Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)

by keenobserver1 Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

If there is a God, he definetly isn't English.

by Tosh Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:04 pm

Good evening Trevor,

I am uninterested in how the minority of scientists square their irrational belief with their committment to rationality, that is between them and their psychiatrist, my comment relates to science and not scientists.
As for historical contributions to science by the religious, this is hardly surprising since few were literate and all were ignorant of knowledge and subsequently religious. People of our modern day and age forget religion provided all the answers to scientific questions, God did it. At best it stifled the need for genuine enquiry and at worst dissuaded enquiry into everything except mathematics.

Science stagnated from Constantine until the enlightenment, it should be renamed the Age without reason.

When you have one example of religion being compatible with science, we can discuss it.

by Tosh Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:23 pm

I would like to know how a message of sedition against the Roman Empire can be adopted by the Roman Empire, without someone questioning this metaphorsis.

If the Jews wanted Jesus dead for claiming to be divine they did not need the Governors permission, they would have simply tried him and stoned him themselves.

Pontius Pilate was a recorded psychopath who was removed from office for arbritrarily crucifying Jews without trial, the punishment for sedition is crucifixtion.

The term Messiah in Judaism entails freeing the Jews from oppression, it is not a divine claim. Jesus was in Jerulasem during passover, a time of great tension where passions run high. He was making Messianic speeches of sedition to the oppressed and was executed for it.

As for his moral message, it is Jewish, he was a Jew, everything he preached can be found in the Jewish scriptures, he did not invent the Golden rule nor Love thy neighbour.

If you follow the teachings of Jesus you are a JEW, the religion of Jesus became the religion about Jesus to sell it to pagans of the Roman Empire.

by trevorw2539 Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:31 pm

number of modern scholars such as Fielding H. Garrison,[13] Abdus Salam and Hossein Nasr consider modern science and the scientific method to have been greatly inspired by Muslim scientists who introduced a modern empirical, experimental and quantitative approach to scientific inquiry. Some scholars, notably Donald Routledge Hill, Ahmad Y Hassan,[14] Abdus Salam,[15] and George Saliba,[16] have referred to their achievements as a Muslim scientific revolution,[17] though this does not contradict the traditional view of the Scientific Revolution which is still supported by most scholars.[18][19][20]

It is believed that it was the empirical attitude of the Qur'an and Sunnah which inspired medieval Muslim scientists, in particular Alhazen (965-1037),[21][22] to develop the scientific method.[23][24][25] It is also known that certain advances made by medieval Muslim astronomers, geographers and mathematicians was motivated by problems presented in Islamic scripture, such as Al-Khwarizmi's (c. 780-850) development of algebra in order to solve the Islamic inheritance laws,[26] and developments in astronomy, geography, spherical geometry and spherical trigonometry in order to determine the direction of the Qibla, the times of Salah prayers, and the dates of the Islamic calendar.[27]

The increased use of dissection in Islamic medicine during the 12th and 13th centuries was influenced by the writings of the Islamic theologian, Al-Ghazali, who encouraged the study of anatomy and use of dissections as a method of gaining knowledge of God's creation.[28] In al-Bukhari's and Muslim's collection of sahih hadith it is said: "There is no disease that Allah has created, except that He also has created its treatment." (Bukhari 7-71:582). This culminated in the work of Ibn al-Nafis (1213–1288), who discovered the pulmonary circulation in 1242 and used his discovery as evidence for the orthodox Islamic doctrine of bodily resurrection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_science

from which the above was taken.

Now, as you have decided to insult some friends of mine I shall discontinue this posting.

Just seen this 'If the Jews wanted Jesus dead for claiming to be divine they did not need the Governors permission, they would have simply tried him and stoned him themselves'.

No. They did not have the authority to kill anyone. In this sphere Roman Law took precedence over Jewish religious law.
They got away with it once when the Romans were preoccupied.

Gone.

by Tosh Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:45 pm

No. They did not have the authority to kill anyone. In this sphere Roman Law took precedence over Jewish religious law. They got away with it once when the Romans were preoccupied.

lol,

JEWS COULD HAVE EXECUTED JESUS THEMSELVES

The Talmud says that Jesus was sentenced to death and the Jewish people were given forty days to change the mind of the leaders and spare him and this didn’t happen so he was executed by the leaders.

