Formerly god-attributed observations

[lrkun]

My confusion came into play when you were saying 'I could', rather than 'one could', when making your point. Anesthetic-fuzzied mind failed to translate :lol: You seemed to be speaking from a personal perspective, rather than from an abstract.

I'm not that good with the english language. It's obvious when you read my writings. That's why the communication is sometimes fuzzy; but as long as you can see the important key, I'm satisfied.

 

[Salphen]

Hey, no worries. Misunderstandings and mistakes happen all the time. One can only hope that we're all reasonable enough to acknowledge when one's happened and rectify it. Like when I try critical thinking and intelligent discourse with an inebriated mind. :facepalm:

Edit: Perhaps it could be inferred that I was divinely inspired to make a fool of myself, so people could learn the virtue of humility and honesty? :lol:

 

[Squawk]

^^ that's the point. Can you explain to me how life came to be? If not, then I can use god as an explanation for the mean time.

Why is God not an explanation even if you have a decent naturalistic one?

Can you explain to me what happened before the big bang or how it started? it's unknown, so I can use god as an explanation for the meantime.

If I did know exactly what happened at the big bang, why could I not still use God as an explanation?

I'm not saying god exists or his explanation is correct. I can very well make up a lot of answers without basis. Though to answer it through the perception of science, it is unknown until, we've figured out how to answer such subject to the experiment.

God can be used as an explanation regardless of whether or not we have a plausible naturalistic explanation. Go ask any theistic evolutionist.

 

[lrkun]

Why is God not an explanation even if you have a decent naturalistic one?

If you've read what I wrote, then you'll find that in the absence of a decen naturalistic one, a person can use god as the answer even if it isn't the correct answer. So, god is an explanation if there is no decent naturalistic one. Or I can say my magic toe is the explanation; but is it correct? No, the correct answer is something we have to look for.

If I did know exactly what happened at the big bang, why could I not still use God as an explanation?

Maybe you skimmed through my writing, I didn't say what happened at the big bang; but prior to that. Such information is not yet available and is unknown to science. That's why theoretical phycisists and smart people are developing a theory for everything. So a person can use god as an explanation until then, if not god, then something funny or otherwordly to explain the mystery.

God can be used as an explanation regardless of whether or not we have a plausible naturalistic explanation. Go ask any theistic evolutionist.

And you know this to be false; but sure, if you really want god as an explanation, then feel free to use god. However, if there is a natural explanation, then that should be the facts of which we base our knowledge and foundation, yes?

The things that I brought up are those that Feynman mentioned. The things that science has yet to answer. Someday, we'll probably know the answer; but that day isn't today, maybe someday in the future.

Summary:

What I mean to say, for those who don't understand or refuse to think about it is this:

If science can explain it, then there is no need to use god as the answer to fill in the gap; but if science can't answer it, the best answer is unknown or the phrase I don't know yet or if one is theistic, then god/supernatural/magic toaster.

 

[Squawk]

I read every word you wrote lrkun, the examples picked are of no relevance since the basic premise is flawed. The basic premise is that in the absense of a naturalistic explanation for a given phenomena God is a plausible alternative.

Substitute schlederbawits (kudos for anyone who gets the reference) for God and you meet with the same proposition. God (or schlederbawits) is a valid explanation IF it has already been shown to exist. What you are advocating (ish) is the notion that "make shit up" is acceptable in the absense of another explanation.

God can be used as an explanation regardless of whether or not we have a plausible naturalistic explanation

And you know this to be false

No, not even slightly. What prevents me using God as an explanation? If I can use God as an explanation for an event without a naturalistic explanation, why can I not use God as an explanation for an event with an apparent naturalistic explanation?

Again we come down to the arbitrary line of sufficient evidence to preclude a Gods involvement, but you won't be able to tell me where that line exists.

And you know this to be false; but sure, if you really want god as an explanation, then feel free to use god. However, if there is a natural explanation, then that should be the facts of which we base our knowledge and foundation, yes?

Clearly, but that has nothing to do with the question at hand and is a goal post shift. To best demonstrate this, consider what would happen if the natural explanation were shown, at a later date, to be wrong. Does God become, once again, a possible explanation?

 

[lrkun]

If you've read it, then I don't see any reason for you not to understand what I wrote down.

It's simple, according to Feynman, God serves as an explanation to things that we don't know. This is his personal view, I agree with him. If something that can't be explained, I can attribute it to god. Once it can be explained by science, I no longer attribute it to god. In a way, for things we do know, it can be attributed to science, and things that we don't, it can be attributed to god.

In a way, it can be said that the word god has a purpose, that is to fill in the gap while we're still looking for the truth. Now, however, the better word to use is unknown.

No, not even slightly. What prevents me using God as an explanation? If I can use God as an explanation for an event without a naturalistic explanation, why can I not use God as an explanation for an event with an apparent naturalistic explanation?

