Limitations of Science?

nagirrac wrote: »

As far as "portions of the brain that we don't use that evolved from prior species".. I wrote that horribly and it did not convey what I was trying to say properly. What I was trying to convey was we have older parts of our brain (reptilian and mammalian) that resemble prior species' brains physically but function differently due to exaptation. We don't know how our brains evolved but we can deduce that through exaptation reptilian functions and older mammalian functions ceased in our brains and those areas were used for some other function based on our adaption to our environment. Obviously we use all of our brains either consciously or subconsciously.

If you went far back enough in the evolutionary timeline, it may be that you would find magnetoreception in a species from which humans have evolved. I don't know if any of the magnetoreceptive species are on that path or whether the ability only evolved in a branch that is separate from the direct line of human evolution. With no evidence to support the hypothesis, there is no reason to assume that it was present however. That's the way it works. If you want to make a claim, you have to back it up by evidence. If you want to definitively say that humans are or were capable of magnetoreception, you have to back that up with evidence.

nagirrac wrote: »

I don't know how we could ever uncover evidence for how earlier versions of human's brains worked. We are having a hard enough time determining how our current brains work . I have found research however that suggests magnetoception in humans at Steven Reppert's lab at the University of Massachusetts (www.reppertlab.org). Apparently we have the same protein (cryptochrome) in our retinas that not alone is sensitive to magnetic fields but that restored the ability of fruit flies to sense magnetic fields when our protein was spliced into the fruit flies. So maybe I am not as batty as I sound at times .

I assume you're referring to the 2011 paper by Foley et al. That paper does NOT suggest magnetoreception in humans. It merely indicates that CRY genes from humans are able to rescue magnetoreception in Drosophila which is not surprising given that the conservation of the gene between species is pretty high. It merely states that more research should be funded to determine whether magnetoreception occurs in humans, which is absolutely not the same thing as saying that magnetoreception in humans exists.

The really big problem I have with the whole design of the experiment though is the fact that these tests are performed in magnetic fields strengths which are an order of magnitude greater than the strength of the magnetic field which is produced by the earth. Sure, you can use them to determine whether or not magnetoreception is at all possible. But you cannot claim from these results using powerful magnets that magnetoreception occurs in nature in the same manner.

Probablity of the existence/nonexistence of God (deism style): impossible to calculate.
Probablity of existance of Theistic God(s): also impossible to calculate, but we've tested the power of prayers and zip there so... lower than the above.
Probablity that people make shït up: high
Probablity that any claim anyone makes about the nature of gods is just hot air: high


Given that we have no hard data, and there are multiple religions and multiple people swearing blind that they have (conflicting) revealed knowledge we can safely assume that all of them are just making stuff up... deliberately or because they are crazy or because they think it's a really really good idea and totally how things should be (but still just something that people made up)

nagirrac wrote: »

Sorry, your probability conclusion is far from logical. Lack of existing scientific evidence does nothing to lead one to a probability based conclusion regarding the existance or not of God. Science says nothing about the question, so there are no conclusions to be drawn from science. Literally all belief systems, whether theist or deist, believe that God exists outside our observed universe and thus is not observable or measurable by science.

The question of evidence for God is the source of neverending debates on threads like this and they are essentially pointless and circular. The only valid question is whether our (individual and collective) subjective and objective experiences and evidence suggest a God or not. 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.

No it is not. Probability is used as a measure of observable factors. Simply saying that GOD is not an observable factor is no defense. There needs not be anything circular about it. Probability states that the likelihood of the existence of my unicorn is "Extremely Low"... Why? Because given the fact that I have asserted that I own a unicorn, but have provided no proof of owning a unicorn, not a lump of poop, not a strand of hair, not even a picture of me with my unicorn, and no reasonable excuse as to why I have not provided any proof, other than I don't need to prove to you unbeliever that I have a unicorn, you prove that I don't have one... The same would be true if I said Lamborghini instead of Unicorn, or 25 Bedroom House... Except we know that these things do exist and some people have them, but probability would state that my owning of them would be pretty unlikely should I not provide evidence, or a reasonable reason for not providing evidence... Although in those scenario's the likelihood would be much greater than the unicorn scenario, because there are no reliable sources stating that unicorns even exist...

