Limitations of Science?

nagirrac

EmmettInc wrote: »

So my point is this, yes free will exists, but what we do with it has already been decided, I know that seems hard to comprehend but it is the reality, I didn't believe it 12 months ago, but when I thought about it a bit more, it made sense, and in fact my previous opinions made no sense whatsoever in hindsight...

So, the existence of free will doesn't stand up to scrutiny as a reason for there to be a god... And even if we did have true free will unaffected by any form of determinism, it would not be reasonable to think god gave it to us, rather that it was a consequence of evolution... I think it's also important o know that all living creatures exhibit almost identical free will to humans, but a dog might not snap at you for hitting him once, but the second time you might not get close enough to...

That's what I was trying to explain. Your brain has already done all that work and made all those analytical comparisons and arrived at a conclusion. Your hand is literally already raised to hit your aunt.. but you get to override that emotion and decide to go for a drink instead.

Animals do not exhibit anything like human free will. They exhibit awareness and intelligence but not free will.

sephir0th

nagirrac wrote: »

Your hand is literally already raised to hit your aunt.. but you get to override that emotion and decide to go for a drink instead.

Animals do not exhibit anything like human free will. They exhibit awareness and intelligence but not free will.

That's not free will, it's self control.

Doctor Strange

nagirrac wrote: »

Animals do not exhibit anything like human free will. They exhibit awareness and intelligence but not free will.

Oh that is so wrong it's not even funny. How do you suggest the actions of an animal are determined?

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

nagirrac wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

nagirrac wrote: »

That can certainly be debated but the fact that so many scientists both historically and contemporary are believers in God suggests your probability conclusion is a fallacy.

[...] it can be hard to find anybody in a senior scientific post who supports a single truth-claim made by a religious outfit.

Ah, the old smart people do not believe in God argument and even taking it a step further the smarter you are the less likely you are to believe. Talk about a plea to authority.

I'm the one appealing to authority?Absolutely. Your claim is that most senior scientists do not believe any religious truth-claims and somehow this is relevant to the question of God's existance. How is that not an appeal to authority?

OK, I'll try and break this down for you into bite-sized thinklets:

You: makes an appeal to authority.
Me: points out that the authority says no such thing
You: complains about me making an appeal to authority.
Me: Dafuq?
You: complains about me making an appeal to authority.

Dafuq^2.

EmmettInc

nagirrac wrote: »

That's what I was trying to explain. Your brain has already done all that work and made all those analytical comparisons and arrived at a conclusion. Your hand is literally already raised to hit your aunt.. but you get to override that emotion and decide to go for a drink instead.

Animals do not exhibit anything like human free will. They exhibit awareness and intelligence but not free will.

That's just not true... My point is far more profound than decision making, that's an outrageously simple concept... The point I make is that, that brain can retain analyze and instruct, but it is only limited to being able to analyze what it has been capable of retaining, on either a conscious or subconscious level... Therefore, in an almost butterfly affect way, every single event that occurred leading to my being here, affected how I got here... My decision, over which I have full control, is predicated on my experiences and it can be based on nothing else, and I can only make one decision at any given moment in time to proceed forward in space and time, thus making what were previously my alternative options, now nothing but a lost opportunity of sorts, of course I can do what I wish in the next happening of space and time, but again, whatever I do will be predicated on what I have experienced before, and that will be the reality...

Also, animals do have free will, free will is far more than just over-riding animal instinct or raw, it is the basis of consciousness...

EmmettInc

nagirrac wrote: »

They argue their conclusion based on science, an endevour which says nothing on the question unless you are biased, so in this sense they are in complete concert with creationists.

We certainly agree strongly on one point. I agree the Catholic church is the best example of sophism, and a blight on reason.. but its no different to strong atheism in that regard. We cannot have direct knowledge of God if he exists outside our material universe. I know outside our material universe is a difficult concept to many, and in particular scientists, but the only way to be aware of God is indirectly.

