God: The Failed Hypothesis

[Jon_Day]

http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1867.html

The book is worth reading in my opinion. for theist and non-theist alike. what is the harm in viewing another's perspective?

I personally don't agree that it can be proven scientifically that God does not exist...as we have been given no actual physical characteristics of this God thing. i.e., what it is made of, in what scale it exists...etc.etc.etc. therefore we wouldn't even know where to begin testing.

However, I do believe that you can prove that life can exist without there being a "God".

I use the word prove loosely.

[Meh_Gerbil]

http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1867.html

I wish skeptics would decide.

One group claims that god claims aren't possible to evaluate because of the supernatural component and the other group holds god claims may be evaluated using the scientific method.

Perhaps skeptics need to decide on a consistent definition of science and it's capabilities before authoring books?

[Soundsurfr]

http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1867.html

Another one of those godless scientists. What a world.

[P-Dunn]

I read a bit on Amazon...Doesn't seem to be very unique. This is the same Stenger who asserts that "the universe exploded out of nothingness."

The first chapter is about how Stenger doesn't think there's good enough evidence for God's existence. Of course, Stenger seems to think that "God exists" is an extraordinary claim...I really don't see how it is. But that's when you get into questionable territory. When you start assigning arbitrary standards for how much evidence once needs, it gets into the realm of complete subjectivity, and it's why I dislike ECREE.

This book is also supposed to be "why science shows that God doesn't exist." But Stenger has an entire chapter devoted to the "Problem of Evil," which is completely unrelated to science.

I think I'll pass. I have enough to read anyway.

[Soundsurfr]

Of course, Stenger seems to think that "God exists" is an extraordinary claim...I really don't see how it is.

It is as soon as you start assigning attributes to God. And it's rare that anyone claims God exists without assigning attributes.

[P-Dunn]

It is as soon as you start assigning attributes to God. And it's rare that anyone claims God exists without assigning attributes.
In your mind, what would God be like without having any "extraordinary" attributes? When do the attributes suddenly become extraordinary?

[Carpedm9587]

I wish skeptics would decide.

One group claims that god claims aren't possible to evaluate because of the supernatural component and the other group holds god claims may be evaluated using the scientific method.

Perhaps skeptics need to decide on a consistent definition of science and it's capabilities before authoring books?

And theists are so unified and consistent in their definitions of god...

You're right - us skeptics should do a better job of following the theistic example... :ahem:

[Meh_Gerbil]

And theists are so unified and consistent in their definitions of god...

You're right - us skeptics should do a better job of following the theistic example... :ahem:

I'm afraid that doesn't help your position.
I've maintained for sometime now that the term 'science' is misused terribly by the materialist camp - only to be told that the term is well defined and immutable. Given how even materialist claim that it can disprove a god or not only proves my earlier contention that it's a total mess.

That doesn't make skepticism wrong - but what it does show even on a pivotal point such as the role of science in 'truth detection' there is still alot of inconsistency within the materialist camp. I already knew that, it's nice to have it illustrated.

[Soundsurfr]

In your mind, what would God be like without having any "extraordinary" attributes?

He would be exactly like I picture Him. Non-existent.


When do the attributes suddenly become extraordinary?

Well, assign an attribute to this God and describe it, and we'll examine together whether or not it is extraordinary.

[Soundsurfr]

I'm afraid that doesn't help your position.
I've maintained for sometime now that the term 'science' is misused terribly by the materialist camp - only to be told that the term is well defined and immutable. Given how even materialist claim that it can disprove a god or not only proves my earlier contention that it's a total mess.

Gerb, you make a valid point. I personally think the term "science" is well defined and immutable. I also think that what this gentleman is doing is not science, but metaphysics portraying itself as science. I know there are probably some materialists who disagree, but I doubt that the bulk of the scientific community considers this book to be a scientific work.

[Philosophickle]

Well, I was going to skip it until I saw the endorsements from Harris and Dawkins.

[John Powell]

P-Dunn:
. . .
The first chapter is about how Stenger doesn't think there's good enough evidence for God's existence. Of course, Stenger seems to think that "God exists" is an extraordinary claim...I really don't see how it is. But that's when you get into questionable territory. When you start assigning arbitrary standards for how much evidence once [one] needs, it gets into the realm of complete subjectivity, and it's why I dislike ECREE.
. . .


POWELL:
The claim "God exists" meaning "there is a real God" is an extraordinary claim because we (say you and I) don't agree that claims similar to that have been true in the past. On the other hand, the claim "Yahweh does not exist (isn't real)" is NOT extraordinary because there are lots of similar claims that we agree have been true such as "Zeus does not exist," "Thor does not exist," "The Mormon Elohim does not exist," etc.

Do you now see how it is that "God exists" is an extraordinary claim?

You can dislike ECREE, but you should use it since there isn't AFAIK a more efficient method to filter likely true from likely false claims. If you think there is a more efficient method then propose it.

John Powell

[John Powell]

Meh_Gerbil:
I wish skeptics would decide.

One group claims that god claims aren't possible to evaluate because of the supernatural component . . .


POWELL:
They are clearly wrong. It is logically possible since it's not self contradictory. I challenge any one in that camp to prove otherwise.


Meh_Gerbil:
. . . and the other group holds god claims may be evaluated using the scientific method.


POWELL:
Those people are right.

If Christians began to resurrect (that would be supernatural yes?) then wouldn't you expect scientists to study the phenomenon or would you expect them to close their eyes and chant "science can't study the supernatural, science can't study the supernatural, . . ." What if God (a supernatural being yes?) were to appear performing Biblical - class miracles (supernatural events, yes?)? Would scientists close their eyes and pretend they didn't see anything?


