Was there a First God?

[Guest]

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.

I don’t disagree with your final point. My linking was because of the nature of your language in the discussion.

That is, your correct as you observe: “Some religious topics (e.g. the existence of God) are a just a branch of metaphysics.”

The distinction between speculation and consensus science is sharper than in some philosophies which place less or no reliance on doctrine (as does religion).

Theoretical science was not our topic as demonstrated by this link.

Also as demonstrated by this link, science is first. Major concensus in science (today) precedes the new topic which you introduce.

Science was applicable in our discussions.

JAK

[_Gorman]

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

I don't know. I suspect that would depend on the individual. If one does not think evidence given by theists is convincing, then it would appear that scientific evidence based on extreme extrapolations of existing theories into unknown realms is all that they have.

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

I would exclude or minimize science to varying degrees when it discusses things outside experimental science, because it is all just educated guessing at that point. The further into to field of metaphysics it goes, the lest trust I would have in its conclusions.

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

I marginalize science when it tries to discuss things (like the existence/non-existence of God) that it really has no place in discussing.

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

If you want verifiability, there is absolutely none either way on the existence/non-existence of God.

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.

I'm not exactly sure why you bring up the scientific method, I have no difficulty with it. I don't think I ever said the scientific method is in error, I'm just saying that the reliability of theories when discussing metaphysical topics is not nearly as good as the layman thinks. This is perfectly in line with the scientific method.

As to burden of proof. I discussed it a few posts ago. Burden of proof is only when you are trying to prove something. The only thing I'm trying to prove is that scientific commentary on religion/metaphysics cannot be trusted. I believe that I have given sufficient evidence for my case. Let me know if you have a problem with any of it.

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

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. I suppose it is used because that is one possible way to explain why a god has not been found yet. It sounds a little generic though. I think religions tend to be quite broad in definitions.

[_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."

Nicely stated!

JAK

I think we agree a lot more than it appears. It sounds to me like when you say science, you mean experimental/applied science. This type deals very little in the metaphysical. It is the theoretical science that deals very much in the metaphysical. It is this science that is less trustworthy. If you want science to say anything about the existence of God, you need to extrapolate even further beyond this type of science to get there. This makes it extremely untrustworthy.

[_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.

I don’t disagree with your final point. My linking was because of the nature of your language in the discussion.

That is, your correct as you observe: “Some religious topics (e.g. the existence of God) are a just a branch of metaphysics.”

The distinction between speculation and consensus science is sharper than in some philosophies which place less or no reliance on doctrine (as does religion).

Theoretical science was not our topic as demonstrated by this link.

Also as demonstrated by this link, science is first. Major concensus in science (today) precedes the new topic which you introduce.

Science was applicable in our discussions.

JAK

I'm sorry, I really didn't understand what you were trying to get at here. I thought I understood until I started looking at the links. Maybe you could clarify.

Also, consensus has little to do with truth. If it did, then theists could just say, "the majority of the world believes in a God, so one exists".

[_JAK]

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.

I don’t disagree with your final point. My linking was because of the nature of your language in the discussion.

That is, your correct as you observe: “Some religious topics (e.g. the existence of God) are a just a branch of metaphysics.”

The distinction between speculation and consensus science is sharper than in some philosophies which place less or no reliance on doctrine (as does religion).

Theoretical science was not our topic as demonstrated by this link.

Also as demonstrated by this link, science is first. Major concensus in science (today) precedes the new topic which you introduce.

Science was applicable in our discussions.

JAK

I'm sorry, I really didn't understand what you were trying to get at here. I thought I understood until I started looking at the links. Maybe you could clarify.

Also, consensus has little to do with truth. If it did, then theists could just say, "the majority of the world believes in a God, so one exists".

Do you have a specific question?

I asked you to reconcile your contradictory remarks in a single post. You have not done that.

In reference to “theoretical science,” you shift the topic and dodge the issues with which you were confronted specifically.

Your assertion:
Also, consensus has little to do with truth.

No definitions here just a claim. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you’re reading this, it’s a demonstration of applied science consensus. There are millions of examples of consensus science. No such consensus exists among the pundits of metaphysical claims. Those claims are unreliable.
They are unreliable because they do not agree. Science agrees in enormous measure on basics. For example, medical science investigates, tests, and skeptically reviews in excruciating detail its tentative conclusions. That discipline cannot be granted to speculations of metaphysics. We have volumes of debate in metaphysics on such elusive terms as “good” and “evil” etc.

There is enormous consensus science. Absent a definition of truth (your term here), it’s meaningless. I am no mind-reader.

