Scientific proof that God exists?

[Saltzman Alaric]

Here's a nice article about scientific hypotheses: https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Hypotheses_Forget_About_It

looks like it is very interesting reading material.  sadly, I don't have a membership. if you would be so kind to PM me a copy and paste, it would be read and appreciated.     I won't tell if you don't.

[the joint]

Here's a nice article about scientific hypotheses: https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Hypotheses_Forget_About_It

looks like it is very interesting reading material.  sadly, I don't have a membership. if you would be so kind to PM me a copy and paste, it would be read and appreciated.     I won't tell if you don't.

You know, it's strange.  I was able to access the entire article online, but when I clicked my own link that I pasted I couldn't access it either.

Here's the quoted text, again I have no idea why it was accessible in full via Google but not upon clicking the hyperlink:

Hypotheses? Forget About It!

So says our philosophical science correspondent Massimo Pigliucci.

Newton famously said “hypotheses non fingo,” meaning, “I frame no hypotheses” – a rather startling position for a scientist to advocate. Isn’t science precisely the activity of constructing and testing hypotheses about the natural world? Certainly this has been the view of influential philosophers of science such as Karl Popper. Popper said that scientific hypotheses can never be proven correct, but they can be falsified, that is proven wrong. For Popper, science progresses through the successive elimination of wrong hypotheses. Many scientists proudly ignore philosophy, but Popperian falsification is one of the only two philosophical concepts you are likely to find in an introductory science textbook. (The other is Thomas Kuhn’s idea of paradigms. This is rather strange, since Kuhn was a fierce critic of Popper.)

I came across a delightful paper by David Glass and Ned Hall – the first a biomedical researcher, the second a philosopher – published in a rather unlikely place, the journal Cell (August 8, 2008). As its title states, the main point of the paper is to provide readers with ‘A Brief History of the Hypothesis’. This makes it a must-read for young (and perhaps not so young) scientists. But what caught my attention in the paper is Glass and Hall’s suggestion that, contrary to Popper’s conception of science, scientists would be better off replacing hypotheses with two other guides to their research: questions and models.

Let me explain. Half of the problem with hypotheses was mentioned above: there is no way to conclusively prove a hypothesis correct, because there is always the possibility that a new set of observations will disprove it. The bad news is that, unbeknownst to most scientists, philosophers have also made a very compelling argument that hypotheses cannot be decisively disproved either. Falsification doesn’t work, because one can always tweak the hypothesis enough to accommodate the initially discordant data, or question some of the ancillary hypotheses, or even question the accuracy of the data itself. (This is not as far fetched as it may seem given the complexity of the machinery used nowadays to produce scientific data, from particle colliders to genomic sequencers.)

What now? Glass and Hall advise us to go back to the basics. Science is really about asking questions, they suggest: “it would seem that a question is the appropriate tool because the question, as opposed to a hypothesis, properly identifies the scientist as being in a state of ignorance when data are absent.” Right! I became a scientist because science has the power to answer questions about nature. Questions can be formulated in either open-ended or very specific ways, and both ways can provide guidance for fruitful empirical research. Besides, as Glass and Hall also note, in many fields of modern science one would not even know how to begin to formulate sensible hypotheses. For instance, in the field of genomics, it’s easy to ask questions: how many genes are there in the human genome? How much does the human genome differ from that of other primates, and in what ways? But what sort of hypotheses could one possibly formulate to replace such questions?

Genomic research is highly explorative, so it is natural to base it on well-thought-out questions. Even when research is more advanced and less explorative, Glass and Hall contend that hypotheses still will not do, as they can’t be proven and they can’t be disproven. Instead, here we need models of the phenomena under study.

Unlike a hypothesis, a model is constructed after some of the data is in, and then the model is used to predict new data. A model can be statistical or directly causal in nature, mathematical or verbal, but its predictions are probabilistic and always subject to refinement.

It is the very dynamism of models which makes them powerful intellectual tools in the scientific quest for knowledge. Glass and Hall write: “eliminate the ‘hypothesis’ term and substitute the ‘question’ for settings where experiments are performed before sufficient data exist, and the ‘model’ for situations where the scientist is working with sufficient data to produce a construct that can be tested for inductive [predictive] power.”

In fields which rely heavily on statistical analysis, such as biology and the social sciences, some scientists have already moved away from hypothesis testing to model comparisons. It used to be that statistical tests were rigidly set up to pit a simple (some would say simplistic) ‘null hypothesis’ (nothing’s happening) against an alternative, catch-all hypothesis (there’s something going on here…). Slowly but surely, people have figured out that this is not particularly productive, and recent years have seen a steady increase in the use of statistical software that can pit several alternative models against each other, with analytical methods that can tell which ones are more likely, given the available data.

