Was there a First God?

[_Gorman]

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.

I agree with you wholly. Science (as in the scientific community) does not ever discuss God's existence/non-existence. I guess what I was trying to say with that quote is that I disagree with people who extrapolate beyond science's boundaries in order to get science to somehow say something about God. The fact of the matter is science does not discuss God, yet some people use scientific theories to attempt to support the existence/non-existence of God. It is this practice that I disagree with.

[_Gorman]

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.

Here is where the misunderstanding is. Science is the parent classification of both Theoretical and Experimental sciences (and I imagine other stuff as well). When one discusses science, one can be talking about both theoretical and experimental, or talking about one more than the other, or just one. It is not customary to specify theoretical or experimental every time you are speaking about science.

I apologize that I didn't catch our misunderstanding earlier and point out that we were talking about different aspects of science, but you must believe that I have been discussing the theoretical aspect of science from the beginning (as well as possibly some aspects of experimental). I didn't ever "shift" the topic from my perspective.

[_Gorman]

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

OK. Yeah I got really confused when that link brought up a bunch of Bible stuff. That makes more sense now.

I still hold to my position that scientific consensus gives us some confidence in a theory, but that is not evidence in itself to any truth to the theory.

[_Gorman]

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.

I have mentioned this multiple times, but I will state it again. The word "science" is a generic term. It includes multiple topics. It is not customary to specify at all times whether you are talking about theoretical or experimental sciences every time you mention the word science. When I said science, I am talking about both theoretical and to a smaller extent experimental. It was an innocent misunderstanding between us. Neither of us were in the wrong. The topic was never shifted by either of us. We were discussing two separate topics from the beginning, and when we realized that, the topics converged. Don't try to force my earlier statements into your understanding of science, because we will just keep talking past each other.

One last time. The word "science" does not by default mean experimental science. It does not by default mean theoretical science. I wrongly assumed it was obvious that I was talking about theoretical sciences more than experimental sciences.

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.

See above about theoretical and experimental sciences.

(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.)

I don't quote you directly in full because I find it somewhat tedious. The parts I leave out are the parts I believe I have already answered in the post. I guess I wrongly assumed that quoting only the meat of your posts (the questions) was enough.

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.

Again, I thought I had already answered all of these questions, but I guess I wrongly assumed that it was obvious.

I believe it is up to the person to decide what the "authority in matters of religion" is. There is no obvious choice. Nothing appears to be able to address the matters of religion in a way that is indisputable, or even that the majority of people agree upon.

There appears to be no evidence either way about the existence/non-existence of God. At least no evidence that is even remotely close to indisputable.

I have never been trying to claim that God exists. I believe this is another major misunderstanding we have. I have never suggested that you believe/disbelieve the existence of God. I am merely trying to say that science cannot discuss matters of God (That must be the fourth time I have said this, but I guess you didn't read it the other three times because you keep bringing it up). Burden of proof as related to the existence of God is irrelevant in this case.

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 may misunderstand me here. I state that science should be involved here.

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.)

Are you a lawyer? If so it might be better if we defined every word that we use before we use it? I think you may be more worried about definitions and meanings of words than context and understanding.

I say that "scientific evidence should not be given too much weight in these (religious) matters". I also say that science should be given weight in practical matters of religion. I see no problem with these, except that they may be understood a little better in the context of their respective posts.

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?

I believe most would agree that practical matters of religion are the simple things we do each day (like warm up frozen pizza, or take a specific medicine) upon which our religion has a large effect. I believe that when science and religion conflict here, science should be considered in our decision making.

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

You said, "Science has no direct comment on religious dogma/doctrine". This is the only thing I have been trying to convince you of the whole time. I consider this "case closed". I would maybe take it one step further in saying that people who use science to try to prove/disprove God are not correct in doing so.

You appear to continue thinking that I was trying to convince you that God exists or something. I was attempting no such thing.

[_Gorman]

I said the following, "You said, 'Science has no direct comment on religious dogma/doctrine'. This is the only thing I have been trying to convince you of the whole time".

