I think we can make the positive claim that nothing like 'gods' exist

[AdamWho]

any new discoveries are largely limited to refinements of existing understanding or, in the case of new discoveries that upend science as we know it, that they could not result in opening up a gateway for certain classes of gods to exist

It's in the nature of the scientific method that it shuts down, rather than opening up, possibilities.

This is counterintuitive for people who look at the advancement of technology, that builds on 'new scientific findings', but it is nevertheless true at a fundamental level.

Before science, anything is possible. Science works by ruling out as impossible, those things that can be shown to be impossible. That's what falsifying an hypothesis is.

As a result, new and revolutionary theories that 'upend science as we know it' must incorporate the established old science. When Einstein overturned Newton's gravitational theories, rocks didn't start falling upwards; Rather, the results reported by Newton remained as the core of Einstein's results - Einstein's equations include Newton's equations as highly accurate solutions in a very wide range of conditions, and then explain far better those edge cases where Newton's equations gave results that diverged measurably from observation.

Any radical new physics (such as a grand theory unifying Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) would, in order not to be instantly self refuting, have to incorporate the results given by those existing theories in the realms where these are well tested against observation.

The Standard Model rules out unknown interactions at human scales; And any new physics would necessarily incorporate the Standard Model, at least at those scales at which it has been rigorously tested.

New theories that contradict the Standard Model under the conditions for which we have experimental confirmation are already proven to be wrong.

It's clear, given the severe problems with unifying QM and Relativity, that there exists physics we do not yet understand at all. But it's equally clear that any discovery of that currently unknown physics will not result in rocks that fall upwards, nor in currently unknown fundamental forces that are important at human scales.

There cannot be a new theory that renders such things possible, unless our existing theories are wildly and obviously wrong. They're not. We checked.

This is such a difficult thing for people to understand. It is because they confuse 'technology' and 'science'. Technology opens up possibilities whereas scientific discoveries rule-out possibilities.

My statistic students frame it as "why do we 'fail to reject the null hypothesis rather than accept it?"

 

[connick]

any new discoveries are largely limited to refinements of existing understanding or, in the case of new discoveries that upend science as we know it, that they could not result in opening up a gateway for certain classes of gods to exist

It's in the nature of the scientific method that it shuts down, rather than opening up, possibilities.

This is counterintuitive for people who look at the advancement of technology, that builds on 'new scientific findings', but it is nevertheless true at a fundamental level.

Before science, anything is possible. Science works by ruling out as impossible, those things that can be shown to be impossible. That's what falsifying an hypothesis is.

As a result, new and revolutionary theories that 'upend science as we know it' must incorporate the established old science. When Einstein overturned Newton's gravitational theories, rocks didn't start falling upwards; Rather, the results reported by Newton remained as the core of Einstein's results - Einstein's equations include Newton's equations as highly accurate solutions in a very wide range of conditions, and then explain far better those edge cases where Newton's equations gave results that diverged measurably from observation.

Any radical new physics (such as a grand theory unifying Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) would, in order not to be instantly self refuting, have to incorporate the results given by those existing theories in the realms where these are well tested against observation.

The Standard Model rules out unknown interactions at human scales; And any new physics would necessarily incorporate the Standard Model, at least at those scales at which it has been rigorously tested.

New theories that contradict the Standard Model under the conditions for which we have experimental confirmation are already proven to be wrong.

It's clear, given the severe problems with unifying QM and Relativity, that there exists physics we do not yet understand at all. But it's equally clear that any discovery of that currently unknown physics will not result in rocks that fall upwards, nor in currently unknown fundamental forces that are important at human scales.

There cannot be a new theory that renders such things possible, unless our existing theories are wildly and obviously wrong. They're not. We checked.

Thank you for further clarifying my position as well as, I think, Adam's.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's in the nature of the scientific method that it shuts down, rather than opening up, possibilities.

This is counterintuitive for people who look at the advancement of technology, that builds on 'new scientific findings', but it is nevertheless true at a fundamental level.

Is there any scientist who wouldn’t revel in proving most other scientists “wrong” about something? It really is the motivational foundation for advancements, especially in cosmology and physics.

Absolutely. But I don't see that this has anything to do with what I wrote.

The motivation of scientists is irrelevant. You can only prove something wrong if it's wrong.

Without access to the scientific method, there's nothing to constrain ideas - anything we can imagine is possible. Science is the process of reducing the number of possible things, by showing individual hypotheses to be impossible.

Science is the process of reducing the number of things we are able to justify imagining that we might be able to do.

When science doesn't show something impossible (in fact when it shows it eminently possible) but merely "unnecessary to believe", that must be what the scientific mind ought accept.

