The Causal God Gambit

[Learner]

This is a central point! Very important.
Scientists like Carrol and Ellis and Gleisner (and Hawking) are beginning to realise that we are at the upper limit of our ability to measure what we want to measure.
We can't build a Hadron Colider sufficient to test what we need to test. And we won't EVER be able to.

Indeed Lion , and they have ideas and theories of time travel, curved space , time warps, dimensions and other things seen in "science fiction movies" "thought" plausible by scientists.

 

[bilby]

...A great part of the success of experimental science was creation of tools to help our observations, microscopes, telescope, decent clocks, thermometers and other devices.

This is a central point! Very important.
Scientists like Carrol and Ellis and Gleisner (and Hawking) are beginning to realise that we are at the upper limit of our ability to measure what we want to measure.
We can't build a Hadron Colider sufficient to test what we need to test. And we won't EVER be able to.

Your pathetic attempt to claim that a bunch a famous scientists agree with your rather stupid opinions is noted, and has been derisively snorted at.

Even if they agreed with you (and we all know that they don't, as they have made their actual opinions public), appeals to authority are still fallacious. I know you live in an epistemological world where authorities are infallible and must be respected; but you really need to grasp that skeptics don't agree with that approach - a respectable and respected scientist speaking outside his expertise is quite entitled to be laughably wrong. So IF any of these people had actually agreed with your position, that would not be support for it.

We don't disbelieve you because you lack authority; and we don't believe them because they have authority. We disbelieve you because you lack evidence, and we believe them because (and only when) they have evidence, and they present it in a testable and clear manner.

It is a waste of your time and ours for you to try to claim the support of scientists; to convince rational people, what you need is evidence, not votes. No matter how qualified or respected the voters might be, they are irrelevant.

 

[sdelsolray]

Well if Sean Carroll can get away with saying that if a theory is "sufficiently elegant and explanatory", it need not be tested experimentally, (post-empirical science,) then Plantinga is in good company.

Karl Popper would be turning in his grave. Not because of Plantinga but Carroll.

And by the way, I only found out about his having made those comments in an article by George Ellis and Joe Silk at nature.com

To no-one's surprise, Sean Carroll never actually made the comment that Lion IRC has attributed to him.

The quote above is actually from Ellis & Silk:

This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

Here is Carroll's actual article on the subject:

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25322

So you want me to play Google bus boy for you and when I produce the citation it won't change anything. No. I think I will give that a miss. It's a waste of my time.

Not "a waste of time" but an impossible task, since Carroll never made the comment that Lion IRC has attributed to him.

I'm not interested in whether or not you believe me. I'm interested in whether or not Carroll's statement would change anything for you. If it won't then you don't need a citation.

This is the red flag that the quote was bogus.

Another liar for Jesus. How quaint.

 

[abaddon]

Carroll has addressed the topic of God from the perspective of a cosmologist, and contrasted it with scientific hypotheses like the multiverse theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI

 

[Lion IRC]

So much 'shoot the messenger' anger going on here.
I'm not the one saying the principle of falsifiability should be retired.
Carroll can have his unfalsifiable albeit "sufficiently elegant" theories and I'll have the witness of the Holy Spirit.

 

[abaddon]

Disappointing is the way I’d sum up the Lion IRC effect. You keep retreating as your ability to argue anything keeps failing you. Totally incurious because you’re an idolator of belief itself, you won’t engage reason and choose instead to merely parade your belief.

I took an astronomy course and bought a telescope after a previous encounter with the cosmological argument. It wasn’t theology that inspired the renewed curiosity but just the questions and where they really lead when one really engages them — to nature. Why universe? is definitely thought-provoking, if you go at it with curiosity and a will to learn. To really explore it rather than just use it to reinforce a mere belief means looking at the phenomena of the universe. It turns out they are far more fascinating, and gratifying to know, than any conception of God used to explain them. God is the most droll speculation of them all.

 

[Juma]

I'll have the witness of the Holy Spirit.

no you have not. you cannot observe "the holy spirit" Since there is no operation definition of it.

 

[Lion IRC]

I can't observe things in the dark yet I can still know they are there by touch.

Dogs can hear sounds which humans can't but those sounds are nonetheless real.

And whether or not we can describe a sensation to your satisfaction doesn't negate the existence of the thing being sensed.