Now that I think of it, that is not entirely true, I have also been trying to convince you that science (especially theoretical science) is not deserving of our absolute trust (which is related). It really is all just educated guesses. Of course, it is all we really have to go on at the moment, so we will continue until things change.

[_JAK]

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

OK. Yeah I got really confused when that link brought up a bunch of Bible stuff. That makes more sense now.

I still hold to my position that scientific consensus gives us some confidence in a theory, but that is not evidence in itself to any truth to the theory.

PhysicsGuy,

I understand that you were confused. I was confused. I never posted a link to biblical material. When I reviewed my post, as it was quoted, there was a different link than what I had posted.

I suspect that the link I gave was altered by someone. I never saw the link until reviewing my post under what some else quoted from my post.

A puzzle.

JAK

[_JAK]

PhysicsGuy stated:

You said, "Science has no direct comment on religious dogma/doctrine". This is the only thing I have been trying to convince you of the whole time. I consider this "case closed". I would maybe take it one step further in saying that people who use science to try to prove/disprove God are not correct in doing so.

You appear to continue thinking that I was trying to convince you that God exists or something. I was attempting no such thing.

PhysicsGuy also stated:

You said, "Science has no direct comment on religious dogma/doctrine". This is the only thing I have been trying to convince you of the whole time. I consider this "case closed". I would maybe take it one step further in saying that people who use science to try to prove/disprove God are not correct in doing so.

You appear to continue thinking that I was trying to convince you that God exists or something. I was attempting no such thing.

The analysis and information which science provides is relevant to how, what, where, and when. I submit that these are relevant to the claims of superstition/religion. You said the opposite in this:

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.
Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:05 am (bold emphasis is my addition for focus)

Now, “these matters” are matters pertaining to “God exists” in the first part of your statement. Claims that God exists are as subject to skeptical review as any other claims. And science deserves “weight in these matters.”

(The bold type is mine for focus in the quote of yours.) Why are you arguing that “scientific evidence should not be given too much weight in these matters? It appears to be a discounting of scientific analysis/explanation.

If we give science weight, religious speculation fails as explanation. If we discount science, we rely on truth by assertion the argument of religion/superstition.

Your statement is ambiguous.

I accept you are not attempting to promote a God myth. That's not how your post appeared as I have cited your exact words here.

JAK

[_Gorman]

PhysicsGuy stated:

You said, "Science has no direct comment on religious dogma/doctrine". This is the only thing I have been trying to convince you of the whole time. I consider this "case closed". I would maybe take it one step further in saying that people who use science to try to prove/disprove God are not correct in doing so.

You appear to continue thinking that I was trying to convince you that God exists or something. I was attempting no such thing.

PhysicsGuy also stated:

You said, "Science has no direct comment on religious dogma/doctrine". This is the only thing I have been trying to convince you of the whole time. I consider this "case closed". I would maybe take it one step further in saying that people who use science to try to prove/disprove God are not correct in doing so.

You appear to continue thinking that I was trying to convince you that God exists or something. I was attempting no such thing.

Let's see. These are the exact same quote as far as I can tell.

The analysis and information which science provides is relevant to how, what, where, and when. I submit that these are relevant to the claims of superstition/religion.

You said the opposite in this:

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.
Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:05 am (bold emphasis is my addition for focus)

Now, “these matters” are matters pertaining to “God exists” in the first part of your statement. Claims that God exists are as subject to skeptical review as any other claims. And science deserves “weight in these matters.”

I agree that science is relevant in religion. I also propose that they hold no special place of authority in religion (because it is all just extrapolations beyond theories that are not certain), and therefore must not be given too much weight.

(The bold type is mine for focus in the quote of yours.) Why are you arguing that “scientific evidence should not be given too much weight in these matters? It appears to be a discounting of scientific analysis/explanation.

If we give science weight, religious speculation fails as explanation. If we discount science, we rely on truth by assertion the argument of religion/superstition.

Your statement is ambiguous.