What we have in common with God is our minds, we are a small subset of what he must be like. This is what should convince us that the world in terms of underlying reality is mental and not material. How can you listen to Beethoven's 9th and not agree? Can your dog compose that? If dogs evolved enough would they compose that? and even if they could do it physically like a monkey could randomly compose Shakespeare, why would they do it?

Could you compose Beethoven 9th?

It seems you base your theistic faith on the basis that biology is amazing in some way... In particular neurology... But it's quite simple, we're not amazing... We're just not, it's arrogant for us to think we are, not that there is anything wrong with arrogance, but it is also ignorant to think we're amazing, and that's the problem...

This is the problem with all humans, theist and atheist, we feel that we are somehow intrinsically special... It is this concept that has lead us to create "gods", great all powerful, all seeing , all knowing beings, and put us at the center of his master plan... We're nothing more than clusters of cells that are formed by clusters of atoms, formed billions of years ago in a supernova of sorts... We are not special, we are not miracles of biology, science as a whole, or religion, we're just very insignificant creature wandering around a planet, replicating, and using up resources in order to sustain our own lives and gain... There is nothing about us which requires a divine creator, not one thing, we are just "sophisticated" animals, at least by our standards... We attribute meaning to everything, and give things importance to us...
Let's use your dog example, no, a dog cannot compose music, but would he want to?

As for the monkey angel, no they cannot, they're no evolved enough to, that's the whole point of evolution...

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

OK, I'll try and break this down for you into bite-sized thinklets:

You: makes an appeal to authority.
Me: points out that the authority says no such thing
You: complains about me making an appeal to authority.
Me: Dafuq?
You: complains about me making an appeal to authority.

Dafuq^2.

You have to go back one more step to grasp the context and all the fallacies involved. Bear with me, I'm sure you will get it eventually.

The statement was made that science having found no evidence for God is a probability argument for the likelihood of God's non existance. This is an example of the science fallacy, it is a logical fallacy to believe science can prove or disprove the existance of a God that created our observed universe. Some atheists use this fallacy and the probability argument is an example (read oldrnwiser's post on the subject). One of the points of evidence I highlighted to dismiss the science fallacy was to highlight that scientists can conduct science and also be religious. This is not an appeal to authority, this is stating a fact that brings clarity to the science fallacy question.

Whether individual scientists are atheists, theists or deists says nothing on the question of what science tells us about God, as science tells us nothing about God. Science has done no research to study God's existance or non-existance that I am aware of, perhaps you can dig some up.

Your response to my pointing out the science fallacy was to invoke an appeal to authority fallacy, "its hard to find senior scientists who are religious". Well, its not if you actually looked, Francis Collins head of the NIH for example, but that's not the point. You may as well say its hard to find a good plumber to teach me how to play guitar. They are unrelated subjects, why would a scientist know any more about the existance or non existance of God than a plumber or any other profession?

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

The statement was made that science having found no evidence for God is a probability argument for the likelihood of God's non existance. This is an example of the science fallacy, it is a logical fallacy to believe science can prove or disprove the existance of a God that created our observed universe.

That's not the argument. Noone here was made the argument the way you've phrased it.
You've been repeatedly asked to provide an example of any atheist doing this. You failed to do so and ignored the question.

And it's still not a fallacy.
And you repeatedly use actual fallacies.
And you have the stones to call other people sophists.

nagirrac

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

Oh that is so wrong it's not even funny. How do you suggest the actions of an animal are determined?

The actions of an animal are determined by its instinct (learned behavior that is genetically inherited), response to its environment, and if its a domestic animal how it has been trained. This has nothing to do with free will.

It sounds like some people do not actually understand what free will is. Free will is not having multiple choices and choosing one, it is applying reason based on conscious awareness to the choice. If our brains are hard wired in terms of determinate outcomes, no matter how many times we went back and re-lived the same circumstances you would always make the same choice. There are many neuroscientists who make this claim and they are imho wrong.

