidence of a creator, you would need to demonstrate 2 things:
i. that application of design (a.k.a. creation) is necessary for existence
ii. that design was applied

1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause
2) The universe has a beginning
ergo
The universe has a cause.

So the cosmological argument is your next piece of 'evidence'? That's not evidence, it's not even a coherent argument.

Remember all that Ben wanted was some evidence to support a hypothesis. That has duly been supplied

None of your 'evidence' supports any hypothesis let alone yours. Please, try again.

We can't help you with suggestions for experiments until you address these points.