The funny thing about all this is that a few years ago the US National Science Foundation made a ‘philosophical’ move in their guidelines for grant proposals. They explicitly asked scientists to do away with questions (the traditional way to frame grants) and to replace them instead with the more ‘solid’ concept of hypothesis. So now a prospective grant applicant can be seriously penalized if she does not put her proposal in a way clearly contradictory to Newton’s dictum (I venture to say that citing Newton as a reference will not help). But this is what happens when scientists pay so little attention to philosophy that they are a few decades out of date with the philosophy of science literature. Maybe we should mandate Philosophy of Science 101 for all graduate students in the sciences.

© Dr Massimo Pigliucci 2009

Massimo Pigliucci is Chair of the Philosophy Department at City University of New York, Lehman College, and is the author of several books, including Making Sense of Evolution: The Conceptual Foundations Of Evolutionary Biology (Chicago Press, 2006). His philosophical musings can be found at www.platofootnote.org.

[the joint]

Try telling that to all the kids in grade school, high school, college, medical school, etc., who are virtually forced to study evolution as though it were some kind of logical process, if not the absolute truth behind all life.

Probably, yes. But why would a religion that tries to ignore the whole idea of religion even mention anything about religion at all?

No? My idea isn't to bolster arguments. My idea is to set down some points that will help you and others clarify for yourselves - that is, instigate valid internal arguments within yourselves - about why or why not God or evolution or something else might be valid. I see from your discussion that it is working. I also see that you have very subtle ways for evading the point.

1)  Evolution is misunderstood if it's proposed as a cause for life itself.  No teacher or professor or scientist has any business associating evolution with the cause for life.

2)  The scientific method isn't a religion, it's a theory about knowledge acquisition, i.e. it is a specific method used to acquire certain types of knowledge.  Religion is not a method of anything, but instead is a belief system. 

3)  What point am I evading?  I'd like to know so I can respond to it directly.

[BADecker]

Try telling that to all the kids in grade school, high school, college, medical school, etc., who are virtually forced to study evolution as though it were some kind of logical process, if not the absolute truth behind all life.

Probably, yes. But why would a religion that tries to ignore the whole idea of religion even mention anything about religion at all?

No? My idea isn't to bolster arguments. My idea is to set down some points that will help you and others clarify for yourselves - that is, instigate valid internal arguments within yourselves - about why or why not God or evolution or something else might be valid. I see from your discussion that it is working. I also see that you have very subtle ways for evading the point.

1)  Evolution is misunderstood if it's proposed as a cause for life itself.  No teacher or professor or scientist has any business associating evolution with the cause for life.

2)  The scientific method isn't a religion, it's a theory about knowledge acquisition, i.e. it is a specific method used to acquire certain types of knowledge.  Religion is not a method of anything, but instead is a belief system. 

3)  What point am I evading?  I'd like to know so I can respond to it directly.

Lately my daughter tells me that colleges are becoming less formal about the idea of evolution as the way life came about. But for a long time, evolution was taught both ways, as a theory and as fact (fact by implication, mostly).

In today's world, politics has turned the scientific method into a different thing than science. While the scientific method may not be affected for a long time yet by politics, politics has turned science into, if not religion, at least philosophy.

The point wasn't meant to be responded to, exactly. The point is that when you look at nature and the universe as a whole, the idea of God is way stronger than the idea of evolution for the beginnings of life. Notice, I said "idea," not "science." Now, relax. I'm not saying you necessarily agree or disagree with this. It is more rhetorical, since there is no way of proving full evolution or full God... not at this point, anyway.

Let me say it like this:
Evolution offers science some handles for investigation.
God doesn't because God is "outside of the sphere" of what science has any way of handling.

Perhaps we agree way more than we think. Perhaps it is only that we are coming from different directions.

[bl4kjaguar]

Let me say it like this:
Evolution offers science some handles for investigation.
God doesn't because God is "outside of the sphere" of what science has any way of handling.

And yet, Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are unable to explain anomalies in the emergence of domesticated plants, animals and humans.

http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html

[bl4kjaguar]

There is no proof that the Bible is the only printed word of God.
If you question BADecker on the integrity of the Bible, he will freak out because you are attacking his dogma.
BADecker is not willing to discuss anything that could contradict his dogma, and he likes it that way.
Decksperiment wrote several pages trying to get this point across, among others...