In terms of neuroscience, which is where most research on the subject is being conducted, there is one piece of evidence that blows apart the argument of determinate outcomes and that is neuroplasticity. The fact that we can rewire our brains by focussed thought means not alone do we have free will but we can control our minds and are not slaves to our mind/brain.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

That's not the argument. Noone here was made the argument the way you've phrased it.
You've been repeatedly asked to provide an example of any atheist doing this. You failed to do so and ignored the question.

And it's still not a fallacy.
And you repeat use actual fallacies.
And you have the stones to call other people sophists.

Go back to post #303 and argue that it is not an example of the science fallacy. Perhaps read oldrnwiser's response a few posts below it for clarity.

Continuing to declare there is no such thing as a science fallacy when it comes to the question of God simply highlights you do not understand the science fallacy. Sadly, it is rather typical of atheists who love to throw around accusations of logical fallacies but embrace the ones they find comforting. It is as good an example of sophism as you are likely to find, but you of course would be blind to it.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

Go back to post #303 and argue that it is not an example of the science fallacy. Perhaps read oldrnwiser's response a few posts below it for clarity.

It's not. Not by any definition.

nagirrac wrote: »

Continuing to declare there is no such thing as a science fallacy when it comes to the question of God simply highlights you do not understand the science fallacy.

I didn't say that what you arguing against isn't wrong. I'm just pointing out it's not a fallacy. We're also pointing that you cannot show a single person who uses the strawman you are presenting.

nagirrac wrote: »

Sadly, it is rather typical of atheists who love to throw around accusations of logical fallacies but embrace the ones they find comforting. It is as good an example of sophism as you are likely to find, but you of course would be blind to it.

I pointed out several fallacies you use. Others have pointed out even more.
We throw around the accusation a lot because you use a lot of them.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

I didn't say that what you arguing against isn't wrong. I'm just pointing out it's not a fallacy. We're also pointing that you cannot show a single person who uses the strawman you are presenting.

I pointed out several fallacies you use. Others have pointed out even more.
We throw around the accusation a lot because you use a lot of them.

Do you believe there is a science fallacy when it comes to the question of God's existance? Yes or no. If yes, can you post a definition you are satisfied with.

Give me one example of a fallacy I use other than the augument from authority fallacy which everybody on here uses when it suits their argument.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

Bear with me, I'm sure you will get it eventually.

Sadly, I have no such hope for you

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

Do you believe there is a science fallacy when it comes to the question of God's existance? Yes or no. If yes, can you post a definition you are satisfied with.

No I don't believe that such a thing exists because of the definition of fallacy.
What you describe, and which no one actually believes, exists and is wrong in a sense, but is not a fallacy.

nagirrac wrote: »

Give me one example of a fallacy I use other than the augument from authority fallacy which everybody on here uses when it suits their argument.

False Dichotomy:

nagirrac wrote: »

There are only two possibilities on the origin question, either the universe in some material sense always existed or it was created. Given the evidence I will go with created, that is an entirely logical position.

And your "fallacy of science" is a strawman.

I expect a wall of waffle rather than an admission.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

False Dichotomy:
I expect a wall of waffle rather than an admission.

Not at all, if you can point out the other alternatives to me I will gladly accept them. My position is that our observed universe always existed in a material sense or was created. You obviously feel there are other alternatives, go ahead and outline them..

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

Sadly, I have no such hope for you

no attempt at rebuttal then , another white flag flutters into the ring..

Geomy

EmmettInc wrote: »

Could you compose Beethoven 9th?

It seems you base your theistic faith on the basis that biology is amazing in some way... In particular neurology... But it's quite simple, we're not amazing... We're just not, it's arrogant for us to think we are, not that there is anything wrong with arrogance, but it is also ignorant to think we're amazing, and that's the problem...

This is the problem with all humans, theist and atheist, we feel that we are somehow intrinsically special... It is this concept that has lead us to create "gods", great all powerful, all seeing , all knowing beings, and put us at the center of his master plan... We're nothing more than clusters of cells that are formed by clusters of atoms, formed billions of years ago in a supernova of sorts... We are not special, we are not miracles of biology, science as a whole, or religion, we're just very insignificant creature wandering around a planet, replicating, and using up resources in order to sustain our own lives and gain... There is nothing about us which requires a divine creator, not one thing, we are just "sophisticated" animals, at least by our standards... We attribute meaning to everything, and give things importance to us...
Let's use your dog example, no, a dog cannot compose music, but would he want to?

