Proof A=A

[Tiberius]

It's not a matter of not being able to see a way in which it can be possible, it's a matter of God being non-empirical and thereby by definition not testable by science...

[tavarish]

It's not a matter of not being able to see a way in which it can be possible, it's a matter of God being non-empirical and thereby by definition not testable by science...

It is non-empirical currently, but just as DNA is now observable, how can we say we will never find an avenue in which to find empirical evidence to suggest the existence or non-existence of a God?

Saying that it is an unanswerable question and basing it on means that we haven't thought of yet isn't a valid argument. Yes, I completely understand that by today's standards, the question has no answer scientifically, but it would be foolish to say we will never get a definitive answer. I simply withhold judgment. Those making the claim that we will never find a scientific answer need to provide evidence for the claim, and how they contend that the evidence is true.

[Tiberius]

Those making the claim that we will never find a scientific answer need to provide evidence for the claim, and how they contend that the evidence is true.

We have done such...you've just ignored it.

My evidence is this:

1) Science is a method for collecting knowledge about the observable, testable world.
2) Anything that is not observable or testable is therefore not knowable through science.
3) God is neither observable or testable (due to his transcendence / residence outside the empirical realm).
4) Therefore God is not knowable through science.

You might argue that point 3 is invalid, since these attributes have never been observed for such a being, but this is of no importance, given that logically, such a being could exist, and there will be people who claim so. Thus, you might be able to change your definition of God to suit a material one (and as such knowable through science) but you won't be able to know the God defined in my argument.

I should point out that the argument "science may one day prove / disprove God" is the same sort of argument as "one day we might find a 5 sided square". It is a logical contradiction. You can no more find a 5 sided square than you can prove / disprove God through science. God's inability to be proven / disproven through science is an inherent property of God, just as "having 4 sides" is an inherent property of squares.

[tavarish]

[/quote]

We have done such...you've just ignored it.

i beg to differ.

My evidence is this:

1) Science is a method for collecting knowledge about the observable, testable world.

How would you define observable and testable world? Would it be safe to say that as mankind progresses, we attain better ways of understanding the world around us? Do we not have ways of interpreting data now, that 200 years ago would have been deemed unobservable and untestable?

2) Anything that is not observable or testable is therefore not knowable through science.

At the current point in time and scientific development. You cannot make this assumption for any future developments.

3) God is neither observable or testable (due to his transcendence / residence outside the empirical realm).

Again, at the current point in time. This does not account for any future discoveries into realms we have yet to define and understand objectively.

The study of psychology, dream interpretation, and developmental stages and tendencies were once deemed outside the realm of observability, but appropriate venues for repeatability and observation were established.

Why would you scientifically discount something solely on the fact that we can't see it now and can't think of a way to do so? I'm pretty sure at one point in time the concept of flight for humans was deemed impossible, but within the last century, we have developed aeronautics and changed society drastically.

4) Therefore God is not knowable through science.

At the current point in time and scientific development.

You might argue that point 3 is invalid, since these attributes have never been observed for such a being, but this is of no importance, given that logically, such a being could exist, and there will be people who claim so. Thus, you might be able to change your definition of God to suit a material one (and as such knowable through science) but you won't be able to know the God defined in my argument.

It's not invalid. My argument is that I don't know if the existence of God (an objective definition of God, btw) can be proven or disproven using scientific means in the future. It's an unknown unknown. It would be dishonest of me to say "We can never figure out something just because it's outside the realm of scientific discovery at this point in time."

I should point out that the argument "science may one day prove / disprove God" is the same sort of argument as "one day we might find a 5 sided square". It is a logical contradiction. You can no more find a 5 sided square than you can prove / disprove God through science. God's inability to be proven / disproven through science is an inherent property of God, just as "having 4 sides" is an inherent property of squares.

The same comparisons can be said about those who looked at the night sky and had no idea that one day, we would be able to travel to those distant planets. At this point in time, it isn't possible to prove God. I completely agree with that. My entire argument was that it would be foolish to assert that we would NEVER find empirical, objective evidence to prove a God exists or doesn't. It is based on our current knowledge, and an argument from ignorance.

[LukeMC]

3) God is neither observable or testable (due to his transcendence / residence outside the empirical realm).

Again, at the current point in time. This does not account for any future discoveries into realms we have yet to define and understand objectively.

The study of psychology, dream interpretation, and developmental stages and tendencies were once deemed outside the realm of observability, but appropriate venues for repeatability and observation were established.