In some cities, it is certain that the people could execute without expressly appealing to the Roman authorities. Christians state that the permission was limited to these and was not extended to Palestine. That is unlikely and unprovable. Some say it is likely because Palestine had a murderous religion, Judaism had scriptures commanding the killing of sinners by stoning, that made it differ from the rest which killed on political grounds. But most of the countries put people to death for very little. They were religious countries so even if they had no Bibles to tell them to commit these crimes, religion still had a part to play. According to unimpeachable sources, Pilate was a butcher of Jews so Rome did not mind if Jews stoned one another to death over the Mosiac Law. It wanted rid of them in case they would overthrow Roman rule for their Bible told them that the land belonged to nobody else so their patriotism was stronger than that of others nations.

The ancient book, The Golden Ass, says that Rome did let nations execute without its permission. Despite some of its historical content being questionable it should be taken as correct in this because other things support what it says and the Law would have been too well-known for a mistake to have been made.

Pilate would not have told the Jews to put Jesus to death themselves unless they could. He could not have been joking or sarcastic when the Jews answered him as if he wasn’t being. And no hint of sarcasm exists. What he said could have been used against him if he didn’t mean it if it were against Roman policy to let a person be executed without permission. Also, he was empowering them to execute Jesus themselves. So why didn’t they? The scandal of Jews being granted the power to stone Jesus to death or execute him and insisting the hated Romans should do it would have generated the greatest Jewish scandal of all time had it happened. There was no explosion of uproar recorded in the world at the time over it so it didn’t happen.

by Tosh Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:14 pm

Trevor,

Why you persist in quoting Islamic scientists is lost on me, let me clarify this once and for all:

Islamic maths, geometry, a touch of religious astrology and the bare bones of a rough scientific method is not evidence that SCIENCE is compatible with RELIGION. Just as Galileo being silenced is not evidence that Religion is incompatible with science.

Science involves proof, it involves testing, it involves falsifiability...science does not begin with a fixed conclusion and work backwards. Religion proposes an untestable hypothesis where all evidence supports it and no evidence disproves it, this in scientific terms is a hypothesis empty of meaning.

That is WHY religion is incompatible with science, its claims are empty of any scientific content.

God has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful.

by oftenwrong Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:23 pm

Tosh wrote:

Science stagnated from Constantine until the enlightenment, it should be renamed the Age without reason.

When you have one example of religion being compatible with science, we can discuss it.

There it is, in a nutshell. The arrogance of belief that unless something occurred within a Western Christian framework it could never have existed in the first place.

Whilst mediaeval Britons were in constant warfare with first Vikings and later the French whilst dying of plague, Arab scholars from Damascus to Granada were recording the results of their scientific endeavour which can now be recognised as the basis of modern medicine.

http://www.islamicmedicine.org/history.htm

by Tosh Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:35 pm

..........and then they stopped, ever wonder why ?

Around the 15th Century of the Christian era, fatwas were made by Muslim Ulamas that "Iqraq" or read was intended for reading and studying religion only. From then on the Muslim scientists, physicians, mathematicians etc stopped their study of these subjects in order to study religion exclusively.

I thnk this may be a perfect example of religion obstructing science, throw in Galileo and you have a twin set.

by Shirina Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:41 pm

..........and then they stopped, ever wonder why ?

Goal!

by Guest Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:43 pm

Tosh wrote:
Science involves proof,¹ it involves testing,² it involves falsifiability³...science does not begin with a fixed conclusion and work backwards.⁴

No.
Not macro-evolution (a fixed ideology).
Explain.
Macro-evolution does (begins with a fixed ideology).

by oftenwrong Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:45 pm

Throughout Human history there has never been any shortage of book-burners. No-one can be sure just how many times the wheel has had to be reinvented, or medical sciences rediscovered.

by Tosh Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:05 pm

Texas,

A scientific fact requires evidence, evidence is a proof.

Macro-evolution is untestable but we have the evidence of transitional fossils which proves it, it can easily be falsified, one species out of sequence disproves macro evolution.