Meh_Gerbil:
Perhaps skeptics need to decide on a consistent definition of science and it's [its] capabilities before authoring books?


POWELL:
Consistency is important.

John Powell

[Jon_Day]

the book is worth reading in my opinion. for theist and non-theist alike. what is the harm in viewing another's perspective?

I personally don't agree that it can be proven scientifically that God does not exist...as we have been given no actual physical characteristics of this God thing. i.e., what it is made of, in what scale it exists...etc.etc.etc. therefore we wouldn't even know where to begin testing.

However, I do believe that you can prove that life can exist without there being a "God".

I use the word prove loosely.

[P-Dunn]

POWELL:
The claim "God exists" meaning "there is a real God" is an extraordinary claim because we (say you and I) don't agree that claims similar to that have been true in the past. On the other hand, the claim "Yahweh does not exist (isn't real)" is NOT extraordinary because there are lots of similar claims that we agree have been true such as "Zeus does not exist," "Thor does not exist," "The Mormon Elohim does not exist," etc.
P-DUNN:
I'd be interested to hear your opinion of say, the deistic God. A God who merely exists and created the universe, without any sort of divine revelation to humanity, is obviously quite different from the Judeo-Christian God, Zeus, etc. So is saying that this God exists extraordinary?

Simply, is it extraordinary to say that there was a creator of the universe, without implying a specific religion?


Do you now see how it is that "God exists" is an extraordinary claim?
P-DUNN:
I see where you are coming from, I suppose.


You can dislike ECREE, but you should use it since there isn't AFAIK a more efficient method to filter likely true from likely false claims. If you think there is a more efficient method then propose it.

John Powell
P-DUNN:
I think ECREE will become immediately more plausible, at least to me, if someone sets a standard regarding what is extraordinary and what isn't. This isn't directed specifically at you, but it seems like many times people will label anything that happens to disagree with their worldview as an extraordinary claim.

[P-Dunn]

He would be exactly like I picture Him. Non-existent.
So there is no power that God could have that you would consider even somewhat plausible?


Well, assign an attribute to this God and describe it, and we'll examine together whether or not it is extraordinary.
Powerful. Not omnipotent, but very powerful.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
The claim "God exists" meaning "there is a real God" is an extraordinary claim because we (say you and I) don't agree that claims similar to that have been true in the past. On the other hand, the claim "Yahweh does not exist (isn't real)" is NOT extraordinary because there are lots of similar claims that we agree have been true such as "Zeus does not exist," "Thor does not exist," "The Mormon Elohim does not exist," etc.


P-DUNN:
I'd be interested to hear your opinion of say, the deistic God. A God who merely exists and created the universe, without any sort of divine revelation to humanity, is obviously quite different from the Judeo-Christian God, Zeus, etc. So is saying that this God exists extraordinary?


POWELL:
It depends on whether the deistic God is personal or impersonal. Causes due to impersonal things (such as gravity) for large scale phenomena (such as galaxies) is not extraordinary.


P-DUNN:
Simply, is it extraordinary to say that there was a creator of the universe, without implying a specific religion?


POWELL:
Yes, if that creator is personal. No, if that creator is something impersonal.



POWELL:
Do you now see how it is that "God exists" is an extraordinary claim?


P-DUNN:
I see where you are coming from, I suppose.


POWELL:
Good enough for now.



POWELL:
You can dislike ECREE, but you should use it since there isn't AFAIK a more efficient method to filter likely true from likely false claims. If you think there is a more efficient method then propose it.


P-DUNN:
I think ECREE will become immediately more plausible, at least to me, if someone sets a standard regarding what is extraordinary and what isn't. This isn't directed specifically at you, but it seems like many times people will label anything that happens to disagree with their worldview as an extraordinary claim.


POWELL:
It's extraordinary if it's not ordinary. It's extraordinary if it hasn't been the case a lot.

Here are some claims. I'll first list an ordinary claim with the kind of evidence that's typically sufficient and then an extraordinary revision of it that would require much better evidence.

1a. My name is John Powell. The say-so of a typical person.

1b. My name is George Bush, president of the U.S. (with a mask) . Secret Service-looking guys around. Something in the news about Bush running around incognito.

2a. I was born in Arizona. The say-so of a typical person.

2b. I was born on the planet Mars. Newsreports about people being born on Mars with either a list that includes my name or an official looking ID verifying it.

3a. There's a dog outside terrorizing the people in the parking lot. The say-so of a typical person.

3b. There's a T-Rex outside terrorizing the people in the parking lot. Seeing it for oneself or hearing about it on something like CNN.

4a. I have a dog. The say-so of a typical person.

4b. I have an invisible dog. Seeing it (well the effects) for oneself or hearing about it on something like CNN.

5a. I had my first car accident. The say-so of a typical person.

5b. I had my first car accident with a spacecraft from the planet Vulcan. Newreports by sources like CNN about aliens on Earth or seeing the spacecraft for oneself.

6a. I had lunch today with my father. The say-so of a typical person.

6b. I had lunch today with my father was was dead 3 days ago and recently resurrected. Seeing the previously dead and newly resurrected person for oneself or newsreports by people like CNN of lots of people resurrecting.

Do you see how to play the game? Do you see that people will agree that in each case the first claim is more ordinary than the second and requires less evidence to justify belief?

Wouldn't YOU require significantly more evidence to justify believing the "b" claims compared with the "a" claims? If the answer is "yes" then you rely on something like the ECREE principle. If you would believe the "b" claims based on the say-so of a typical person you meet at the bus stop then you are hopelessly gullible.

John Powell