Why would you scientifically discount something solely on the fact that we can't see it now and can't think of a way to do so? I'm pretty sure at one point in time the concept of flight for humans was deemed impossible, but within the last century, we have developed aeronautics and changed society drastically.

It would mean changing the definition of God, I understand, as God is defined as being outside of anything testable, and is superior to all. It's not a simple case of ever-expanding goal posts that will eventually encompass God, but a God that forever sits just outside the goalposts' reach at all times by defintion. It's safer for God that way as it means faith is always required no matter what.

[tavarish]

3) God is neither observable or testable (due to his transcendence / residence outside the empirical realm).

Again, at the current point in time. This does not account for any future discoveries into realms we have yet to define and understand objectively.

The study of psychology, dream interpretation, and developmental stages and tendencies were once deemed outside the realm of observability, but appropriate venues for repeatability and observation were established.

Why would you scientifically discount something solely on the fact that we can't see it now and can't think of a way to do so? I'm pretty sure at one point in time the concept of flight for humans was deemed impossible, but within the last century, we have developed aeronautics and changed society drastically.

It would mean changing the definition of God, I understand, as God is defined as being outside of anything testable, and is superior to all. It's not a simple case of ever-expanding goal posts that will eventually encompass God, but a God that forever sits just outside the goalposts' reach at all times by defintion. It's safer for God that way as it means faith is always required no matter what.

Though I do understand and agree with your point, to make the definition of God "being outside of anything testable", even methods we haven't devised yet, is utterly dishonest and at best a ploy to dodge internal inconsistencies and discount any empirical evidence that points to the contrary. The sheer fact that people who claim that God is outside testable claims, usually then go on to name his attributes and maintain that he can manifest in the physical world (and that he has done so in the past), means that he is testable (at least subjectively) and has a certain amount of verifiability, if only through means of faith. They assign attributes to this God, give him a nature, speak at length about what his intentions are, but then say he is untestable.

That is simply stupid and a pretty blatant cop-out. I'm talking mostly about the theists who do this very thing.

Also, how do you accept that this definition of God is correct?

[Tiberius]

How would you define observable and testable world? Would it be safe to say that as mankind progresses, we attain better ways of understanding the world around us? Do we not have ways of interpreting data now, that 200 years ago would have been deemed unobservable and untestable?

How would I define the observable and testable world? I would have thought that was obvious. Everything that can be observed and tested is in the observable testable world. It's a simple definition. Do we attain better ways of understanding? Yes, of course, and I'm not disputing that. Whether something was "deemed" unobservable is not the problem here, it's when something is "defined" as unobservable. You can't observe things that are defined in such a way to make them unobservable...by definition.

At the current point in time and scientific development. You cannot make this assumption for any future developments.

Errr...yes you can, unless you dispute my first point about science being a method of collecting knowledge about the observable, testable world. Do you?

Again, at the current point in time. This does not account for any future discoveries into realms we have yet to define and understand objectively.

The non-empirical realm is by definition, non-empirical. If something is non-empirical, science has nothing to do with it. Science is the study of the empirical. How are you not getting this?

The study of psychology, dream interpretation, and developmental stages and tendencies were once deemed outside the realm of observability, but appropriate venues for repeatability and observation were established.

Deemed, but not defined as such. If something is defined as unobservable, you cannot observe it. If you could observe it, you can be certain that what you are observing isn't what you thought it was, since if something is defined as unobservable it cannot be observed. This doesn't mean the unobservable suddenly becomes observed, but a new definition is needed in order to account for the new data. The old definition doesn't cease to exist though.

Why would you scientifically discount something solely on the fact that we can't see it now and can't think of a way to do so? I'm pretty sure at one point in time the concept of flight for humans was deemed impossible, but within the last century, we have developed aeronautics and changed society drastically.

I'm not discounting it on the fact that we can't see it now, or that I can't think of a way to do so. I never said that, and it's the original strawman you used against fr0d0. I'm scientifically discounting something that isn't scientific. It's the same reason we don't consider global floods "scientific", the same reason we don't consider psychics "scientific". God isn't going to be proved or disproved by science because science doesn't deal with the unobservable, of which God (or at least the God I am dealing with here) is defined as.

At the current point in time and scientific development.

No...by definition.