Macro-evolution was a conclusion based on the evidence, the similarity between primates and humans.

by Tosh Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:18 pm

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, The Scientific Case for Common Descent

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

by trevorw2539 Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:50 pm

Tosh wrote:
No. They did not have the authority to kill anyone. In this sphere Roman Law took precedence over Jewish religious law. They got away with it once when the Romans were preoccupied.

lol,

JEWS COULD HAVE EXECUTED JESUS THEMSELVES

The Talmud says that Jesus was sentenced to death and the Jewish people were given forty days to change the mind of the leaders and spare him and this didn’t happen so he was executed by the leaders.

In some cities, it is certain that the people could execute without expressly appealing to the Roman authorities. Christians state that the permission was limited to these and was not extended to Palestine. That is unlikely and unprovable. Some say it is likely because Palestine had a murderous religion, Judaism had scriptures commanding the killing of sinners by stoning, that made it differ from the rest which killed on political grounds. But most of the countries put people to death for very little. They were religious countries so even if they had no Bibles to tell them to commit these crimes, religion still had a part to play. According to unimpeachable sources, Pilate was a butcher of Jews so Rome did not mind if Jews stoned one another to death over the Mosiac Law. It wanted rid of them in case they would overthrow Roman rule for their Bible told them that the land belonged to nobody else so their patriotism was stronger than that of others nations.

The ancient book, The Golden Ass, says that Rome did let nations execute without its permission. Despite some of its historical content being questionable it should be taken as correct in this because other things support what it says and the Law would have been too well-known for a mistake to have been made.

Pilate would not have told the Jews to put Jesus to death themselves unless they could. He could not have been joking or sarcastic when the Jews answered him as if he wasn’t being. And no hint of sarcasm exists. What he said could have been used against him if he didn’t mean it if it were against Roman policy to let a person be executed without permission. Also, he was empowering them to execute Jesus themselves. So why didn’t they? The scandal of Jews being granted the power to stone Jesus to death or execute him and insisting the hated Romans should do it would have generated the greatest Jewish scandal of all time had it happened. There was no explosion of uproar recorded in the world at the time over it so it didn’t happen.

For heavens sake. The Golden Ass was a slightly humorous Roman novel about a Roman boy who was interested in withcraft. It has his adventures and eventual conversion to, I think, the goddess Isis. To use it as a reference book?

Free Cities (Civitas Libera). Cities granted rights by the Emperor, usually for favours shown, to run themselves in matters of taxation and general running. Jerusalem was not one of them. They were Greek in the main. Interestingly Tarsus, Pauls city, was one.

Pilate gave assent to the execution of Jesus, and his soldiers carried it out. Not the Jewish 'militia'. That Pilate was in charge 'What I have written I have written'.

There were two Talmuds. The Babylonian and the Jerusalem. The Babylonian is recognised as the more complete and comprehensive. It says this

Whoops lost my notes. Will quote from Wiki.

On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, 'Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it.' But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God]says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government.

In a study between Yeshu and Jesus I have these notes copied from somewhere.. Yeshu 100 years before Jesus.

Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his.b]During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals[/[/b

Quote. As for historical contributions to science by the religious, this is hardly surprising since few were literate and all were ignorant of knowledge and subsequently religious. People of our modern day and age forget religion provided all the answers to scientific questions, God did it.

Thats why I quoted Islam.

For the first couple of centuries Islam taught its young, mainly the Qu'ran. Later it expanded that education. So they were not exactly illiterate or ignorant.

And that is my lot.

by Guest Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:25 am

Tosh wrote:
Texas,

A scientific fact requires evidence,¹ evidence is a proof.²

Macro-evolution is untestable³ but we have the evidence of transitional fossils⁴ which proves it,⁵ it can easily be falsified,⁶ one species out of sequence disproves macro evolution.⁷

Macro-evolution was a conclusion based on the evidence,⁸ the similarity between primates and humans.⁹

Ye Ol’ Scot,

Thus, a scientific “fact” is labeled “fact” based on something other than proof. Note that, just as “legal proof” (evidence beyond a reasonable doubt) is not proof, a “scientific proof” is not proof. See #2 below to discover proof of this proven fact.
Evidence is not proof; evidence is evidence. “He was tried, he was found guilty based on the evidence, he was sentenced to life imprisonment based on the evidence, he was exonerated twenty-plus years after his conviction based on the evidenced after, his wrongful conviction was overturned based on the evidence, and he lives free today after being deprived of liberty, a Creator-endowed unalienable right, based on the evidence.