That is not a "positive claim".

Science is, in most cases I have participated in, about figuring out other things that may be believed of the data and figuring out a test for which is more correct, and isolating the causal elements. Often this gives us MORE stuff we might imagine ourselves capable of doing, albeit in a different way than we first imagined it.

The scientific method only really tells us how things of our world work, and while the existence we have is unarguably real insofar as we exist in and of it...

It's just not necessarily all there is.

It is folly and silliness to attempt to assign more power to any thing than it has, be that thing science or metaphysics or what have you.

Religious folks make the mistake of assigning more value to "or more". People who make the titular declaration are assigning more value to "zero".

Neither is an honest position and there are whole retreats the religious go to where they actually focus on bringing that up. It is the one thing that all their arguments orbit around: that there is an uncertainty.

In this way, there is a Hypocrisy active among all those who would tell the religious "exactly zero" or "nothing 'like'".

I very much exist. I'm very much like the 'christian' god with respect to the universe I host. In fact this demonstrates that you don't have to 'created all determinism' to 'create a single determinism'

It leaves open questions like infinite regress. Still, we have observed containerization of isolated deterministic systems.

Science does not, cannot rule out THAT possibility. Science and technology in fact revealed it as a valid possibility of metaphysics. It also, in the same swipe revealed it as inconsequential to ethics, in PROVING that such "creator gods" are liable to be assholes and fuckups.

And it proves in a very real way that creating A universe does not mean you created EVERY universe.

 

[AdamWho]

When science doesn't show something impossible (in fact when it shows it eminently possible) but merely "unnecessary to believe", that must be what the scientific mind ought accept.

That is not a "positive claim".

Science is, in most cases I have participated in, about figuring out other things that may be believed of the data and figuring out a test for which is more correct, and isolating the causal elements. Often this gives us MORE stuff we might imagine ourselves capable of doing, albeit in a different way than we first imagined it.

The scientific method only really tells us how things of our world work, and while the existence we have is unarguably real insofar as we exist in and of it...

It's just not necessarily all there is.

It is folly and silliness to attempt to assign more power to any thing than it has, be that thing science or metaphysics or what have you.

Religious folks make the mistake of assigning more value to "or more". People who make the titular declaration are assigning more value to "zero".

Neither is an honest position and there are whole retreats the religious go to where they actually focus on bringing that up. It is the one thing that all their arguments orbit around: that there is an uncertainty.

In this way, there is a Hypocrisy active among all those who would tell the religious "exactly zero" or "nothing 'like'".

I very much exist. I'm very much like the 'christian' god with respect to the universe I host. In fact this demonstrates that you don't have to 'created all determinism' to 'create a single determinism'

It leaves open questions like infinite regress. Still, we have observed containerization of isolated deterministic systems.

Science does not, cannot rule out THAT possibility. Science and technology in fact revealed it as a valid possibility of metaphysics. It also, in the same swipe revealed it as inconsequential to ethics, in PROVING that such "creator gods" are liable to be assholes and fuckups.

And it proves in a very real way that creating A universe does not mean you created EVERY universe.

I see, you have layers of speculation....

If god X is ruled-out of existing in our universe... then there are infinitely many speculative universes for such a god to exist (hide?). I would bet you will also claim these universes have different rules of logic so that contradictory gods (like Bible god) can exist.

Between claiming "infinite speculative universes" on one hand and solipsism on the other you can pretend to know something....

Once again, your imagination doesn't conjure actual gods into existence.

 

[Jarhyn]

When science doesn't show something impossible (in fact when it shows it eminently possible) but merely "unnecessary to believe", that must be what the scientific mind ought accept.

That is not a "positive claim".

Science is, in most cases I have participated in, about figuring out other things that may be believed of the data and figuring out a test for which is more correct, and isolating the causal elements. Often this gives us MORE stuff we might imagine ourselves capable of doing, albeit in a different way than we first imagined it.

The scientific method only really tells us how things of our world work, and while the existence we have is unarguably real insofar as we exist in and of it...

It's just not necessarily all there is.

It is folly and silliness to attempt to assign more power to any thing than it has, be that thing science or metaphysics or what have you.

Religious folks make the mistake of assigning more value to "or more". People who make the titular declaration are assigning more value to "zero".

Neither is an honest position and there are whole retreats the religious go to where they actually focus on bringing that up. It is the one thing that all their arguments orbit around: that there is an uncertainty.

In this way, there is a Hypocrisy active among all those who would tell the religious "exactly zero" or "nothing 'like'".