 

[atrib]

I can't observe things in the dark yet I can still know they are there by touch.

You know they are there by touch because you have observed them in the light and touched them previously. And you are able to flip the switch on your flashlight and verify that said objects are indeed what they appear to be to the touch. What flashlight is needed to verify the existence of your god?

Dogs can hear sounds which humans can't but those sounds are nonetheless real.

The sounds that the dog can hear that are not perceptible to human ears can be recorded and quantified by human instruments. What instrument will allow me to record and quantify your god vibrations?

And whether or not we can describe a sensation to your satisfaction doesn't negate the existence of the thing being sensed.

People sense a lot of things. Sometimes things that do not exist in reality. The mind can be fooled quite easily, especially when it has been programmed to believe in magic god stories from early childhood.

So, you have nothing as usual.

 

[Juma]

I can't observe things in the dark yet I can still know they are there by touch.

Dogs can hear sounds which humans can't but those sounds are nonetheless real.

And whether or not we can describe a sensation to your satisfaction doesn't negate the existence of the thing being sensed.

What is observable has nothing to do with our senses.
I have no sensor for radiation and yet I can observe it using tools.

Do you have any idea what a "operational definition" is?

 

[Keith&Co.]

People sense a lot of things. Sometimes things that do not exist in reality. The mind can be fooled quite easily,

When they were prepping me for my retinal surgery, the anesthesiologist explained how they were giving me an IV to allow them to put the sedatives in. I thought he meant they were doing that right then. So i could feel my hand go numb around the needle, and started to feel woozy. Sat there for a while in the prep room. Then i rethought about that conversation.
I realized that they had just given me a saline solution to hydrate me at that point, and in the actual surgery, they were going to sedate me. On the instant i realized that, my wooziness and numbness disappeared.
It was kind of trippy.

When they DID sedate me, i didn't feel numbness, or woozy. I obeyed the command to count backwards from ten and got to 'lucky number seven' and the surgical team laughed and then everything went just fucking black.

Thus highlighting both our susceptibility to suggestion and the differences between experiences and expectations.

 

[Kharakov]

..

 

[Keith&Co.]

And whether or not we can describe a sensation to your satisfaction doesn't negate the existence of the thing being sensed.

Doesn't negate it, no.
But just the fact that you report sensation isn't sufficient evidence that what you sensed is what you think it is.
Your report of a sensation inside your head could be from something outside your head, or entirely limited to functions inside your brain. How would you tell the difference? How would you convince us of the difference?

 

[Lion IRC]

I can't observe things in the dark yet I can still know they are there by touch.

Dogs can hear sounds which humans can't but those sounds are nonetheless real.

And whether or not we can describe a sensation to your satisfaction doesn't negate the existence of the thing being sensed.

What is observable has nothing to do with our senses.
I have no sensor for radiation and yet I can observe it using tools.

Do you have any idea what a "operational definition" is?

"...Operationalize means to put into operation. Operational definitions are also used to define system states in terms of a specific, publicly accessible process of preparation or validation testing, which is repeatable at will. For example, 100 degrees Celsius may be crudely defined by describing the process of heating water at sea level until it is observed to boil. An item like a brick, or even a photograph of a brick, may be defined in terms of how it can be made. Likewise, iron may be defined in terms of the results of testing or measuring it in particular ways...."

Nope. Jargon. Still don't understand.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

..

I agree.

 

[Lion IRC]

And by the way, I only found out about his having made those comments in an article by George Ellis and Joe Silk at nature.com

To no-one's surprise, Sean Carroll never actually made the comment that Lion IRC has attributed to him.

The quote above is actually from Ellis & Silk:

This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

Here is Carroll's actual article on the subject:

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25322

So you want me to play Google bus boy for you and when I produce the citation it won't change anything. No. I think I will give that a miss. It's a waste of my time.

Not "a waste of time" but an impossible task, since Carroll never made the comment that Lion IRC has attributed to him.

I'm not interested in whether or not you believe me. I'm interested in whether or not Carroll's statement would change anything for you. If it won't then you don't need a citation.

This is the red flag that the quote was bogus.

Another liar for Jesus. How quaint.

Lying about me lying.