I accept you are not attempting to promote a God myth. That's not how your post appeared as I have cited your exact words here.

JAK

I discount science when discussing the existence of God because (as I said before) it is necessary to "extrapolate beyond science's boundaries in order to get science to somehow say something about God". We cannot tell if science is any more right here than anything else.

[_JAK]

PhysicsGuy stated:

You said, "Science has no direct comment on religious dogma/doctrine". This is the only thing I have been trying to convince you of the whole time. I consider this "case closed". I would maybe take it one step further in saying that people who use science to try to prove/disprove God are not correct in doing so.

You appear to continue thinking that I was trying to convince you that God exists or something. I was attempting no such thing.

PhysicsGuy also stated:

You said, "Science has no direct comment on religious dogma/doctrine". This is the only thing I have been trying to convince you of the whole time. I consider this "case closed". I would maybe take it one step further in saying that people who use science to try to prove/disprove God are not correct in doing so.

You appear to continue thinking that I was trying to convince you that God exists or something. I was attempting no such thing.

Let's see. These are the exact same quote as far as I can tell.

The analysis and information which science provides is relevant to how, what, where, and when. I submit that these are relevant to the claims of superstition/religion.

You said the opposite in this:

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.
Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:05 am (bold emphasis is my addition for focus)

Now, “these matters” are matters pertaining to “God exists” in the first part of your statement. Claims that God exists are as subject to skeptical review as any other claims. And science deserves “weight in these matters.”

I agree that science is relevant in religion. I also propose that they hold no special place of authority in religion (because it is all just extrapolations beyond theories that are not certain), and therefore must not be given too much weight.

(The bold type is mine for focus in the quote of yours.) Why are you arguing that “scientific evidence should not be given too much weight in these matters? It appears to be a discounting of scientific analysis/explanation.

If we give science weight, religious speculation fails as explanation. If we discount science, we rely on truth by assertion the argument of religion/superstition.

Your statement is ambiguous.

I accept you are not attempting to promote a God myth. That's not how your post appeared as I have cited your exact words here.

JAK

I discount science when discussing the existence of God because (as I said before) it is necessary to "extrapolate beyond science's boundaries in order to get science to somehow say something about God". We cannot tell if science is any more right here than anything else.

You’re misreading my comments.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I agree that science is relevant in religion. I also propose that they hold no special place of authority in religion (because it is all just extrapolations beyond theories that are not certain), and therefore must not be given too much weight.

That’s ambiguous. It begs the question. It is the opposite which is the case. Science is relevant religion. It is religion which is irrelevant.

Science explains. Religion claims absent evidence. Hence when science details the evolution of species (for illustration), it indirectly contradicts creationism -- religion and a religious claim.

You are not agreeing with my position. Please re-read my posts. Documentation of evolving species (fore example) is authoritative. Religion is not. It is religious claims which should not be given credibility.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I discount science when discussing the existence of God because (as I said before) it is necessary to "extrapolate beyond science's boundaries in order to get science to somehow say something about God". We cannot tell if science is any more right here than anything else.

No reliable evidence supports God claims. Assertions absent evidence should be disregarded. It is you who continue to use the term God as if it were established. Ancient religious scripts or subsequent interpretations/translations of ancient scripts lack credibility.

Why “discount science” when “discussing” anything? Particularly when science offers much consensus evidence for conclusions. Do we have more than 1,000 denominations of science? We don’t, as you know. And that “more than 1,000” refers to Protestants alone excluding Christianity as claimed by the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church.

Science makes no direct comment on God claims. However, science offers rational, logical, evidence-supported analysis which religious dogma/doctrine denies.

Again, the discount should be of religious claims not of science.

Religion is not self-scrutinized and skeptically reviewed. Hence, religion posits truth by assertion. That posit is flawed.

Truth by assertion is discredited by the tools of scientific method.

Thus, you appear to disagree with my comments.

JAK

[_Gorman]

You’re misreading my comments.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I agree that science is relevant in religion. I also propose that they hold no special place of authority in religion (because it is all just extrapolations beyond theories that are not certain), and therefore must not be given too much weight.