As for the monkey angel, no they cannot, they're no evolved enough to, that's the whole point of evolution...

It might read better if you replace we or us with an I or me

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

no attempt at rebuttal then , another white flag flutters into the ring..

Heavens, you've even managed to get that wrong -- it's a soggy towel, not a white flag

oldrnwisr

nagirrac wrote: »

You have to go back one more step to grasp the context and all the fallacies involved. Bear with me, I'm sure you will get it eventually.

The statement was made that science having found no evidence for God is a probability argument for the likelihood of God's non existance. This is an example of the science fallacy, it is a logical fallacy to believe science can prove or disprove the existance of a God that created our observed universe. Some atheists use this fallacy and the probability argument is an example (read oldrnwiser's post on the subject). One of the points of evidence I highlighted to dismiss the science fallacy was to highlight that scientists can conduct science and also be religious. This is not an appeal to authority, this is stating a fact that brings clarity to the science fallacy question.

Whether individual scientists are atheists, theists or deists says nothing on the question of what science tells us about God, as science tells us nothing about God. Science has done no research to study God's existance or non-existance that I am aware of, perhaps you can dig some up.

Your response to my pointing out the science fallacy was to invoke an appeal to authority fallacy, "its hard to find senior scientists who are religious". Well, its not if you actually looked, Francis Collins head of the NIH for example, but that's not the point. You may as well say its hard to find a good plumber to teach me how to play guitar. They are unrelated subjects, why would a scientist know any more about the existance or non existance of God than a plumber or any other profession?

I just want to clarify a few things, nagirrac because my post doesn't support your point in the way that you think it does.

Firstly, EmmettInc did not commit a fallacy in his post on probability. The closest he came to a fallacious argument was heading towards an appeal to probability, which for those who don't know goes something like this:

X is probably the cause of Y
Therefore, X is definitely the cause of Y.

The reason EmmettInc doesn't make a fallacious argument is because it doesn't get off the ground. He can't in a technical sense show that there is a probability of God existing or not existing. However, it is more to do with the carefulness of wording than any logical fallacy.

On a side note, refuting one logical fallacy with another (appeal to authority) is not that constructive.


Now, as for this "science fallacy" that you're talking about, it's not actually a fallacy.
Science doesn't set out to prove or disprove anything. Science is a tool which allows us to test the claims made by people (in this case arguing for the existence of a god). Now, sometimes science can be very useful in this respect. This is most likely when a specific claim is made by a believer.

Take something relatively minor for example, like the fall of Jericho in the book of Joshua. The story depicts the walls of Jericho falling after Joshua's army march around the city blowing their trumpets. However, we know from archaeological evidence that Jericho was destroyed no later than about 1550BCE. Since, even by the dating of the Bible, Joshua was born in 1500BCE, the city was already destroyed before Joshua was even born, ergo, claim disproved.

That isn't to say that science can test every religious claim because it can't. There are those set of arguments for god which rely on broad inferences and logical arguments rather than testable claims e.g. ontological argument, TAG, Kalam etc.
However, most if not all of these arguments fall foul of logical fallacies or some other inherent flaw.
Take Kalam for example. Kalam begins with the premise "everything which begins to exist has a cause." This immediately creates a problem for its proponents which ultimately undermines their conclusions. If everything which begins to exist has a cause this means that there must be two groups those things which begin to exist, BE and those which don't NBE. In order, for the argument to have any meaning, NBE cannot be empty. Next, if the only member of set NBE is god then NBE simply becomes a label for god, resulting in appeal to special pleading.Therefore there must be more than one member of NBE collapsing the argument.
Similarly, both the ontological and TAG arguments collapse by invoking the reification fallacy.

