Was there a First God?

[_Gorman]

JAK:

If you still disagree with me, I can go through your posts and try to answer each objection you have brought up, but I think my second to last post answers a lot of that.

[_JAK]

PhysicsGuy stated:
True, I should have said, "I can't even think of a case when science discusses the religious aspect of metaphysics". That is what I was thinking, but I guess I didn't type it. I still can't think of a case when science directly discusses the religious aspect of metaphysics, although some other theories that discuss metaphysics could have large implications on religion (If you agree with the theory that is).

First, you have not really addressed the inconsistencies to which I referred.

Second, indirectly, science offers superior analysis to speculation by metaphysics. Why? Because, metaphysics, particularly as it is found in superstitious/religious claims, makes those claims by making them up. Hence, science makes no direct comment on superstitious/religious claims.

However as religious doctrine makes assertions which are contrary to science (today), science provides rational explanations. Disease is not caused by “sin” as some religious dogma claims. There are causes for disease. And, more importantly, science addresses those causes. In addition, medical science finds treatment or cure. Metaphysics finds nothing.

I previously discussed what precedes theory. It is hypothesis. I’ll not repeat.

The issue for you is: What is the value of metaphysics? The question is within the confines of superstition/religion. It’s fine to ask questions such as: What is the meaning of life?. However, answers to that kind of question are wholly speculation. Just as the dinosaur disappeared 65,000,000 years ago, it is certain that the human race as we know it will continue to evolve or disappear as a result of natural forces. The sun will not give light forever. Given present human behavior, its extinction is far likely to be caused by human actions than a failing sun.

In the meantime, metaphysics, read George Bush’s religion, rejects funding for embryonic stem-cell research. He argues that killing an embryo to improve life is morally unacceptable. That’s religion as governmental policy. Never mind that all the embryos which are currently in fertility labs will be destroyed if not used by the people to whom they belong. And the people to whom they belong will not want or need all those embryos. Hence the metaphysical argument of Bush is a straw-man attack and a power play against medical science to placate the religious right who contributed in major ways to his election

Bush relies on the metaphysical read religious for his faith-based conclusions.

Never mind that possible treatments, if not cures, may lie in medical science for Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and others. Yet it’s Bush policy to spend, spend $2,000,000,000 a month on the Iraq war. Remember the basis for the war? We must destroy WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

Never mind there were no WMDs. Now we must “complete the mission.”
Read, the mission changes as evidence, evidence establishes that there were no WMDs, hence the mission evaporated.

This is the metaphysics/religion of President George W. Bush.

While this is all much more than you bargained for, it illustrates the failure of truth by assertion. Science objectively seeks evidence BEFORE stating a conclusion. Metaphysics [surmises a conclusion first then looks for evidence by cherry-picking to find what it wants to find particularly in superstition/religion and religious dogma/doctrine.

Science makes no comment directly on metaphysical claims. But, science does produce by rigorous application of the scientific method evidence of substance.

JAK

[_JAK]

PhysicsGuy stated:
The gaps can either be filled in with extrapolating scientific theories into the realm of pure speculation, or with traditional god belief and the like. It is just a matter of which is more comfortable to the individual. Many are perfectly comfortable just leaving the gaps as they are and never really worrying about metaphysical questions.

A false either/or choice. Science continues to explore, to investigate, to scrutinize, and to inquire. This, as opposed to god claims which declare truth by assertion. Religious doctrines don’t test, challenge, scrutinize, and investigate.

What’s “more comfortable to the individual” is irrelevant to discovery based on the skeptical review/research which is inherent in the scientific method. Telling an 80 year-old dying person (or any other fatally ill person) that he/she is going to heaven may be comfortable. It’s not science. And the choice you characterize is a false choice.

JAK

I think it is fairly straight forward that extrapolating existing theories way outside their region of their margins of error is also "not science". There is no science when discussing God, or the lack thereof. There is no data when discussing God, or the lack thereof.

Instead of the phrase "more comfortable to the individual", you could read, "there is no data, so scientific 'discovery' cannot be made; therefore, chose what you will (or make no choice) because there is no way to 'check' your answer".

There is no refutation or address of the analysis I presented.