I very much exist. I'm very much like the 'christian' god with respect to the universe I host. In fact this demonstrates that you don't have to 'created all determinism' to 'create a single determinism'

It leaves open questions like infinite regress. Still, we have observed containerization of isolated deterministic systems.

Science does not, cannot rule out THAT possibility. Science and technology in fact revealed it as a valid possibility of metaphysics. It also, in the same swipe revealed it as inconsequential to ethics, in PROVING that such "creator gods" are liable to be assholes and fuckups.

And it proves in a very real way that creating A universe does not mean you created EVERY universe.

I see, you have layers of speculation....

If god X is ruled-out of existing in our universe... then there are infinitely many speculative universes for such a god to exist (hide?). I would bet you will also claim these universes have different rules of logic so that contradictory gods (like Bible god) can exist.

Between claiming "infinite speculative universes" on one hand and solipsism on the other you can pretend to know something....

I think you're projecting a lot of your own insecurities.

You seem to read very little of what I post as I've covered all this and you seem to want me to be something I'm not just for the sake of wanting to argue.

You're going to be disappointed there.

No, I don't pose infinitely many universes or anything beyond this one or even that this universe needs a god.

These are all imaginings of your own, straw men that you like to attack.

I hold up this universe, I hold it up in a way that I say "we don't and cannot know what or if any thing is 'host' to it". I look at existing hostings of universe and I make some reasonable observations (that you can't actually use 'hostedness' to draw the conclusions that religious people wish to make), and then I stop.

There is no universe under any definition we ha e of "possibility" for a "real contradiction" to exist.

There is no way any universe like ours would potentially look like this one does while having "biblegod" as responsible for making it. Such strains credulity far beyond any reasonable breaking point.

It's interesting you bring solipsism into this though when none lives in my post. Nowhere have I said I created the universe, that the universe needs a creator, nor that the only thing that matters is self. In fact I espouse quite the opposite so it makes me wonder whether the solipsism you see comes instead from your mirror.

You're forgetting that I'm a materialist, and while I hold "zero or more", there's still that big "zero" in there that you keep conveniently forgetting about.

 

[Elixir]

I see, you have layers of speculation....

If god X is ruled-out of existing in our universe... then there are infinitely many speculative universes for such a god to exist (hide?). I would bet you will also claim these universes have different rules of logic so that contradictory gods (like Bible god) can exist.

Lol!
Sure. Unlimited layers of speculation, reflecting unlimited layers of human experience … why not?
Is this thread now a contest for strongest atheism?
Jarhyn declares himself a “wizard” right there in the avatar box. You only lay claim to strong atheism. Which paradigm most effectively obviates any possible gods?
Only God knows.
I only know the futility of trying to disprove the existence of the presumably infinite set of “things that don’t exist”.

Forgive me - it’s the drugs…
I think it’s most propitious to simply disprove what can be disproven in the course of normal living and exercise of curiosity, allowing whatever remains to have free exercise.

 

[AdamWho]

I see, you have layers of speculation....

If god X is ruled-out of existing in our universe... then there are infinitely many speculative universes for such a god to exist (hide?). I would bet you will also claim these universes have different rules of logic so that contradictory gods (like Bible god) can exist.

Lol!
Sure. Unlimited layers of speculation, reflecting unlimited layers of human experience … why not?
Is this thread now a contest for strongest atheism?
Jarhyn declares himself a “wizard” right there in the avatar box. You only lay claim to strong atheism. Which paradigm most effectively obviates any possible gods?
Only God knows.
I only know the futility of trying to disprove the existence of the presumably infinite set of “things that don’t exist”.

Forgive me - it’s the drugs…
I think it’s most propitious to simply disprove what can be disproven in the course of normal living and exercise of curiosity, allowing whatever remains to have free exercise.

You seem to want to restrict what can be known by science, thereby allowing... gods? Magic?

This is great for writing fiction but we are in a forum specifically about tackling the issue of the existence of gods.

 

[Elixir]

You seem to want to restrict what can be known by science,

It is a common misperception that science works by proving things correct, when in fact it works by falsification. That which cannot be falsified can be provisionally accepted, but is never “proven true”. That’s why it is said that proof is for math and alcohol.
Strictly speaking, nothing is “known by science” as science is a methodology, not a body of data or an entity. The efficacy of that methodology speaks for itself. It may not be The Truth but it’s a closer approximation than anything else within our grasp.
I don’t see that as placing any restrictions on human experience.