But the statement you make is evasive to the challenges which I have previously set before you.

You evade: He who asserts must prove (or offer compelling evidence for that assertion).

You evade your own contradiction:
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.

That was a first statement in a post. The second was this:

PhysicsGuy stated:
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. SAME POST

Now, you did NOT say “theoretical science.” You said: “science”. Unfortunately, the format of this forum does not allow for threaded linkage. Hence, posts appear in the sequence in which they were made, not outlined in a form which allows immediate reference to a post.

You have not addressed the analysis:

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".

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

You have not addressed JAK previously:
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 absence evidence claims previously made.

You appear to amble from one thing to another and shift topics rather than address directly analysis of your comments.

Note that to most of your posts, I have quoted YOU directly, verbatim and addressed your comments. You engage in no such discipline.

You state:
I'm sorry, I really didn't understand what you were trying to get at here. I thought I understood until I started looking at the links. Maybe you could clarify.

You shifted topic. There was no discussion about “theoretical science” prior to your insertion of the term. My links distinguished between science and theoretical science (your new term). It’s irrelevant to our previous discussion.

Speculation absent compelling evidence is of little or no consequence. Science does not do that. The scientific method insists on evidence before tentative conclusions are made.

It’s my impression that you evade rather than address issues.

You misrepresent in this statement:

You state:
Also, consensus has little to do with truth. If it did, then theists could just say, "the majority of the world believes in a God, so one exists".


Every reference which I made to consensus had to do with science, not religion. And that consensus is based on examination of evidence. Your comment here is not based on skeptical review, testing, and detailed study.

Religion (that’s your God reference) relies on truth by assertion. Science does not do that. That the “majority” believe what is not established fails to establish it. Beliefs, absent evidence, are irrelevant. The example you offer is absent evidence.

Religious beliefs in gods then God are unreliable. The religious mythologies are contrary to science -- i.e. creation stories, gods favoring certain people over others, genocide by God (Old Testament), etc.

Uninformed people once believed the earth was the center of the universe. They were in the majority, AND they were wrong. “Truth” is not a matter of democratic vote.

And I reiterate the question: What is truth?

You claim:
Also, consensus has little to do with truth. If it did, then theists could just say, "the majority of the world believes in a God, so one exists".


In that claim, you presume to know something. Again, I have no idea what you mean by the statement. You have failed to give any hint, let alone spelled out what “truth” is. But you assume knowledge in the statement. What is your knowledge.

If so, enlighten us with your detailing of “truth.” Let's see your evidence for "truth."

JAK

[_Gorman]

Do you have a specific question?

I asked you to reconcile your contradictory remarks in a single post. You have not done that.

I've done that twice. Are you not reading my posts? Maybe I misunderstood what you wanted me to remark on.

You evade: He who asserts must prove (or offer compelling evidence for that assertion).

I addressed this four posts up. Are you not reading my posts? I'm only trying to prove that science cannot discuss religious topics. That seems evident to me, and I think you agree with me here.

Note that to most of your posts, I have quoted YOU directly, verbatim and addressed your comments. You engage in no such discipline. [/color]

I have quoted you directly and answered you directly multiple times. Are you not reading my posts?

It’s my impression that you evade rather than address issues.

I was about ready to say the same about you. I think we are really just talking past one another for some reason.

You misrepresent in this statement:

You state:
Also, consensus has little to do with truth. If it did, then theists could just say, "the majority of the world believes in a God, so one exists".


Every reference which I made to consensus had to do with science, not religion.

Correct, and it is that consensus that is among science that has little to do with truth. There was consensus among scientists that Newtonian Mechanics was correct. It is not.

And I reiterate the question: What is truth?

Good question. I think that is what everyone is trying to figure out.

[_Gorman]

JAK:

Before we go on to more talking past each other, I believe I may know what our problem is. It appears that when you say science, you mean experimental science (which is a branch of science), and when I say science, I mean theoretical science (which is also a branch of science). I have been talking mostly about theoretical sciences since the very beginning of this conversation (no, I didn't switch subjects on you). It appears that you have experience in the medical sciences which I would suspect deal mainly with experimental sciences. I have experience with physics which deals extensively in theoretical sciences. These different backgrounds may be why we misunderstand each other. I agree with a lot of what you say when I think of your posts in the context of experimental science. The only problem is that experimental sciences have even less of a right to discuss religious matters.

If you are willing to concede that experimental sciences do not have much (if any) authority in matters of religion (or the existence/non-existence of God), then I think we agree, and can part ways. Of course I'm not talking about practical matters of religion here. Science should take a part in discussing things like drinking poisoned flavor-aid and the like.