Second, you make an additional straw-man attack -- attacking something never contended.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I think it is fairly straight forward that extrapolating existing theories way outside their region of their margins of error is also "not science". There is no science when discussing God, or the lack thereof. There is no data when discussing God, or the lack thereof.

Who argued in favor of your first sentence? I didn’t. I have no idea what you mean by “way outside their region of their margins of error...” It’s meaningless.

God claims are assertions which falsely claim science. God in God claims is an actor. Creation mythology is truth by assertion regarding how the invention God set out to plan events. Absent evidence for such God claims such claims should be rejected. It is religious claims which are “way outside...” rational analysis offered by investigative science. There was no more an instant biblical Adam than there was an instant English language. Religion makes claims absent evidence. Then it builds more claims on top of evidenceless claims previously made.

Science makes no comment directly. But indirectly, science addresses the emergence/evolution of life-forms on this planet. Biblical (metaphysical) accounts are wrong.

Just how is science “outside”? God claims have not been established. Our use of the Internet and computers has been established. God claims are irrelevant. They’re irrelevent in medical science as well.

PhysicsGuy stated:
Instead of the phrase "more comfortable to the individual", you could read, "there is no data, so scientific 'discovery' cannot be made; therefore, chose what you will (or make no choice) because there is no way to 'check' your answer".

It’s a false choice. How do you know “scientific discovery cannot be made”? You don’t. It’s a metaphysical truth by assertion. Science is hardly finished. And what is “more comfortable to the individual” is, as I stated, irrelevant to discovery about genuine causal links.

JAK

[_JAK]

PhysicsGuy stated:
Again, any scientific evidence that people claim refutes the existence of God certainly seems to extrapolate beyond these theories that are already speculative in nature. This causes the "evidence" to be on no better playing field than the non-scientific "evidence" that theists claim prove the existence of God. At that point, it is merely a matter of individual choice.

I may try to address more fully later. But your last paragraph appears a problematic view.

The implicit assertion in this paragraph is “the existence of God.”

He who asserts must prove. I have not taken the position you set forward regarding scientific evidence.

Absolutely no response is appropriate or needed absent an affirmative case for God presented by those who entertain that notion.

One can believe in the tooth fairy -- it’s “a choice.” Absent evidence for tooth fairy, belief in it is irrational. In your paragraph, you assume truth not established. You talk of refutation of “the existence of God.” In the sentence, you appear to make a claim for God. What’s “God”? What were “gods” previous to “God”? Or do you claim no gods?

Any claim you make obligates you (or someone who makes a claim) to offer compelling evidence which can be skeptically evaluated. Assertions absent evidence don’t qualify. They require no refutation.

Most God-makers further claim their invention (God) cannot be evidenced. Hence, they want acceptance of an assertion on their say-so. That’s evasion and presents them with even more problems of credibility.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

JAK

[_Gorman]

Science makes no comment directly on metaphysical claims. But, science does produce by rigorous application of the scientific method evidence of substance.

JAK

This is false as I have explained in the fifth post from the bottom of page three. That post is when I discussed the definitions of science and metaphysics.

The fact is that theoretical science comments extensively on metaphysics. I think you may be incorrectly interchanging the words metaphysics and religion. Some religious topics (e.g. the existence of God) are a just a branch of metaphysics. Other topics in metaphysics include the nature of matter and time and space. These are clearly commented on by science extensively.

[_Gorman]

I'm not sure if you read my post on the definition of metaphysics and science. I thought I cleared up a lot of what you had asked earlier, but I will give you a line by line response so it is clear. Some of this will be repeat.

PhysicsGuy stated:
When I say that science has no evidence and that it is all just speculation, I am talking about when science is discussing metaphysics or how nature fundamentally calculates its motions.

Can you give me an example of science is discussing metaphysics?
I’m skeptical.

Philosophies start with “metaphysics.” Science does not. Science (today) begins with observations.

I gave examples in my post on the definition of metaphysics and science.

PhysicsGuy stated:
When discussing these topics, science has absolutely no guarantee that anything it speculates about is correct.

Again, be specific. What comment has science made in this regard?

I gave examples in my post on the definition of metaphysics and science.