Want proof of the aforementioned? Google “Craig Watkins Dallas District Attorney The Innocence Project” and discover that thirty (or more) wrongfully convicted (based on the evidence) persons have been set free in Dallas County, Texas due to the efforts of Watkins and The Innocence Project to establish justice. That’s proof of the aforementioned, not a conclusion based on the evidence.

When one cannot discern the difference between proof and evidence, one might find oneself, as peace officer, a prosecutor, a witness, a juror, and/or a judge, participating in the wrongful conviction of an innocent human soul based on the evidence.
True.
Yeah? Let’s examine that statement.

A. We have fossils in dirt. Various groups within the collective “we” conclude various things about these fossils in the dirt. None of these various groups, including ideologues that adhere to macro-evolution (an ideology also called “Darwinism”) and ideologues that adhere to other ideologies.

B. I have yet to view a transitional fossil between something or the other and a kidney, between something or the other and a pancreas, or between something or the other and a liver.
What is the antecedent of “it?” If “it” is Darwinism, see #9 below.
Once again, what is the antecedent of “it?”
True.
Macro-evolution is an ideology based on evidence of micro-evolution (finches to finches, fruit flies to fruit flies).
Macro-evolution is based on similarities between finches and finches and similarities between fruit flies and fruit flies.

The leap from micro-evolution to macro-evolution is a leap of faith unsupported by proof.

by Tosh Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:31 am

During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals[/[/b

Trevor,

Historians accept Jesus was killed for political not religious reasons, which is the point I am making. The Jewish courts had the authority to execute Jews for religious crimes but it is actually irrelevant. Jesus was executed because he was claiming to be the King of the Jews ( Messiah) and not for claiming to be divine.
The problem with non-Jews interpreting Jewish traditions is they are not Jews, all Jews were the son of God, it has no divine implications. However to pagan Christians the son of God is a demi-God, which does have divine implications.

An important part of the high priest's job was to keep the peace. Passover was a prime time for troublemakers to incite the crowds, and both the high priest and Roman prefect were alert to any sign of danger. From the perspective of the high priest, then:

1. When Jesus entered Jerusalem, there was a large crowd who called him "king." The high priest would have viewed this as politically inflammatory.

In support of this idea, Mark, Matthew, and Luke all record that, at the trial, Caiaphas asked Jesus whether he was the Messiah. The three gospels each report a different response by Jesus. Regardless of Jesus' response, the fact that Caiaphas asked the question in the first place indicates he knew claims or at least of the shouts of his followers as he entered the city.

Solomon Zeitlin remarks, "It is quite clear that Jesus was arrested and brought before Pilate as a political offender against the Roman state. The accusation made against him was that he claimed himself king of the Jews."

Most Christians are ignorant of Jewish terminology, they believe son of God, son of Man and Messiah are claims to divinity, they are not. Jesus was executed for sedition with the assistance of the High Priest Caiaphas.

by Tosh Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:47 am

Trevor,

Your reply concerning Islam truly baffles me in the context of our discussion, not one Islamic scholar produced anything that contradicted their religious belief. To deny religion obstructed science and was incompatible with science is nonsensical, religion finally gave up when the evidence became so overwhelming, and came up with an imbecillic compromise...Theistic Evolution. Now if science was so compatible with religion why did it take monotheism nearly 1700 years to come up with this solution ?

Anyone who believes the universe is predetermined and directed needs their head examined, there are so many examples of unintelligent design thoughout the universe to render this argument laughable.

by Tosh Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:07 am

Texas,

Science views a bare assertion that is empty of any scientific content as unbelievable, it is a rational deduction based on the proportion of evidence and reason. In my opinion a theist requires sub standard levels of proof FOR God's existence but demands irrationally high standards of proof AGAINST God's existence.

If Macro-evolution is proven to be true or false, does this prove God does or does not exist ? The answer is no, and the Bible confirms it " God cannot be tested ".

The properties of God ensures all evidence supports the hypothesis and no evidence can disprove the hypothesis, science accepts the evidence of macro-evolution because it is rational to do so.