If you say that experimental sciences can have a large say in matters of religion (again, the fundamental matters of religion here), then we should discuss that. Although maybe we should do it in a new thread. I believe we have been way off-topic for quite a while.

I encourage you to discuss this topic before anything else, because I believe this is fundamental to our misunderstanding.

[_marg]

Physics Guy you said "I marginalize science when it tries to discuss things (like the existence/non-existence of God) that it really has no place in discussing. "


Where have you ever read of any legitimate science, which has a degree of consensus by scientists attempting to theorize on the existence or non existence of God. How could they possibly when there is not even a consensus understanding of what God means?

Theoretical science is the same as theoretical physics, is it not?

It seems that there is a good discussion on theoretical physics on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics

They break up theoretical physics theories into mainstream, proposed and fringe. Do any speculate on a God? It seems that all the theories are based on some sort of reasoning, be it math, be it predictive value which has the potential at some time in the future to be verified. The theories are not limited to what is observable but they are interpretations of phenomena and the theories offer predictive value. I don't agree with you equating speculative theoretical physics theories with speculations on a God. As if they offer equal value in understanding the world we experience. There is no consensus of what God is or means, nor does any God theory offer predictive value which potentially can be verified.

[_JAK]

PhysicsGuy,

Your analysis is not correct in my view. Only you, late in discussion, used the term “theoretical” in front of science. Hence, you evade issues which I raised prior to that which I regard as your attempt to shift the topic. Further, I responded by giving you links to minimize the need to explain what those websites clarified.

One was:

Pure Science

The other was:

TheoreticalScience

A third was:

Consensus Science

Review my post Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:28 pm.

In your quotes of my comments, the link on consensus science was not my original. That’s why I restate again here.

How that was altered, I don’t know, but the link was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

------------------------------
Having reviewed that, let’s look at your statement here line by line.

PhysicsGuy stated:
Before we go on to more talking past each other, I believe I may know what our problem is. It appears that when you say science, you mean experimental science (which is a branch of science), and when I say science, I mean theoretical science (which is also a branch of science). I have been talking mostly about theoretical sciences since the very beginning of this conversation (no, I didn't switch subjects on you).


The “problem” is your mis-use of the term “science” to mean theoretical science. That is not what the term “science” means. It is a shift in topic by you.

“Since the very beginning of this conversation” (your words), the phrase theoretical science was not used by you. I am no mind reader. If you intended to exclude anything which was not “theoretical science,” you failed to state that. Only late in the discussion did you insert the word “theoretical.”

Hence, it appears that you deliberately evade the issues I addressed on your comments--comments which originally did not include the term “theoretical.”

Thus, you dodged issues in discussion.

PhysicsGuy stated:
It appears that you have experience in the medical sciences which I would suspect deal mainly with experimental sciences. I have experience with physics which deals extensively in theoretical sciences. These different backgrounds may be why we misunderstand each other. I agree with a lot of what you say when I think of your posts in the context of experimental science. The only problem is that experimental sciences have even less of a right to discuss religious matters.

“Religious matters” are speculative. If you agree, we agree on that point. Your computer and this exchange is an example of applied science. It’s established. It’s not speculation or wishful thinking. Medical science is applied science by the time it reaches drugs and surgery. Except for people who work in pharmasudical labs, most other people only read about what is being researched.

Since you have not responded to specifics of my posts -- direct quote and direct response to the quote, you evade my analysis. Not what’s happening here. I quote you directly, verbatim and respond to your words. When you claim you meant theoretical science previously, when you did not use that term, is disingenuous.

(Note that I continue to quote you directly and respond. You fail to do that in response as you attempt to dodge part or much of my statements.)

PhysicsGuy stated:
If you are willing to concede that experimental sciences do not have much (if any) authority in matters of religion (or the existence/non-existence of God), then I think we agree, and can part ways. Of course I'm not talking about practical matters of religion here. Science should take a part in discussing things like drinking poisoned flavor-aid and the like.

What is the “authority in matters of religion”? How about a direct quote of that question and a genuine response? What’s the evidence for the claim God? You keep injecting God. You present no evidence.

Keep in mind that the claim: God exists is a claim for which evidence is required. Absent compelling and extraordinary evidence for the particulars of the claim(s), the claims should be rejected.

The burden of proof lies with the affirmative -- The affirmative is making the claims for God. No response is required absent evidence presented by the affirmative claim.