PhysicsGuy stated:
In fact, I would be surprised if anything science says about these topics is correct because there is so much uncertainty that multiple theories could be constructed to explain any evidence.

Give an example. What’s your evidence that science addresses philosophical speculation?

Thus far, you have a straw-man construction absent specifics.

I gave an example when I stated that the commentary on metaphysics done by classical mechanics was completely revoked by relativity, but its ability to accurately predict most experiments was unchanged. Relativity was thought up because of one experiment that classical mechanics could not explain (the abnormal orbit of Mercury). There are multiple things today that relativity cannot explain (anything to do with really small objects), so it is possible that when relativity and other theories (the ones that cannot explain everything) comment on metaphysics, they could also be incorrect.

PhysicsGuy stated:
Of course, when discussing theories that predict outcomes of experiments, science is somewhat more reliable.

Absolutely! You were not talking about “experiments” just above. Philosophical speculation is not science.

You are mixing references with such vague implications as to make meaningless commentary.

Correct, I was talking about theoretical physics. Experimental science is fairly reliable.

PhysicsGuy stated:
This is the fundamental point that I believe you were lacking in your original argument. If we agree here, then I think we are agreeing about a lot more than it appears. If we disagree here, then we can discuss this more.

You have made no point here as my analysis has shown. Absent examples for your assertions, they should be disregarded.

I gave examples in my post on definitions of science and metaphysics.

PhysicsGuy stated:
Just to give an example or two when science can give proper predictions of experiments, but be incorrect (or at least extremely uncertain) about speculation on how nature works:

In physics, Classical mechanics is used extensively by the majority of physicists. It gives fine predictions of experiments in most cases. It is technically incorrect. When things are very small or moving very fast it fails. Newton gave his three laws and claimed that nature worked that way. It doesn't. It is still used extensively (I use it) because it gives good predictions in the majority of cases.

The assertion (again) lacks evidence as you present here. Keep in mind that Isaac Newton lived from 1643 to 1727 CE. We have had major additions to science since 1727. To imply that no additions to Newton have been made in science is flawed.

To the extent possible, science today avoids speculation absent evidence. Modern science has advanced beyond the science of 1727 CE. Why do you cite Newton?

Additions were not made to Newton, Newton was entirely discarded. I cite Newton because it gives us an apparent understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe. Newton's stuff still predicts experiments accurately today, but the metaphysical aspect is not correct. Newton has shown that experiments and theory are entirely different things.

PhysicsGuy stated:
Classical mechanics is now replaced by general relativity which also speculates very much on how nature fundamentally calculates the motion of objects. It does very well in the case of fast moving objects which classical mechanics lacked, but does not do well for very small objects. I suspect it is incorrect about how nature fundamentally works because it is incorrect still in some cases, but there certainly does appear to be some "truth" to it or it wouldn't predict so well at high speeds.

General relativity (GR) (known as general theory of relativity (GTR)) is the geometrical theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915/16.

Like the English Language, science never was. It has developed to what we understand/accept today. Science is not today what it was hundreds of years ago (nor is language). However, the search for information continues and information continues to grow.

You “suspect it is incorrect about how nature fundamentally works...” Well, absent evidence for your claim that science is incorrect, your suspicion should not be assumed to be reliable. Again you attempt to minimize the discoveries to date by the phrase some “truth”. Some? Why not a great deal of information/knowledge? Why such grudging credit to science to date?

Again, a misunderstanding. Information does continue to grow, but we also discard large portions as well. Newton is an example of this. It is entirely possible that in the future we will discard any modern theory.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I don't think anyone could claim that science understands how nature calculates its motions until we have discovered the theory of everything. I may not even claim it at that point, because we only have direct experience with a very small portion of the universe. I can't even think of a case when science discusses metaphysics, because that certainly appears to be way outside science's boundary.

Discoveries continue. Why your hold out? What’s your agenda? Exactly, science does not discuss “metaphysics.”

This is contrary to your previous claim which I challenged above. You shift position. You assume that speculations of metaphysics have reliability. It’s a flawed assumption for which you provide no evidence. Consider that it may be tooth fairy talk. Absent evidence for metaphysical anything, such speculations should be viewed with great suspicion or disregarded.