Science is not a proactive tool which sets out to prove anything. Science is, to repeat myself, simply a tool, a process, which allows us to separate claims which are true from those which are false. If we have no means to separate the truth of a claim from its falsehood, then we have no reason to believe it. I think this is the crux of the matter. From my perspective and from the way in which the world works, disbelief ought to be the default position. For example, new drugs are assumed not to work until they can be shown to work.

For sure, there are limitations to science but let's not forget why we are here. If you are suggesting that a god exists then it is encumbent on you to show why this is true. In so doing, it is for you to offer a means by which we can verify the truth of your claim.

By the way, one last comment on scientists and atheism. Other than an appeal to authority, the religious position of scientists is irrelevant to the argument for another reason. Whether someone is or isn't a scientist says nothing about whether they have examined their religious belief. Most people for at least some portion of their lives have an inherited religious position and similarly most people don't bother to investigate this position. It's just that quite often people assume that if a scientist is religious it means that they must have examined their beliefs and concluded there is a god. That may not always be the case (and frequently isn't).

oldrnwisr

nagirrac wrote: »

My position is that our observed universe always existed in a material sense or was created.

Just one more quick question, nagirrac. I agree with your dichotomy although I'm not sure I would have worded it in the way you did. However, whichever option you take I don't see how god is a necessary assumption in order to balance the equation.

From my perspective, the big bang is a recurring quantum event in an eternal universe. Morbert has previously summarily described this idea very nicely here:

"In the distant future, the universe will only consist of massless particles travelling at the speed of light (assuming black-holes evaporate, which we have good reason to believe they do). This "very boring era" will stretch on for eternity, as the temperature of the universe cools to zero, and the density approaches zero. But if you are travelling at the speed of light, an eternity is no different from an instant. Time, as a scale of duration, is physically meaningless. The big big bang may simply be the infinite future of a previous universe."

This idea is expanded upon by Roger Penrose in his book Cycles of Time and wikipedia has a summary here. While the early research is questionable, it does at least, as Morbert notes, have the potential to be testable using current techniques.

My question, ultimately, is why we need to insert god as an assumed quantity in order to explain the origin of the universe. IMO, it is a) unnecessary since we can formulate a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe and b) currently pointless since we lack the means to pick the definite cause of the universe from the spectrum of possible causes.

EDIT: I want to clarify the first paragraph of this post. I was wrong about nagirrac's dichotomy being valid. Firstly, using the word "created" does create a false dilemma since it implies a creator. Secondly, while the eternal universe and big-bang universe are certainly two options, they aren't the only two. A way of resolving this dilemma as above is to suggest a superposition of the two options, a universe which exists in cycles but is ultimately eternal. Got that one wrong. Apologies.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Not at all, if you can point out the other alternatives to me I will gladly accept them. My position is that our observed universe always existed in a material sense or was created. You obviously feel there are other alternatives, go ahead and outline them..

Wow you are just on a roll with the fallacies at the moment aren't you.

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/negative-proof-fallacy/

He doesn't have to show you anything, you stated that there are only two possibilities and the burden is on you to support that, which you cannot. The reality is we don't know what the set of possible origins of the universe are, so it would make no more sense for him to provide an alternative than it did you you to provide your original set in the first place.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

Not at all, if you can point out the other alternatives to me I will gladly accept them. My position is that our observed universe always existed in a material sense or was created. You obviously feel there are other alternatives, go ahead and outline them..

And there's another one. Argument from ignorance.

There could well be millions of other options that we can't grasp with out primative ape brains. Like for instance self causation. Or something along the lines of our universe arising from a black hole in another, which does not fit your definition of non created.
Or any other option I can dream up on the spot.

But as Zombrex points out I don't even have to do that. Simply the possibility of there being other options makes your argument a false dichotomy.
And unless you can show that your premise that there are only two options is based on something other than the fact you can't think of any other options, then it's an argument from ignorance, which is another fallacy.

nagirrac

oldrnwisr wrote: »

My question, ultimately, is why we need to insert god as an assumed quantity in order to explain the origin of the universe. IMO, it is a) unnecessary since we can formulate a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe and b) currently pointless since we lack the means to pick the definite cause of the universe from the spectrum of possible causes.