Sean Carroll DOES say that if a theory is "sufficiently elegant and explanatory" (as per the Ellis/Silk article) then it need not be falsifiable. Sean Carroll does not resile from this criticism.
If anything he doubles down, as do his fellow scientists who agree with him. Heck, even I agree with him.

 

[bilby]

And by the way, I only found out about his having made those comments in an article by George Ellis and Joe Silk at nature.com

To no-one's surprise, Sean Carroll never actually made the comment that Lion IRC has attributed to him.

The quote above is actually from Ellis & Silk:

This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

Here is Carroll's actual article on the subject:

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25322

So you want me to play Google bus boy for you and when I produce the citation it won't change anything. No. I think I will give that a miss. It's a waste of my time.

Not "a waste of time" but an impossible task, since Carroll never made the comment that Lion IRC has attributed to him.

I'm not interested in whether or not you believe me. I'm interested in whether or not Carroll's statement would change anything for you. If it won't then you don't need a citation.

This is the red flag that the quote was bogus.

Another liar for Jesus. How quaint.

Lying about me lying.

Sean Carroll DOES say that if a theory is "sufficiently elegant and explanatory" (as per the Ellis/Silk article) then it need not be falsifiable. Sean Carroll does not resile from this criticism.
If anything he doubles down, as do his fellow scientists who agree with him. Heck, even I agree with him.

The problem you are refusing to acknowledge is that Sean Carroll means something very specific by this; And it is something that you have made very clear that you do NOT agree with.

Your pet hypothesis isn't a theory in the sense that Carroll is using the word; It isn't elegant in the sense that Carroll is using the word; And it isn't explanatory in any reasonable sense of the word. But apart from that, the two of you are in complete agreement

 

[abaddon]

Sean Carroll DOES say that if a theory is "sufficiently elegant and explanatory" (as per the Ellis/Silk article) then it need not be falsifiable. Sean Carroll does not resile from this criticism.
If anything he doubles down, as do his fellow scientists who agree with him. Heck, even I agree with him.

It's a mistake to quote someone who is paraphrasing someone else and then attribute their paraphrase as something the someone else said, because you don't know that they are characterizing his stance accurately.

You’re still mixing up who said what. All I wanted the citation for is to see the context. And after it was found by others, it was apparent you’d got the gist of what the scientists were saying wrong. And you still don’t know who said what or what any of them mean by what they say.

For one, Carroll’s article makes it very clear he’s not for a “post-empirical science”.

As for the elegance and explanatory power of God... God muddles things rather than clarifies them. Plausible explanations based in empirical findings don’t make a complex problem even more complex than it is already. God does.

Did you watch the youtube vid of Carroll's lecture? You're trying for an equivalence that isn't there, along the lines of "if string theory gets to be 'scientific', then why not God theory?" Carroll's compares them to remark the contrast, treats God as a 'theory' and finds it's a bad theory. That would be the difference that you want ignored.

 

[Lion IRC]

Needless to say, I'm quite sure Carroll doesn't and won't ever give theism a hall pass when it comes to verificationism or falsifiability. But he is breaking new ground.

 

[remez]

Not so fast.

We are all familiar with the concept of God of the gaps. If science doesn't know what cases X, God did it.

Yes.

But I find a similar sort of argument is made in these sort of 'technical' debates.

You factually premise your gambit with the notion that you have observed this…………….

If a scientists states that virtual particles appear randomly from physical principles, and create a Uiniverse, apologists will state, that no, God causes that to happen. Since God causes it to happen, it has a cause, and it has a beginning. I call this the Causal God Gambit.

We have a different observations.

My observations of these technical debates purports that the apologist’s response to the purposed theory either addresses the notion that the quantum vacuum is material and not nothing or addresses the notion that just because the vp’s cause cannot be presently determined does not infer that they’re uncaused. But neither of those commonly addressed notions is a gotg argument.

Until you can provide evidence of your stated observations, I’m forced to conclude that you are ASSUMING the gotg response. Thus until such evidence is provided your gambit is circular reasoning and straw man as well.

If you can provide evidence of this specific observation, then in that specific case I would agree with you that the apologist committed a gotg fallacy or possibly leave the door open for further discussion of the second order causation notion you mentioned in post 18. But I would still question the need to rename the fallacy.

If not, then by the bogus standards established in this thread regarding the way Lion’s misinterpretation of an event was treated, aren’t you lying also?

Evidence please.