Again we come down to the arbitrary line of sufficient evidence to preclude a Gods involvement, but you won't be able to tell me where that line exists.

Like I said, you're free to use god as an explanation if you want. I can't stop you if that's what you choose to do. Still, in such a case, I'll choose science over god as an explanation if the issue is something that is known or can be explained.

Clearly, but that has nothing to do with the question at hand and is a goal post shift. To best demonstrate this, consider what would happen if the natural explanation were shown, at a later date, to be wrong. Does God become, once again, a possible explanation?

Sure, you can use god, unknown, or what not for things that you don't know. Temporarily if such could be explained by science, then was found to be erroneous in a later, date and it is really attributable to god, then god should be the proper explanation. Like in the case where a theist, in the end, is able to demonstrate that his god exists. When this happens, I'll gladly believe in a god.

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out. "

Richard Feynman, quoted by P. C. W. Davies and J. Brown in Superstrings: A Theory of Everything,p. 208.

 

[Squawk]

I think we must agree to disagree and put it down to a barrior in communication on the internet, since I still see all the same problems with what you post and I suspect you do in return.

 

[lrkun]

I think we must agree to disagree and put it down to a barrior in communication on the internet, since I still see all the same problems with what you post and I suspect you do in return.

Okay.

 

[Trons]

I think we must agree to disagree and put it down to a barrior in communication on the internet, since I still see all the same problems with what you post and I suspect you do in return.

I'm going to insert myself into the middle of the conversation, and if my comments are not welcome, please feel free to advise me to stfu.

I think that what we have here isn't so much a difference of opinion, as much as a difference of perspective. Irkun seems to be saying that anything that isn't sufficiently explained by Science can be explained by God and because there is no evidence either way, there's no feasible argument for an atheist make against such claims. Everything else is explained by science and therefore does not need, from the atheist perspective, a "God" like explanation.

From what I read, Squawk is saying that if you're a theist, then a scientific explanation is a moot point because you're (the theist) still going to attribute the observation to God, regardless of the evidence.

Personally, I think you're both right.

To keep the thread on track, as previously stated, most observations, at one time or another were described as being from God. Science has explained the vast majority of them but that still doesn't prevent a theist from seeing a beautiful sun set and thank his/hers God for the image.

 

[Squawk]

Trons, I think you hit the nail on the head

I don't see any reason for a bit of evidence to preclude God's interaction. You could have a GUT, capable of explaining everything naturalistically, but can still assert goddidit.

 

[Trons]

Trons, I think you hit the nail on the head

I don't see any reason for a bit of evidence to preclude God's interaction. You could have a GUT, capable of explaining everything naturalistically, but can still assert goddidit.

Therein lies the problem. To a theist, "goddidit" is the answer to everything. I honestly believe there are several reasons for this that go beyond mere faith, but it doesn't change the fact that a theist's claim that it's all been planned has all the comfort of a well used shoe to them. They get all the satisfaction of thinking they know something an atheist doesn't without any consequences if they're wrong.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

I think this is something Neil Tyson kind of touched on in one of his talks. He mentions how theists are among the minority when sampling a population of scientists, and among the elite scientists, they're in the extreme minority of only a few percent. The thing he focuses on is the fact that no matter where you look, though, the number isn't actually zero.

One of the forms of the god-did-it arguments that some of them use is basically what Squawk was mentioning. Basically, you have the statement that all those physical phenomena are still created by God in the first place. So although we have general relativity to say that gravity is the effect of the curvature of space, you can still have a theist who says that if not for God, mass would have no effect on the geometry of space at all.

Still, I don't think you can discount the "comfort" aspect of god-belief... Even if you don't think God causes planetary orbits to be stable (which is one example of a formerly god-attributed observation which Tyson mentioned in the same talk), there's still the comfort aspect of saying there's a magical parent in the sky who is looking out for you and protecting you.... and also grading you.

 

[Trons]

I think this is something Neil Tyson kind of touched on in one of his talks. He mentions how theists are among the minority when sampling a population of scientists, and among the elite scientists, they're in the extreme minority of only a few percent. The thing he focuses on is the fact that no matter where you look, though, the number isn't actually zero.

One of the forms of the god-did-it arguments that some of them use is basically what Squawk was mentioning. Basically, you have the statement that all those physical phenomena are still created by God in the first place. So although we have general relativity to say that gravity is the effect of the curvature of space, you can still have a theist who says that if not for God, mass would have no effect on the geometry of space at all.

Still, I don't think you can discount the "comfort" aspect of god-belief... Even if you don't think God causes planetary orbits to be stable (which is one example of a formerly god-attributed observation which Tyson mentioned in the same talk), there's still the comfort aspect of saying there's a magical parent in the sky who is looking out for you and protecting you.... and also grading you.

Not only protecting, but judging, and not just the individual, but everybody else as well. It's gotta be comforting to have faith that "what goes around, comes around" ect.