Huwt youw itty, bitty, feewings, did I?  

I pierced your dogma.

Life is about, at times, feeling comfortable. So, since I am not adverse to you feeling comfortable, I won't object to your statement. But, so that I feel comfortable, neither will I accept it.

No need to blindly accept what I say; do your own thinking, and consider the FACT that Jesus never put pen to paper, that Paul never was a "follower of Christ", that Creationism cannot actually explain the anomalies mentioned.

Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

You can hardly feel good about yourself if you are wandering around in a self-induced mental fog.

[BADecker]

There is no proof that the Bible is the only printed word of God.
If you question BADecker on the integrity of the Bible, he will freak out because you are attacking his dogma.
BADecker is not willing to discuss anything that could contradict his dogma, and he likes it that way.
Decksperiment wrote several pages trying to get this point across, among others...

Huwt youw itty, bitty, feewings, did I?  

I pierced your dogma.

Life is about, at times, feeling comfortable. So, since I am not adverse to you feeling comfortable, I won't object to your statement. But, so that I feel comfortable, neither will I accept it.

No need to blindly accept what I say; do your own thinking, and consider the FACT that Jesus never put pen to paper, that Paul never was a "follower of Christ", that Creationism cannot actually explain the anomalies mentioned.

Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

You can hardly feel good about yourself if you are wandering around in a self-induced mental fog.

Does somebody pay you to write this stuff?   

[BADecker]

Let me say it like this:
Evolution offers science some handles for investigation.
God doesn't because God is "outside of the sphere" of what science has any way of handling.

And yet, Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are unable to explain anomalies in the emergence of domesticated plants, animals and humans.

http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html

Obviously you missed the part about the devil deceiving Adam and Eve, thereby causing sin to come into the world, and changing everything. I wonder if he (the devil) is your writer.

[the joint]

There is no proof that the Bible is the only printed word of God.
If you question BADecker on the integrity of the Bible, he will freak out because you are attacking his dogma.
BADecker is not willing to discuss anything that could contradict his dogma, and he likes it that way.
Decksperiment wrote several pages trying to get this point across, among others...

Huwt youw itty, bitty, feewings, did I?  

I pierced your dogma.

Life is about, at times, feeling comfortable. So, since I am not adverse to you feeling comfortable, I won't object to your statement. But, so that I feel comfortable, neither will I accept it.

No need to blindly accept what I say; do your own thinking, and consider the FACT that Jesus never put pen to paper, that Paul never was a "follower of Christ", that Creationism cannot actually explain the anomalies mentioned.

Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

You can hardly feel good about yourself if you are wandering around in a self-induced mental fog.

Does somebody pay you to write this stuff?   

No amount of smileys will hide the fact that you are extremely sensitive to this subject matter and result to passive aggression when you no idea how to respond  to someone.

[BADecker]

There is no proof that the Bible is the only printed word of God.
If you question BADecker on the integrity of the Bible, he will freak out because you are attacking his dogma.
BADecker is not willing to discuss anything that could contradict his dogma, and he likes it that way.
Decksperiment wrote several pages trying to get this point across, among others...

Huwt youw itty, bitty, feewings, did I?  

I pierced your dogma.

Life is about, at times, feeling comfortable. So, since I am not adverse to you feeling comfortable, I won't object to your statement. But, so that I feel comfortable, neither will I accept it.

No need to blindly accept what I say; do your own thinking, and consider the FACT that Jesus never put pen to paper, that Paul never was a "follower of Christ", that Creationism cannot actually explain the anomalies mentioned.

Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

You can hardly feel good about yourself if you are wandering around in a self-induced mental fog.

Does somebody pay you to write this stuff?  

No amount of smileys will hide the fact that you are extremely sensitive to this subject matter and result to passive aggression when you no idea how to respond  to someone.

The idea is to get people to be saved, even atheists, even new agers. Jesus suffered a lot on the cross that day. He did it for me. He did it for you. He did it for everyone. He doesn't want anyone to be lost.

How does one respond with the truth while, at the same time, not alienate? bl4kjaguar might be lost, but the fact that he is still answering shows that there is hope. Notice that his answers don't have much of a thread of logic to them. But he still tries. There is still hope.

[the joint]

There is no proof that the Bible is the only printed word of God.
If you question BADecker on the integrity of the Bible, he will freak out because you are attacking his dogma.
BADecker is not willing to discuss anything that could contradict his dogma, and he likes it that way.
Decksperiment wrote several pages trying to get this point across, among others...

Huwt youw itty, bitty, feewings, did I?  