 

[skepticalbip]

You seem to want to restrict what can be known by science,

It is a common misperception that science works by proving things correct, when in fact it works by falsification. That which cannot be falsified can be provisionally accepted, but is never “proven true”. That’s why it is said that proof is for math and alcohol.
Strictly speaking, nothing is “known by science” as science is a methodology, not a body of data or an entity. The efficacy of that methodology speaks for itself. It may not be The Truth but it’s a closer approximation than anything else within our grasp.
I don’t see that as placing any restrictions on human experience.

That is true. It is the reason that science can show that many of the attributes of many of gods accepted by many can not exist... no 'poofing' humans into existence 6,000 years ago, no worldwide flood, etc., etc. It is also likely the reason that many who want to believe in gods refuse to describe their god in any detail. As long as they keep their "god" nebulous and undefined it can't be falsified. However a nebulous and undefined god is rather meaningless just as a glumpher would be. Both are only sounds with no real meaning. No one can show that glumphers can't exist because I haven't described what I imagine a glumpher to be.

 

[steve_bank]

It is pretty interesting why many place gods and ghosts in a different category when it comes to evidence.

They are treated like Platonic Ideas rather than actual, testable claims about how the universe works.

Seriously, we can make strong testable claims about objects on the other side of the universe but when it comes to
made-up magical beings we have to get all philosophical about how we cannot really know anything...

As an engineer I worked with electromganetic fields. I made medurements of variable in terms od Systems International units like volatge and current. Electrstaic field models work in that they predct results based in SI units. Yet what an 'electric field is' is am unanswerable question . A field is a model based in arbitrary definitions based on the meter, kilogram, and second.

You could say scince is metaphysics tied to unambiguous physical definitions not subject to interpretation. All measurements in physical science are referenced to an SI unit. If something can not be expressed in SI units then it is philosophy and religion.

We can scientifically speculate what is going on in another galaxy because it is based on testable science. For scince to adress claims of gohsts a ghost would have to agree to sit still in a lab. If it could not be meadured the science can not adress it.

It is interesting that some atheists become as obsessed disprovinggods as theists do proving existence of gods.

Theist: I know god exists and I can prove it.
Atheist: I know god does not exist and I can prove it.

 

[Elixir]

It is interesting that some atheists become as obsessed disprovinggods as theists do proving existence of gods.

Indeed. “Strong atheism” is overkill imho.

 

[Elixir]

This is great for writing fiction but we are in a forum specifically about tackling the issue of the existence of gods fiction.

FIFY

 

[Jarhyn]

I think the biggest value, the biggest bang for your buck against calls to worship any thing, and especially "creators of the universe", be that an assumption that this reality is somehow "hosted" or claims that "existence" go through a fundamental "god/creation epoch" is to recognize that we have proven, even without the necessity of showing that such an entity exists, without such an entity having to exist at all, to mathematical certainty through direct observation, that it is possible for such things as create universes, to be complete pieces of shit.

At that point, nobody trying to sell me a "god" has a chance.

At that point, leave your god nebulous and undefined, I have a fact that you cannot deny: your nebulous and undefined "creator god" can still be a complete piece of shit.

 

[Elixir]

your nebulous and undefined "god" can still be a complete piece of shit.

IS a complete piece of shit.
Mark Twain had it right- god created man in his own image and man has been returning the favor ever since.

 

[atrib]

I can't do that if I stamp my feet and say "we can say this empirically: exactly zero", I would be acting like an ass and a fool.

We can say that there is zero evidence that gods intervene in human lives, which makes it highly improbable that such gods exist. As to hypothetical gods that don't intervene in human lives, such gods are indistinguishable from gods that don't exist, and I spend no energy speculating about their existence and potential characteristics. Therefore, being the pragmatist that I am, I can say with a great deal of confidence that gods don't exist, at least the gods that matter, the gods that could fuck with my life.

I also spend no time worrying about the undetectable gremlins that live in my attic, nor do I ride around the internet trumpeting to one and all that I am agnostic when it comes to the existence of undetectable gremlins living in my attic. If that is the intellectual accomplishment you want to be known for, so be it, but such behavior makes you appear to be acting like an ass and a fool.

 

[Jarhyn]

I can't do that if I stamp my feet and say "we can say this empirically: exactly zero", I would be acting like an ass and a fool.

We can say that there is zero evidence that gods intervene in human lives, which makes it highly improbable that such gods exist. As to hypothetical gods that don't intervene in human lives, such gods are indistinguishable from gods that don't exist, and I spend no energy speculating about their existence and potential characteristics. Therefore, being the pragmatist that I am, I can say with a great deal of confidence that gods don't exist, at least the gods that matter, the gods that could fuck with my life.

I also spend no time worrying about the undetectable gremlins that live in my attic, nor do I ride around the internet trumpeting to one and all that I am agnostic when it comes to the existence of undetectable gremlins living in my attic. If that is the intellectual accomplishment you want to be known for, so be it, but such behavior makes you appear to be acting like an ass and a fool.