I agree that any speculations on metaphysical anything should be viewed with great suspicion. This includes a lot of implications that modern scientific theories propose, because they are discussing metaphysics (as I think I have shown by now).

Again, when I said metaphysics in this post you quoted, I was thinking "religious aspect of metaphysics", but did not type it. That may have caused a lot of our misunderstanding.

PhysicsGuy stated:
The whole point is that there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God that science would claim. In my opinion you would at least have to concede to the fact that any scientific evidence put forth against the existence of God is highly suspect, and just as good as any evidence (feel good type of experiences) put forth by the theists. Both types of evidence are outside scientific boundaries.

Those who claim God have the burden of proof for their claims. Science has no direct comment on God speculations. In absence of evidence for the affirmative claim God, the skeptic needs to make no response.

I would not “concede” as you advise. Science does not “put forth” “evidence” as you claim here. On the contrary, science puts forth evidence based on accumulated information/knowledge. You are making an additional straw man attack. You’re attacking an assumed position of science, a position which science never took.

“Feel good ... experiences” are quite irrelevant to science. There is no evidence as you claim with universal, skeptically reviewed analysis among theists. Again, you make the straw man attack.

Further, you have provided no evidence for any God claims fractured as such claims are today.

JAK

I agree that science has no comment on God, this is why when discussing the existence of God/Gods I do not hold scientific evidence in any higher regard than feel good experience type evidence. Burden of proof is only used when you are trying to convince someone of something; I'm not trying to do that, I'm just interested in the truth. A God exists or he does not, and I'm only explaining why I've thrown out scientific evidence in this search. My conclusion is that science has no greater say in this matter than feel good experiences do.

[_Gorman]

Second, indirectly, science offers superior analysis to speculation by metaphysics. Why? Because, metaphysics, particularly as it is found in superstitious/religious claims, makes those claims by making them up. Hence, science makes no direct comment on superstitious/religious claims.

I would probably agree with this part if you changed it as follows:

"Second, indirectly, experimental/applied science offers superior analysis to speculation by metaphysics. Why? Because, metaphysics, particularly as it is found in superstitious/religious claims, makes those claims by making them up. Hence, experimental/applied science makes no direct comment on superstitious/religious claims."

[_Gorman]

JAK:

I agree with most of the political stuff you talked about. I agree that scientific evidence should be heavily involved in political decision making (giving more weight to actual evidence and less weight to educated guesses).

I should make it clear again that I'm not trying to argue that God exists, or that religions are right, I'm merely trying to say that scientific evidence should not be given too much weight in these matters.

[_JAK]

JAK:

I agree with most of the political stuff you talked about. I agree that scientific evidence should be heavily involved in political decision making (giving more weight to actual evidence and less weight to educated guesses).

I should make it clear again that I'm not trying to argue that God exists, or that religions are right, I'm merely trying to say that scientific evidence should not be given too much weight in these matters.

Really? Just what “evidence” should be given “weight” in superstition/religion?

Second, what’s your basis for exclusion or minimization of science anytime?

I’m skeptical that you don’t subscribe to some God myths. You attempt to marginalize science. Why?

Other than emotional reactions of people about superstition/religion, what verifiable, skeptically reviewed components of anything do you support "in these matters"?

I notice that you have yet to address scientific method, burden of proof, and who is responsible for that burden.

If you agree that he who asserts must prove, it should apply to any topic of address. Or, at the very least, those who make claims should provide evidence well beyond their say-so.

A favorite expression of God makers is to claim that: {God is outside time, space, and material.}

Why do you suppose that’s a favorite?

JAK

[_JAK]

Second, indirectly, science offers superior analysis to speculation by metaphysics. Why? Because, metaphysics, particularly as it is found in superstitious/religious claims, makes those claims by making them up. Hence, science makes no direct comment on superstitious/religious claims.

I would probably agree with this part if you changed it as follows:

"Second, indirectly, experimental/applied science offers superior analysis to speculation by metaphysics. Why? Because, metaphysics, particularly as it is found in superstitious/religious claims, makes those claims by making them up. Hence, experimental/applied science makes no direct comment on superstitious/religious claims."

Nicely stated!

JAK