So the real fallacy is ignoring probability as an instrument to measure the likelihood of the existence of god.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Your argument hinges on the sense in which you use probability. Your argument requires a definition of probability which is vernacular to the point of being meaningless. It is so vague that it doesn't really advance the debate. You can say that on the basis of a lack of evidence then you probably don't have a unicorn but this is an argument centred in language and not mathematics.

However, when you talk, as you do in your last sentence above, about probability being an "instrument to measure" likelihoods, then your argument kinda falls apart. If we are talking about probability in any broadly technical sense then you have to understand the factors involved.

For example, the probability of me pulling an ace out of a deck of cards at random is 1/13. I know this because I know that there are four aces and 52 cards in total, so 4/52 or 1/13 is the probability. However, if someone asks me to reach into a black bag and pull out a card at random, the probability of it being an ace is indeterminate since a) I don't know how many aces there are and b) I don't know how many cards there are in total. So, you need to be able to know what the range of possible values your selection is allowed to have (i.e. the total number of cards) and the number of desired outcomes (i.e. the number of aces). So, in terms of theistic arguments, the numerator would be the number of pieces of evidence that would definitively prove (or disprove) your chosen entity while the denominator would be the entire set of evidence which would contribute to the debate one way or the other. I don't see how we could even begin to suggest even rough values for either.

You argument is headed towards a conflation of agnosticism and atheism. When we talk about belief in a deity, we weigh evidence and determine whether the balance of this evidence is enough to merit positive belief. However, talking about probability in a technical sense is trying to gain knowledge of something which is a) currently unknown and b) possibly unknowable. This is why I identify as an agnostic atheist, I don't know whether there is a god or not but I haven't yet been presented with any credible argument or evidence to suggest that there is and so I'm an atheist, I lack belief in gods.

That's a fair pint, but let us park probability... The fact does not change, that the person making the assertive statement must prove that statement beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise the statement is meaningless.

I also subscribe to the idea that, there is no need for a god. There never was a need for a god to exist, and knowing that human beings are flawed, and weak, and look to attribute meaning to everything, it becomes very obvious that we created gods to give meaning to things... You don't have to look at this on a mathematically sophisticated level, mere analyses of the origins of our beliefs and those of our ancient ancestors clearly identifies that man created gods, long before what we consider to be rational thought today was even in play... The existence or non-existence as it may be can easily be derived by comparing the knowledge we have of the world today with the lack of said knowledge at the origin of faith based religions, and hey presto you have it, man created god- in there image!

This is my trail of thought, and one I find pretty logical... So when you couple that with the likelihood of a good existing, should the idea of god only be speculated upon today for the first time (Hypothetically), to be very low, then the logical conclusion can only be - We made up god, because we as humans needed to attribute meaning to god, and it has almost become inherent in a way that we continue to, even though we know now know better...

nagirrac wrote: »

Sorry, your probability conclusion is far from logical. Lack of existing scientific evidence does nothing to lead one to a probability based conclusion regarding the existance or not of God. Science says nothing about the question, so there are no conclusions to be drawn from science. Literally all belief systems, whether theist or deist, believe that God exists outside our observed universe and thus is not observable or measurable by science.

Very true.

I have always thought that 'modern atheists' do not really understand the right question to ask when it comes to terms such as 'God', 'consciousness', 'reality' etc.

The first question asked (usually) is "Show me the evidence for God [or other term]". The thing that is not realised in such a question is that we are not musing or dealing in the arena of the empirical, which is the only basis most atheists are capable of rendering intelligible answers for themselves.

Empiricism and the physical sciences are practices which deal with the relative, as such being based on evidence (rather than mathematical proof, which is absolute). Often I have thought that this is where moral-relativism stems from in opposition to any form of absolute nature, being the child of a culture of atheistic empiricism.

Anyways, any observation about the physical world is evidential aka a belief/opinion. It's a belief because everything in the physical world is expressed in terms of relation i.e. One's relationship to X, X's relation to Y etc. The fact is that things cannot be known in and of themselves, without making a comparison to another substance. It's the very basis of all observation according to scientific philosophy. Empiricism is the collection/measurement of the properties of substances in their relation to other substances.


Example: We know a chair is a chair (all of its qualities) only because of our relation to it. We know a chair and a table because of the relation of one to the other, and to ourselves (and everything else). Yet there is no 'chair' as a solid value of reality. We cannot ask, 'How much chair is their in the universe? How much chair is in a glass of water?'. A chair is not objective, a value or fundamental reality. (indeed objective statements are beliefs) The chair is just a relational object and asuch cannot be of real value in determining reality.