I pierced your dogma.

Life is about, at times, feeling comfortable. So, since I am not adverse to you feeling comfortable, I won't object to your statement. But, so that I feel comfortable, neither will I accept it.

No need to blindly accept what I say; do your own thinking, and consider the FACT that Jesus never put pen to paper, that Paul never was a "follower of Christ", that Creationism cannot actually explain the anomalies mentioned.

Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

You can hardly feel good about yourself if you are wandering around in a self-induced mental fog.

Does somebody pay you to write this stuff?  

No amount of smileys will hide the fact that you are extremely sensitive to this subject matter and result to passive aggression when you no idea how to respond  to someone.

The idea is to get people to be saved, even atheists, even new agers. Jesus suffered a lot on the cross that day. He did it for me. He did it for you. He did it for everyone. He doesn't want anyone to be lost.

How does one respond with the truth while, at the same time, not alienate? bl4kjaguar might be lost, but the fact that he is still answering shows that there is hope. Notice that his answers don't have much of a thread of logic to them. But he still tries. There is still hope.

I hope you're not implying that you're the one responding with truth.  You aren't.  Your threads intentionally avoid logic, and you make no indication that you want to learn why your arguments carry absolutely no weight.

All of your posts in this entire thread could have been summed up as "I believe in the Bible, no matter what" and it would carry just as much weight as everything else you've said.   Actually, it would carry *more* weight because it would be one of the only factual things that you've stated.

Notice that his answers don't have much of a thread of logic to them.

Project much?

[bl4kjaguar]

The Joint, I will definitely have a look at those references you have posted before I say much more in this thread.

I briefly want to mention that I also found a cool theory of abstract things described in the book "Coming to Understanding"; it is referenced in this article called "The Mystery of the Millionaire Metaphysician".

How does one respond with the truth while, at the same time, not alienate?

This is a great question. One responds with the truth by stating facts.

All I ever wanted was for you to back up your claim that the Bible is an impossible book. Actually, what you were really trying to claim is that "the Bible is the only written word of God". I had asked you to back that up!

When BADecker refused, that is when I went on the prowl, chased him, and took him down, along with his dogma.

[BADecker]

This is a great question. One responds with the truth by stating facts.

All I ever wanted was for you to back up your claim that the Bible is an impossible book. Actually, what you were really trying to claim is that "the Bible is the only written word of God". I had asked you to back that up!

When BADecker refused, that is when I went on the prowl, chased him, and took him down, along with his dogma.

I hope you're not implying that you're the one responding with truth.  You aren't.  Your threads intentionally avoid logic, and you make no indication that you want to learn why your arguments carry absolutely no weight.

All of your posts in this entire thread could have been summed up as "I believe in the Bible, no matter what" and it would carry just as much weight as everything else you've said.   Actually, it would carry *more* weight because it would be one of the only factual things that you've stated.

Now, children. I know it hurts a little when you find out that there isn't much (if any) substance to the things that you believe. But YOU ARE ALIVE! You have the opportunity to shake your childishness off, and to move ahead in the direction of REAL TRUTH.

Don't fail me now. I have pointed you in the direction where you can find TRUE life, and love, and fulfillment. Grab hold of the things I have shown you. Run with them. LIVE!

There were those in this forum who told me it was useless to try to save you. Others suggested that I was only casting my pearls before the swine. But rather than simply accept their words, I pressed on, in the hopes that I could somehow show some of you the way. And I have succeeded with some.

Don't fail yourselves, now... now that you are so close to finding out the truths of the Bible. Jesus would love to have you with Him in His kingdom. Throw off the foolishness of your childish ways, and grow up into eternal life!

[BADecker]

Oh, you just had to, didn't y.........

Wait! Hold that thought. This post was supposed to come after your response to my previous post.

eh.....   I'll finish it up later, after you respond.

[picolo]

This is a great question. One responds with the truth by stating facts.

All I ever wanted was for you to back up your claim that the Bible is an impossible book. Actually, what you were really trying to claim is that "the Bible is the only written word of God". I had asked you to back that up!

When BADecker refused, that is when I went on the prowl, chased him, and took him down, along with his dogma.

I hope you're not implying that you're the one responding with truth.  You aren't.  Your threads intentionally avoid logic, and you make no indication that you want to learn why your arguments carry absolutely no weight.

All of your posts in this entire thread could have been summed up as "I believe in the Bible, no matter what" and it would carry just as much weight as everything else you've said.   Actually, it would carry *more* weight because it would be one of the only factual things that you've stated.