Faith is not built on rationality, if it was there would be no call for faith.

by Tosh Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:09 am

There is a simple test to my theory, what evidence would persuade a theist God did not exist ?

by trevorw2539 Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:30 am

Your reply concerning Islam truly baffles me in the context of our discussion, not one Islamic scholar produced anything that contradicted their religious belief. To deny religion obstructed science and was incompatible with science is nonsensical, religion finally gave up when the evidence became so overwhelming, and came up with an imbecillic compromise...Theistic Evolution. Now if science was so compatible with religion why did it take monotheism nearly 1700 years to come up with this solution ?

Anyone who believes the universe is predetermined and directed needs their head examined, there are so many examples of unintelligent design thoughout the universe to render this argument laughable.

Reply.
The fact that the advances they gave us were in pursuit of their religion does not negate the advances. In fact religion has aided us.

For the rest it is obvious that you have not read my posts and my opinions.

by Tosh Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:47 pm

Science is the pursuit of knowledge not religious belief, and despite your evasive claims you still have not provided me one example where religion and science is compatible. You offer examples from a time when only religion existed and science was in its infancy as proof of compatibility.
So enough of this nonsense, religions make numerous supernatural claims and it is these claims that science disputes, its central claim involves existence of a superior being, and this claim has no scientific merit.

How can they be compatible ?

by Tosh Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:41 pm

The Testable Hypothesis
The defining characteristic of science is the concept of the testable hypothesis. A testable hypothesis must make predictions that can be validated by independent observers. By "testable", we mean the predictions must include examples of what is likely be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what is unlikely to be observed if the hypothesis is true. A hypothesis that can explain all possible data equally well is not testable, nor is it scientific. A good scientific hypothesis must rule out some conceivable possibilities, at least in principle. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions — the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. These scientific requirements are the essence of Popperian falsifiability and corroboration.

For instance, the solipsistic hypothesis that the entire universe is actually an elaborate figment of your imagination is not a scientific hypothesis. Solipsism makes no specific or risky predictions, it simply predicts that things will be "as they are". No possible observations could conflict with solipsism, since all observations always may be explained away as simply another detailed creation of your imagination. Many other extreme examples can be thought of, such as the hypothesis that the universe suddenly came into existence in toto five minutes ago, with even our memories of "earlier" events intact. In general, creationist and "intelligent design" conjectures fail scientifically for these same reasons. Both can easily explain all possible biological observations, and neither one makes risky, specific predictions.

by oftenwrong Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:32 pm

It's the 2008 tosh programme all over again.

by Tosh Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:18 pm

It's the 2008 tosh programme all over again..[quote]

Those were the days. Evil or Very Mad

by Guest Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:41 pm

Ye Ol’ Scot (possibly a reaver),

I am aware that scientists (not “science”, as science possesses no cognizance with which to view anything) often “[view] a bare assertion that is empty of any scientific content as unbelievable.” Before I can proceed on this point, I need you to post your preferred definition of “scientific content.”

Regarding this statement, “it is a rational deduction based on the proportion of evidence and reason”, as an ex-physics student, I’ been aware of that tenet since my teens (I’m ten days older than water as I type). Note the similarity of your words to the legal definition of proof sufficient for conviction, derived from English common law (upon which fifty of the fifty-one US legal systems are based) and its reliance upon “reason”, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The words “reason” and “reasonable” require human perception, judgment, and conclusion. Truth, conversely, requires nothing whatsoever of humans. Accordingly, that which humans conclude is proven fact, truth, can be and sometimes is false. Note the following regarding proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, the truth of which you have not as yet addressed.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Evidence is not proof; evidence is evidence. “He was tried, he was found guilty based on the evidence, he was sentenced to life imprisonment based on the evidence, he was exonerated twenty-plus years after his conviction based on the evidenced after, his wrongful conviction was overturned based on the evidence, and he lives free today after being deprived of liberty, a Creator-endowed unalienable right, based on the evidence.

Want proof of the aforementioned? Google “Craig Watkins Dallas District Attorney The Innocence Project” and discover that thirty (or more) wrongfully convicted (based on the evidence) persons have been set free in Dallas County, Texas due to the efforts of Watkins and The Innocence Project to establish justice. That’s proof of the aforementioned, not a conclusion based on the evidence.

When one cannot discern the difference between proof and evidence, one might find oneself, as peace officer, a prosecutor, a witness, a juror, and/or a judge, participating in the wrongful conviction of an innocent human soul based on the evidence.