Example 2: We only know the meaning of a number, when expressed in relation to another number. We only know what 1 is in relation to 2, and relative to those are other numbers one might mention. 1 cannot mean anything by itself or of itself, nor can any number.


In this way, the physical world is entirely relative, relation-based, thoroughly based on abstractions which explain the material sphere of existence. Substance is such an abstraction, it's not 'real', it's not knowable without being expressed in terms of spade/cup/fox etc. We can't ask "how much substance is in X / pot?" We can ask it relationally "How much iron is in this Pot?"

Reality is mathematical relationships. Knowing this, how can someone, atheist or not, answer the more fundamental principles of existence when he has no means to understand them? If he only believes empirical science, then his worldview can be said to be through and through relativistic (yet he contradicts himself because he believes in non-relative abstractions aka, infinite nature of numbers, energy etc which he holds to be real). Modern Atheists are very mixed up. I'm talking about the pop-culture variety (nearly all of them).


God is easy to understand given the right tools. Everyone knows of energy, the ever-present nature of this thing and it's ability to transfer into matter, the basis of the forces, motion etc. Yet, 'Energy' is just like 'substance' or 'God', its an abstraction used in order to explain the relations of physical phenomena that we see in the material world. Yet the basic concept of 'energy' in and of itself is not extant in the physical, only its end products, such as gravity and lightning, are visible and measurable (carried out by empirical science).

Does this mean energy itself does not exist? Of course not! Energy as a concept is just not explainable by empirical methods. It's only explained by scientific/other philosophies. This is very important to realise. Energy is the 'thing' that we describe through scientific philosophy that is behind the forces and matter. It exists yet does not in physical definitions. So why can atheists beleive in energy and not God? It's simply because of personal interpretations. Nothing more. It's not because of their belief in science or otherwise.

In Hinduism, Brahman, the Universal form of Godhead means "the unimaginable one'. In Greek/Christianity he is "The First Cause", "One who Dwells in Silence", "The complete Aeon", "The One before all", and God - means "[The] Good".

These are all perfectly acceptable names of God. God, much like energy is unknowable through evidence, or physical practices. Energy is like the 'unimaginable one'. God, an abstraction like energy, is the thing behind metaphysical reality and knowing itself, just as Energy abstraction is behind the physical. The Consciousness observes the mind, mind observes feelings, feelings observe the body, the body observes the sensory world. We know all this by the relation of these objects to each other.

Yet we know that there is something beyond consciousness that allows it to be observed in the first place, or else consciousness itself would be unknown to us [think about it]. Some call it the soul. So we say "God is behind the soul. And the soul is behind consciousness." Similarly Meister Eckhart said "The only representative of God on earth is the soul.' and this expresses this concept beautifully.

Atheists may say this about the physical world is all 'philosophy' but its not. It's math. It's what you might call fact.

Science today can be said to be modern myth unrealised. And no, I'm not anti-empirical, I just know is capabilities, what it can describe to us and what it can't. Anyone who strictly relies on the empirical alone has not got a complete understanding of nature and reality. Believing only one form of understanding or science is like a body being deficient in a mineral or vitamin - suddenly things don't work as they should, things break down, certain organs are denied their resources and so the body becomes skewed. Still it's even more dangerous to skew our personal understanding by depriving it!

nagirrac wrote: »

The most common logical fallacy by atheists is the science fallacy (science demonstrates that God does not exist),.

Lol the fallacy of pointing out what is supported by evidence and experiment and pointing out what is not.

King Mob wrote: »

Lol the fallacy of pointing out what is supported by evidence and experiment and pointing out what is not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Do you place any stock in the infinity of numbers even though it cannot be supported by evidence? You will probably have to ponder that.

Why should I only believe in the technique of observation, that is detached and only repeatable in certain circumstances as per experiment, which is in itself based on relations of substances, thus making any information completely relative?

I mean, if we only contain ourselves to the evidential form of science then we really are squandering our human intelligence.

Don't interpret this as a 'anti-atheist' argument, rather I just can't see how using only one branch or science and philosophy is the right methodology for constructing reality. But yet this is the culture of modern atheism's worldview.

Atheism has become a modern mythology. And then an atheist turns around and might say 'numbers/universe/energy is infinite', while holding that all things must be based on observable evidence, despite the former being impossible to support via empiricism. It's puzzling and contradictory.