It's not invalid. My argument is that I don't know if the existence of God (an objective definition of God, btw) can be proven or disproven using scientific means in the future. It's an unknown unknown. It would be dishonest of me to say "We can never figure out something just because it's outside the realm of scientific discovery at this point in time."

I never said "at this point in time"...that's your strawman. I'm saying it's completely against the entire idea of science. You cannot observe unobservable things. You might contend that if science changes to allow the study of the unobservable (I have no idea how, but I'll humour you hypothetically) then we could prove / disprove God. However I would counter that this (a) wouldn't be science, and (b) would ultimately lead to anything being proved / disproved (as I could easily cite the existence of the FSM or the IPU) and claim they are scientifically valid.

The same comparisons can be said about those who looked at the night sky and had no idea that one day, we would be able to travel to those distant planets. At this point in time, it isn't possible to prove God. I completely agree with that. My entire argument was that it would be foolish to assert that we would NEVER find empirical, objective evidence to prove a God exists or doesn't. It is based on our current knowledge, and an argument from ignorance.

It's not a question of having "no idea", it's a question of it being a logical fallacy. It isn't a logical fallacy to travel to distant planets, it is to find a 5 sided square or observe and unobservable God. Again, you strawman my argument. I have never said this argument is based on our currently knowledge, but on the logical contradiction that is finding scientific evidence for a non-scientific entity.

[tavarish]

How would you define observable and testable world? Would it be safe to say that as mankind progresses, we attain better ways of understanding the world around us? Do we not have ways of interpreting data now, that 200 years ago would have been deemed unobservable and untestable?

How would I define the observable and testable world? I would have thought that was obvious. Everything that can be observed and tested is in the observable testable world. It's a simple definition. Do we attain better ways of understanding? Yes, of course, and I'm not disputing that. Whether something was "deemed" unobservable is not the problem here, it's when something is "defined" as unobservable. You can't observe things that are defined in such a way to make them unobservable...by definition.

At the current point in time and scientific development. You cannot make this assumption for any future developments.

Errr...yes you can, unless you dispute my first point about science being a method of collecting knowledge about the observable, testable world. Do you?

Again, at the current point in time. This does not account for any future discoveries into realms we have yet to define and understand objectively.

The non-empirical realm is by definition, non-empirical. If something is non-empirical, science has nothing to do with it. Science is the study of the empirical. How are you not getting this?

The study of psychology, dream interpretation, and developmental stages and tendencies were once deemed outside the realm of observability, but appropriate venues for repeatability and observation were established.

Deemed, but not defined as such. If something is defined as unobservable, you cannot observe it. If you could observe it, you can be certain that what you are observing isn't what you thought it was, since if something is defined as unobservable it cannot be observed. This doesn't mean the unobservable suddenly becomes observed, but a new definition is needed in order to account for the new data. The old definition doesn't cease to exist though.

Why would you scientifically discount something solely on the fact that we can't see it now and can't think of a way to do so? I'm pretty sure at one point in time the concept of flight for humans was deemed impossible, but within the last century, we have developed aeronautics and changed society drastically.

I'm not discounting it on the fact that we can't see it now, or that I can't think of a way to do so. I never said that, and it's the original strawman you used against fr0d0. I'm scientifically discounting something that isn't scientific. It's the same reason we don't consider global floods "scientific", the same reason we don't consider psychics "scientific". God isn't going to be proved or disproved by science because science doesn't deal with the unobservable, of which God (or at least the God I am dealing with here) is defined as.

At the current point in time and scientific development.

No...by definition.

It's not invalid. My argument is that I don't know if the existence of God (an objective definition of God, btw) can be proven or disproven using scientific means in the future. It's an unknown unknown. It would be dishonest of me to say "We can never figure out something just because it's outside the realm of scientific discovery at this point in time."

I never said "at this point in time"...that's your strawman. I'm saying it's completely against the entire idea of science. You cannot observe unobservable things. You might contend that if science changes to allow the study of the unobservable (I have no idea how, but I'll humour you hypothetically) then we could prove / disprove God. However I would counter that this (a) wouldn't be science, and (b) would ultimately lead to anything being proved / disproved (as I could easily cite the existence of the FSM or the IPU) and claim they are scientifically valid.

The same comparisons can be said about those who looked at the night sky and had no idea that one day, we would be able to travel to those distant planets. At this point in time, it isn't possible to prove God. I completely agree with that. My entire argument was that it would be foolish to assert that we would NEVER find empirical, objective evidence to prove a God exists or doesn't. It is based on our current knowledge, and an argument from ignorance.