Regarding your opinion that “a theist requires sub standard levels of proof FOR God's existence but demands irrationally high standards of proof AGAINST God's existence”, note the difference between the term “theist” and the terms “Jew”, “Christian”, “Muslim”, “ Baha’i”, “believer” (one who believes in YHVH Elohim), and “knower” (one who knows YHVH Elohim).

The term “theist”, in contrast to the other terms, ends with the suffix “ist”, signifying an adherence to an “ism”, some sort of ideology, in this case, “theism”, complete with mandatory adherence to all of its attendant inviolate tenets; accordingly, this term denotes an ideologue.

The other terms, “Jew”, “Christian”, “Muslim”, “Baha’i”, “believer”, and “knower”, as they do not end with the suffix “ist”, signify adherence to neither an “ism” nor its attendant inviolate tenets, accordingly, based upon reason, none of these terms denote ideologues.

Theists, like Darwinists, memorize through consistent use a set of inviolate tenets by which they view, assess, and reach conclusions about informational input. I’m not a theist; I’m not an “ist” of any sort (except maybe a “truthist”). Consequently, I have no standing from which to meaningfully comment upon what a theist might or might not require to prove or disprove YH VH Elohim’s existence.

I do know truth regarding this. YHVH Elohim’s existence cannot be proven or disproven. You should remember why, but if you like, I’ll repeat the why at your request.

As should now be obvious, I cannot adequately answer your question, “what evidence would persuade a theist God did not exist?” If you like, I’ll answer this edited version, “what evidence would persuade [Texas] God did not exist?”

You asked, “If Macro-evolution is proven to be true or false, does this prove God does or does not exist?” Of course not; he whose existence can neither be proven nor disproven cannot be proven to exist or not exist by any means. By the way, the term “tested”, as you’ve accurately quoted, has nothing to do with this topic.

Given the characteristics of YHVH Elohim (such as ha adama is capable of understanding), your statement, “The properties of God ensures all evidence supports the hypothesis and no evidence can disprove the hypothesis”, in the words of Curtis the Mayfield, “makes no sense to me.” The Creator of all that is has created the concept of hypotheses, which ha adama, also having been created by the Creator, uses to aid in his insatiable quest to understand existence, also created by the Creator. Neither you, nor I, nor Brother Ike, nor Brother Al, nor Brother Steve, can encapsulate the Creator within our understandings of existence. Hypotheses, due to their inherent limitations, cannot be used to examine the entity whereby hypotheses came to be.

by Guest Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:59 pm

Tosh wrote:
Anyone who believes the universe is predetermined and directed needs their head examined…

Then I’d best be getting my head measured for my MRI helmet!

Tosh wrote:
… there are so many examples of unintelligent design thoughout the universe…

Name one such proven example.

Tosh wrote:
… to render this argument laughable.

Darwinism is laughable.

by Tosh Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:25 am

Texas my friend,

Darwinism is a rational conclusion and supportd by a rather sizeable chunk of evidence, I know you want empirical proof but as with many things in science this is not possible. I gave you an example of unintellgent design, humans could not have evolved without the extinction of the dinosaurs, why did god design dinosaurs to evolve if their presence obstructed human evolution. Were dinosaurs a slip of the pen and the comet God directed into our planet was the eraser ?
If your rebuttal is God is unknowable then we are back to the empty hypothesis, if any evidence supports design and no evidence disproves design, then design is a meaningless concept.

God is unknowable and untestable is an oxymoron, how do we do know God is untestable if God is unknowable ?

by Tosh Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:35 am

As should now be obvious, I cannot adequately answer your question, “what evidence would persuade a theist God did not exist?” If you like, I’ll answer this edited version, “what evidence would persuade [Texas] God did not exist?”

If no evidence would persuade Texas God did not exist, then it is fair to deduce religion and science are incompatible, and it casts much doubt on the scientific case you wish to propose for Gods existence, and science is the only paradigm fit for this purpose.

by Tosh Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:46 am

Given the characteristics of YHVH Elohim (such as ha adama is capable of understanding), your statement, “The properties of God ensures all evidence supports the hypothesis and no evidence can disprove the hypothesis”, in the words of Curtis the Mayfield, “makes no sense to me.” The Creator of all that is has created the concept of hypotheses, which ha adama, also having been created by the Creator, uses to aid in his insatiable quest to understand existence, also created by the Creator. Neither you, nor I, nor Brother Ike, nor Brother Al, nor Brother Steve, can encapsulate the Creator within our understandings of existence. Hypotheses, due to their inherent limitations, cannot be used to examine the entity whereby hypotheses came to be.