Except you do spend your time riding around the internet trumpeting about undetectable gremlins.

I'm not saying I'm agnostic to such things, and again, anyone trying to sell me to others as being agnostic to such things, well, that's back in "ass" and "fool" territory.

I keep pointing out the existence of such is not necessary. Again, most of the conclusions you reach are reasonable: that it's unreasonable to ask others to care about such wild imaginings. I dare say convincing others it's unreasonable to ask others to care about such wild imaginings is entirely the point of my own exercises.

Invisible gremlins are, as you say, unnecessary and superfluous things. If someone wants to demonstrate one, you can say "bring me one". It's a good enough practice to ask anyone who claims sky friends or gremlins or invisible pink unicorns shows you one lest you disbelieve their claims.

My exercise is not to show these things are real. They almost assuredly are not. My exercise is to show people that even if they were, they can be assholes. Further to show that individuals who make positive claims that there are exactly zero are being religious for no good reason.

You are on an internet forum trumpeting just as loud as anyone here how certain you are that "there are exactly zero". This is the accomplishment YOU wish to seem to be known for...

I think it's far more reasonable to say "I'll believe you if you show me, to the extent I see there is a phenomena, even if I don't believe it is 'invisible gremlins' causing it." It doesn't matter the phenomena, really.

If one of those phenomena is a strong causal adjacency, then we get to rethink a number of things and I have no problem with that, it would not alter my philosophy on ethics.

 

[steve_bank]

It is interesting that some atheists become as obsessed disprovinggods as theists do proving existence of gods.

Indeed. “Strong atheism” is overkill imho.

I ratherr thej launch into naturalism and feethought. I do not carry an atheist identity I don't have any need tp prove theists wrong, I am confortanle in my views and religion does not directly threten me.

 

[steve_bank]

any new discoveries are largely limited to refinements of existing understanding or, in the case of new discoveries that upend science as we know it, that they could not result in opening up a gateway for certain classes of gods to exist

It's in the nature of the scientific method that it shuts down, rather than opening up, possibilities.

This is counterintuitive for people who look at the advancement of technology, that builds on 'new scientific findings', but it is nevertheless true at a fundamental level.

Before science, anything is possible. Science works by ruling out as impossible, those things that can be shown to be impossible. That's what falsifying an hypothesis is.

As a result, new and revolutionary theories that 'upend science as we know it' must incorporate the established old science. When Einstein overturned Newton's gravitational theories, rocks didn't start falling upwards; Rather, the results reported by Newton remained as the core of Einstein's results - Einstein's equations include Newton's equations as highly accurate solutions in a very wide range of conditions, and then explain far better those edge cases where Newton's equations gave results that diverged measurably from observation.

Any radical new physics (such as a grand theory unifying Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) would, in order not to be instantly self refuting, have to incorporate the results given by those existing theories in the realms where these are well tested against observation.

The Standard Model rules out unknown interactions at human scales; And any new physics would necessarily incorporate the Standard Model, at least at those scales at which it has been rigorously tested.

New theories that contradict the Standard Model under the conditions for which we have experimental confirmation are already proven to be wrong.

It's clear, given the severe problems with unifying QM and Relativity, that there exists physics we do not yet understand at all. But it's equally clear that any discovery of that currently unknown physics will not result in rocks that fall upwards, nor in currently unknown fundamental forces that are important at human scales.

There cannot be a new theory that renders such things possible, unless our existing theories are wildly and obviously wrong. They're not. We checked.

This is such a difficult thing for people to understand. It is because they confuse 'technology' and 'science'. Technology opens up possibilities whereas scientific discoveries rule-out possibilities.

My statistic students frame it as "why do we 'fail to reject the null hypothesis rather than accept it?"

There are people who use the word science withut undestanding it has no singular meaning.

There has never been a hatd line beyween science, technooy, and economics. That goes far back in history.

To some science is a professor sitting in his office writing equations on a whiteboard. Industrial science is both nvestigative and theorteical. Engineering as well.

 

[bilby]

There are people who use the word science withut undestanding it has no singular meaning.

Whereas we, in contrast, are specifically and explicitly talking about the scientific method, which is a particular one of those meanings.

Introducing needless confusion and equivocation, as you have just done, does not improve the quality of the debate, and appears not to have any purpose at all in the current context.

Do you have a relevant point to make, or are you just pontificating as a knee-jerk response to seeing the word 'science'?

 

[AdamWho]

I am bored. Cranks entertain me with more nonsense.