It's not a question of having "no idea", it's a question of it being a logical fallacy. It isn't a logical fallacy to travel to distant planets, it is to find a 5 sided square or observe and unobservable God. Again, you strawman my argument. I have never said this argument is based on our currently knowledge, but on the logical contradiction that is finding scientific evidence for a non-scientific entity.

I do agree that I'm guilty of straw manning a bit. I also completely understand that your definition of God is at its essence, something that is not observable. However, how do you know that this definition is the correct assessment?

God is defined differently by many societies, regions, and religions. Not one of the dictionary definitions I looked up had any mention of being unobservable and untestable by nature.

I illustrated in a past post that such a claim is a gigantic cop-out and at best an avenue to dodge questions by those who utilize rational thought and skepticism.

I'm pretty sure fr0d0's definition of God isn't the same as all other Christians, and those differ from other faiths in the world. How would you definitively state that a concept, embraced by many with varying definitions, can never be scientifically proven or disproven? Again, I'm not talking about solely the definition of " unobservable by nature", I'm encompassing the entirety of the "God" archetype in humanity.

What the discrepancy is, is that there is no objective definition of God that applies in all situations. If you defined God as "creator of the universe", those attributes would differ greatly from "transcendent force that intervenes in the lives of men, and that differs from the claim that he is "loving, moral, and jealous". Those are three claims within one religion alone that are not necessarily tied to one another, which need different criteria for observation.

I'm sure I'm rambling a bit, and I understand I shifted the point a bit, but I wanted to make the point more clear.

Here is my argument in a nutshell:

1. How do you define God?
2. How do you know that definition is true?
3. Can God have an objective definition?
4. Can God ever be observable and testable through scientific means?
5. How do you know the answer to #4 is true?

[LukeMC]

Though I do understand and agree with your point, to make the definition of God "being outside of anything testable", even methods we haven't devised yet, is utterly dishonest and at best a ploy to dodge internal inconsistencies and discount any empirical evidence that points to the contrary. The sheer fact that people who claim that God is outside testable claims, usually then go on to name his attributes and maintain that he can manifest in the physical world (and that he has done so in the past), means that he is testable (at least subjectively) and has a certain amount of verifiability, if only through means of faith. They assign attributes to this God, give him a nature, speak at length about what his intentions are, but then say he is untestable.

That is simply stupid and a pretty blatant cop-out. I'm talking mostly about the theists who do this very thing.

You're absolutely right and I absolutely agree. This is why I don't see an untestable God as being plausible in any sense, and don't believe such a God could ever have any influence on anything in the known universe past the point of creation. Alas, the non-testable God tends to be the one that people go by. A cop-out indeed.

Also, how do you accept that this definition of God is correct?

I don't particularly accept any definiton of God as being more correct than any other. To me, none of them make sense. I believe the "God is untestable" version to be mainstream enough for it to be my default, regardless of the sense it makes (or doesn't in this case). If somebody wants to offer up a different definition though, I'll play ball on their field instead. The reason I made the comment on your post to Adrian was just to say that as I understand it, theists will always say that God is outside of the testable realm and as such define God as untestable, no matter the advancements in science. Because of this, your idea that God will one day be testable falls flat by the very (albeit ridiculous) definition of God. This doesn't even address the limitations of science which you and Adrian are currently debating.

[Tiberius]

I do agree that I'm guilty of straw manning a bit. I also completely understand that your definition of God is at its essence, something that is not observable. However, how do you know that this definition is the correct assessment?

God is defined differently by many societies, regions, and religions. Not one of the dictionary definitions I looked up had any mention of being unobservable and untestable by nature.

It doesn't matter if my definition is correct, I already addressed that. My contention was that using my definition, you cannot use science to determine the existence of that God. If you have a God that is observable and testable, then evidently there may be ways of determining whether it exists through science, but it still wouldn't say anything about the other definition.

So yes, to put it this way, if we had two definitions of God:

1) A being that created the universe and resides in the non-temporal realm.
2) A being that created the universe.

The 1st definition is a more strict definition of a God, and this definition defies scientific evaluation. The 2nd definition however is open to interpretation, and science could be used to evaluate it as an existence claim. If the 2nd claim is found to be true or false by science, it still says nothing about the 1st claim unless something in the 2nd claim contradicted the 1st. Nothing does in my example (they both have a claim to have created the universe, but nothing prohibits them from doing that together, etc).