Do you comprehend that? Quote me in sequence leaving out nothing in your quote and respond. Short of that, you are, as I evidenced, disingenuous. I’m quoting you and have previously quoted you directly and responded to your words. Short of doing the same thing, you give evidence that you’re disingenuous.

Let’s continue with direct quote from PhysicsGuy.

[color=#3CB371]PhysicsGuy stated:
Of course I'm not talking about practical matters of religion here. Science should take a part in discussing things like drinking poisoned flavor-aid and the like.

Why not? According to Jim Jones: God commanded it. From his religious perspective, “science” was irrelevant. Religious pundits state: God commands it.. You previously stated that science should not be involved in religion. Jim Jones was all about religion.

You stated previously (Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:05 am)
the following:

“I'm merely trying to say that scientific evidence should not be given too much weight in these (religious) matters.”

Jim Jones was all about religion. He claimed God. He claimed to know God’s will. Your position is that “scientific evidence should not be given too much weight in these (religious) matters.”

I asked you previously: ”Why not?”

Now when you respond, keep quoting me directly -- no paraphrasing.

You did not respond to the question: “Why not?”

You appear to shift your position. Why should science “take part in discussing things like drinking poisoned flavor-aid and the like”?

You are NOT talking about “theoretical science” here, PhysicsGuy.
And you were NOT talking about “theoretical science” in our earlier discussions. You did NOT specify that you were -- that was a post hoc claim of yours. (Keep quoting me directly including bold type, italics, and underlining.)

PhysicsGuy stated:
Of course I'm not talking about practical matters of religion here.

Just exactly and specifically are “practical matters of religion...”[b]?

Would you clarify specifically what you mean by that expression?

PhysicsGuy stated:
If you say that experimental sciences can have a large say in matters of religion (again, the fundamental matters of religion here), then we should discuss that. Although maybe we should do it in a new thread. I believe we have been way off-topic for quite a while.

I said no such thing. The “off-topic” was:
1 Your shift to “theoretical” and away from “science.”
2 Your mis-representation by paraphrase my comments exactly quoted.

Science has no direct comment on religious dogma/doctrine.

Science (scientists and consensus science) reach conclusions based on evidence using scientific method.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I encourage you to discuss this topic before anything else, because I believe this is fundamental to our misunderstanding.

I have addressed your words directly quoted.

Your insertion of “theoretical” to precede the word science was an attempt to evade the analysis before you.

Please note that I quoted every word of your post (Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:01 am).

Also let it be clear that you have never done that in response to my comments. Paraphrase and partial reference is cherry picking and should be regarded as disingenuous response.

JAK

[_JAK]

marg,

While this forum is difficult to navigate (from my perspective), I should like to invite you to read my exchanges with PhysicsGuy.

marg stated:
Physics Guy you said "I marginalize science when it tries to discuss things (like the existence/non-existence of God) that it really has no place in discussing."

In my discussions with PhysicsGuy, it was he who marginalized science in deference to religion. I saw no example in which YOU marginalized science. (If you did, I missed it.) God claims have nothing to do with science. It appears to me in my discussions with PhysicsGuy that he wishes some God notion(s). Perhaps not.

marg stated:
Where have you ever read of any legitimate science, which has a degree of consensus by scientists attempting to theorize on the existence or non existence of God. How could they possibly when there is not even a consensus understanding of what God means?

Exactly correct. I would add, science makes no direct comment on God claims. Further, you’re correct that there is “not even a consensus” on the meaning of God.

marg stated:
Theoretical science is the same as theoretical physics, is it not?

It seems that there is a good discussion on theoretical physics on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics

Correct.

marg stated:
They break up theoretical physics theories into mainstream, proposed and fringe. Do any speculate on a God?

Obvious answer -- No

marg stated:
It seems that all the theories are based on some sort of reasoning, be it math, be it predictive value which has the potential at some time in the future to be verified. The theories are not limited to what is observable but they are interpretations of phenomena and the theories offer predictive value.

Correct

marg stated:
I don't agree with you equating speculative theoretical physics theories with speculations on a God.

Also correct.

Theoretical Physics lacks parallel with speculations of God.

marg stated:
As if they offer equal value in understanding the world we experience. There is no consensus of what God is or means, nor does any God theory offer predictive value which potentially can be verified.

This is a point which I have addressed with PhysicsGuy in my discussions. You are correct. No “consensus of what God is or means” can be demonstrated such as the consensus which we have in science.

Should you have the time, I invite you to peruse my discussions with PhysicsGuy and offer additional commentary as you see relevant.

JAK