Now, children. I know it hurts a little when you find out that there isn't much (if any) substance to the things that you believe. But YOU ARE ALIVE! You have the opportunity to shake your childishness off, and to move ahead in the direction of REAL TRUTH.

Don't fail me now. I have pointed you in the direction where you can find TRUE life, and love, and fulfillment. Grab hold of the things I have shown you. Run with them. LIVE!

There were those in this forum who told me it was useless to try to save you. Others suggested that I was only casting my pearls before the swine. But rather than simply accept their words, I pressed on, in the hopes that I could somehow show some of you the way. And I have succeeded with some.

Don't fail yourselves, now... now that you are so close to finding out the truths of the Bible. Jesus would love to have you with Him in His kingdom. Throw off the foolishness of your childish ways, and grow up into eternal life!

Jesus had divine powers or there is something we don't get because he was walking alone in villages where no one knew him and people were gathering and following up leaving families and houses .

[bl4kjaguar]

I know it hurts a little when you find out that there isn't much (if any) substance to the things that you believe.

It is doubtful that you will expose my beliefs as a fraud or a contradiction.

I am not here to persecute you, I just want the facts.

Why are you here to criticize me? I just want to talk to you about the facts, but you are not interested.



Got something in your eye?

[dank]

God = all.  Universe = all.

Does the universe exist?

Are you aware?

[the joint]

Now, children. I know it hurts a little when you find out that there isn't much (if any) substance to the things that you believe. But YOU ARE ALIVE! You have the opportunity to shake your childishness off, and to move ahead in the direction of REAL TRUTH.

Don't fail me now. I have pointed you in the direction where you can find TRUE life, and love, and fulfillment. Grab hold of the things I have shown you. Run with them. LIVE!

There were those in this forum who told me it was useless to try to save you. Others suggested that I was only casting my pearls before the swine. But rather than simply accept their words, I pressed on, in the hopes that I could somehow show some of you the way. And I have succeeded with some.

Don't fail yourselves, now... now that you are so close to finding out the truths of the Bible. Jesus would love to have you with Him in His kingdom. Throw off the foolishness of your childish ways, and grow up into eternal life!

You sound absolutely ridiculous.  There's no possible way that you speak like this in person.  It's phony and disingenuous and you know it.

I also expect you to apologize for your condescending attitude.  You're not fooling anyone into thinking you're superior with your "Now, children" nonsense.  The only reason you're resorting to the "childish" tactics is because you have nothing constructive to say to support your arguments.

I'm taking (i.e. wasting) my time trying to actually respond point-by-point to your posts.  Furthermore, while you're far more deserving of a condescending attitude than others here by virtue of your horrible social graces and your delusional narcissism, I'm genuinely trying to educate you here and help you learn something.  I assume the reason nobody else is doing the same thing is because everyone realizes you're as dense as a concrete wall within a few seconds of listening to you.

That being said, I would appreciate if you would honor my posts with the same respect that I honor yours (when you're just spouting ignorance rather being a complete jerk, that is).  You really ought to consider the fact that you might be correct in your beliefs about God and Jesus, but have a completely irrational basis for those beliefs.  As it turns out, you do, and I've been explaining why.  It isn't a matter that's up for interpretation.

One of the worst qualities in a person is when they absolutely refuse to accept they're wrong in spite of black-and-white evidence.  If there actually are people who were converted by you, I feel especially sorry for them because you have misled them with not only information that is false, but is so plainly and absurdly false that I have trouble finding the words to express how appalling it is.   What's even more appalling is that you are proud of it.

To summarize, you're proud to be wrong, proud to misinform others, proud to be ignorant and unwilling to adapt to new information that doesn't mesh with your (flawed) beliefs about science and logic.  You're proud to be insulting, condescending, and then accuse others of acting childish when no better description could be ascribed to your own self.

[the joint]

God = all.  Universe = all.

Does the universe exist?

Are you aware?

Why did you make this post?  I'm genuinely curious as to what benefit you think this post serves.

My responses:  Okay.  Okay. Yes. Yes.

...So?

Edit:  Dank, I think you're addicted to this type of philosophizing, like a drug.  I don't believe it's liberating you from anything, but trapping you further.

[dank]

Seeing oneness in the words god and universe is trapping me?

Is this still the joint from a couple years ago?

If you hold awareness and are able to conclude that you exist, you can also conclude that the universe exists.  If you can conclude through your awareness of your existence that the universe exists, you can conclude that the universe is aware.

Is god not an omnipresent form of consciousness?  Ie, the aware universe your awareness concluded to exist?