I would say excluding the possibility of a creator because we do not like the idea is a bigger logical error than inserting God as a candidate. Although The God Delusion is rife with logical fallacies, this is the most serious error in my opinion as Dawkins' philosophy is largely derived from not liking the idea of God.

In answer to other posts on my statement on the potential origins of the universe being a false dichotomy, I would still argue it is not. Of course there are countless examples of mechanisms to explain the origin of the universe in a naturalist manner, such as the one you outlined above. These are all subsets of our observed universe "always having existed in some material sense". There are also countless examples of how our observed universe could have been created from outside our universe, and these do not have to imply a creator (a larger universe giving rise to this universe for example).

The point I am making is that science as a tool can examine the former but not the latter. At least not science as we know it today.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

The point I am making is that science as a tool can examine the former but not the latter. At least not science as we know it today.

Lol that's not the point you were making.
You said that there was only two options materialistic explanations or magical creation. Then you said that you choose magical creation because it is more evident (somehow despite being unable to be examined by science, the only way to produce good evidence).

And you now admit that this is because you are purposfully excluding all other options besides those two.
It is by definition a false dichotomy.

Geomy

nagirrac wrote: »

I would say excluding the possibility of a creator because we do not like the idea is a bigger logical error than inserting God as a candidate. Although The God Delusion is rife with logical fallacies, this is the most serious error in my opinion as Dawkins' philosophy is largely derived from not liking the idea of God.

In answer to other posts on my statement on the potential origins of the universe being a false dichotomy, I would still argue it is not. Of course there are countless examples of mechanisms to explain the origin of the universe in a naturalist manner, such as the one you outlined above. These are all subsets of our observed universe "always having existed in some material sense". There are also countless examples of how our observed universe could have been created from outside our universe, and these do not have to imply a creator (a larger universe giving rise to this universe for example).

The point I am making is that science as a tool can examine the former but not the latter. At least not science as we know it today.

I read the God Delusion,it was one of the most bitter and resentful book's I have ever read....
Ok some parts were funny and made me laugh

It didn't seem to find any good points about God Religion Legends or Spirituality...
It was a negative slant on it all


Then he makes up his own idea of what a God might be and describes him as a crane lol

Doctor Strange

nagirrac wrote: »

The actions of an animal are determined by its instinct (learned behavior that is genetically inherited), response to its environment, and if its a domestic animal how it has been trained. This has nothing to do with free will.

It sounds like some people do not actually understand what free will is. Free will is not having multiple choices and choosing one, it is applying reason based on conscious awareness to the choice. If our brains are hard wired in terms of determinate outcomes, no matter how many times we went back and re-lived the same circumstances you would always make the same choice. There are many neuroscientists who make this claim and they are imho wrong.

In terms of neuroscience, which is where most research on the subject is being conducted, there is one piece of evidence that blows apart the argument of determinate outcomes and that is neuroplasticity. The fact that we can rewire our brains by focussed thought means not alone do we have free will but we can control our minds and are not slaves to our mind/brain.

Short answer: There are many definitions of free will, and once again you're arrogant in your incorrectness. I'll expand on this later when I get home.

Geomy

So are you saying one has control of what thoughts come into their mind ?

Tar.Aldarion

I'm not sure how what he says about brain augmentation proves anything?

pH

nagirrac wrote: »

I would say excluding the possibility of a creator because we do not like the idea is a bigger logical error than inserting God as a candidate. Although The God Delusion is rife with logical fallacies, this is the most serious error in my opinion as Dawkins' philosophy is largely derived from not liking the idea of God.

Fine, but it also means not excluding the possibility of an infinite number of other possible means of universe creation, we certainly don't have time to consider them all - so what's special about "God might have done it" as opposed to any other wild guess a person might make as to the origin of the universe?

Geomy

But when you ask about God being the creator,you have to get a description of the God that created...

The pagan God,the Christian God,the Spiritual God,Allah,or the God who according to some people who is responsible for cosmic orders :S

Take your pick