That’s ambiguous. It begs the question. It is the opposite which is the case. Science is relevant religion. It is religion which is irrelevant.

Science explains. Religion claims absent evidence. Hence when science details the evolution of species (for illustration), it indirectly contradicts creationism -- religion and a religious claim.

You are not agreeing with my position. Please re-read my posts. Documentation of evolving species (fore example) is authoritative. Religion is not. It is religious claims which should not be given credibility.

PhysicsGuy stated:
I discount science when discussing the existence of God because (as I said before) it is necessary to "extrapolate beyond science's boundaries in order to get science to somehow say something about God". We cannot tell if science is any more right here than anything else.

No reliable evidence supports God claims. Assertions absent evidence should be disregarded. It is you who continue to use the term God as if it were established. Ancient religious scripts or subsequent interpretations/translations of ancient scripts lack credibility.

Why “discount science” when “discussing” anything? Particularly when science offers much consensus evidence for conclusions. Do we have more than 1,000 denominations of science? We don’t, as you know. And that “more than 1,000” refers to Protestants alone excluding Christianity as claimed by the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church.

Science makes no direct comment on God claims. However, science offers rational, logical, evidence-supported analysis which religious dogma/doctrine denies.

Again, the discount should be of religious claims not of science.

Religion is not self-scrutinized and skeptically reviewed. Hence, religion posits truth by assertion. That posit is flawed.

Truth by assertion is discredited by the tools of scientific method.

Thus, you appear to disagree with my comments.

JAK

OK. Yes. I disagree with you here. I have claimed that science can have some say in religious matters that are practical and deal with day to day decision making. I disagree that science can have any say on fundamental doctrines of religions.

I thought you agreed at one point that science (especially theoretical) is not capable of having a say in fundamental religious matters, but maybe I misunderstood.

When you say "assertions absent evidence should be disregarded", that would also include a lot of theoretical science (String theory, some aspects of Quantum Mechanics, and others) as I have shown in examples.

I also disagree when you say "science explains". It should probably be "science tries to explain". It is really just a bunch of educated guesses.

You say: "Do we have more than 1,000 denominations of science"? I say: maybe not quite that many, but pretty close. We definitely have multiple "denominations" in science that believe different theories, or different interpretations of theories. I can think of three or four major ones in Quantum Mechanics of the top of my head: Copenhagen interpretation, Ensemble Interpretation, Consciousness causes collapse, and consistent histories (there are probably at least five or six more). These are all theories that give different interpretations on the metaphysical aspect of Quantum mechanics, but give the same predictions to experiments. A few of the scientists who follow these different interpretations can be just as dogmatic as religious people sometimes. Especially when the predominate interpretation of a particular theory doesn't allow other interpretation's papers to be published, or doesn't give them any funding.

It appears as if you are not very familiar with theoretical science or even the fundamental roles of science. Whenever science is trying to explain "why" something happens (or even if it is trying to really "explain" any phenomena), it is in metaphysical territory, and there are always multiple (if not thousands) of possible ways to explain a single phenomenon. Scientists just choose the one that seems most simple to them (this may or may not be the right one, if there even is a "right" one). It is here where science can possibly overlap with religious territory, and at that point it is not any more verifiable than religions are.

Here is a quote I found on the "science" page of wikipedia that I liked, and I thought pertained to the subject at hand:

The separate roles of explanation and prediction must be differentiated, because science must always provide a clear prediction of future phenomena (by definition) but is not always able to provide or differentiate between possible explanations for the causes of phenomena. As an often cited example, there exist a number of models of quantum mechanics which differ in explanation of quantum phenomena and in physical models for them, but are all mathematically equivalent in prediction. For this reason, the possible explanations and physical models cannot be differentiated. In such cases, natural science does not and cannot provide a preferred explanation or mechanical model for reality, but because it continues to provide a clear predictive mathematical model for reality, it retains its classification as science.