.

Texas,

On one hand you claim it makes no sense while on the other hand provide and describe the identical nonsensical or no science hypothesis, an unknowable hypothesis has limitations and these limitations ensure the hypothesis cannot be disproved, this is a prime example of an unscientific hypothesis.

by Tosh Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:57 am

A hypothesis begins with observation, what observations justify a God hypothesis ?

If the answer is everything that exists, then I rest my case.

The case for God's existence has no rational basis, " ratio " comes from the Latin meaning proportionate.

by trevorw2539 Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:40 pm

However, it is possible to trace the origin of the word "ratio" to the Ancient Greek λόγος (logos). Early translators rendered this into Latin as ratio ("reason"; as in the word "rational"). (A rational number may be expressed as the quotient of two integers.) A more modern interpretation of Euclid's meaning is more akin to computation or reckoning.[7] Medieval writers used the word proportio ("proportion") to indicate ratio and proportionalitas ("proportionality") for the equality of ratios

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio

by Tosh Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:16 pm

Thank you Trevor for your contribution, I think it is safe to assume religion is not a rational nor a reasonable belief.

by Tosh Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:28 pm

When the religious claim life has no purpose or meaning without God, what they really mean is religion provides them status. Some humans need to be a member of a special group with a special purpose in order to achieve status, it is no different to the attitudes of cult members. The key ingredient in any cult is significance, and significance is status, members cannot achieve self status (esteem) in the outside world and find it in a world of make believe. We all need status to give us our own individual identity and anonymous insignificance is an obstacle to our well being.
Consciousness is in of itself meaningless if it has nothing to be conscious of, much like our identity, we are who we are " in relation " to other identities.

Humans need relationships and religion provides a meaningful relationship with a God of purpose and with other believers, creating a group of significance.

Chimpanzees spend much of their time establishing and cementing relationships in their group to maintain or improve their status.

We are monkeys who need to be loved and respected.

by polyglide Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:05 pm

Faith is based on the probability and the possibility of the existance of God.

A believer looks at all the evidence to support and all the evidence against.

In reality there is no evidence whatsoever against and ample evidence in support.

I rest my case.

by polyglide Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:06 pm

Faith is based on the probability and the possibility of the existance of God.

A believer looks at all the evidence to support and all the evidence against.

In reality there is no evidence whatsoever against and ample evidence in support.

I rest my case.

by Tosh Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:06 pm

polyglide,

If you would like to produce any of the ample evidence in support of God's existence, then I will be your huckleberry.

Please be advised, the definition of an empty hypothesis is one in which all evidence supports it and no evidence disproves it.

I hope your evidence is testable and falsifiable.

by Guest Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:15 pm

Tosh wrote:
Please be advised, the definition of an empty hypothesis is one in which all evidence supports it and no evidence disproves it.

Dictionary.com

You are seeing reference results for empty hypothesis because there's not a match on Dictionary.com.

http://ask.reference.com/web?s=t&q=empty%20hypothesis&l=dir&qsrc=2891&o=10616

Merriam-Webster

empty hypothesis

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empty%20hypothesis

null hypothesis

Definition
A proposition that undergoes verification to determine if it should be accepted or rejected in favor of an alternative proposition.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/null-hypothesis.html#ixzz24TH9Tnjl
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/null-hypothesis.html

Null hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena^[1] or that a potential treatment has no effect.^[2]

The term was originally coined by English geneticist and statistician Ronald Fisher in 1935.^[3][4] It is typically paired with a second hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis, which asserts a particular relationship between the phenomena. Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson formalized the notion of the alternative. The alternative need not be the logical negation of the null hypothesis; it predicts the results from the experiment if the alternative hypothesis is true. The use of alternative hypotheses was not part of Fisher's formulation, but became standard.

It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, the experiment fails to reject the null hypothesis).^[5]

References

"null hypothesis definition". Businessdictionary.com. Retrieved 2010-07-29.
"HTA 101: Glossary". Nlm.nih.gov. 2009-09-08. Retrieved 2010-07-29.
"Glossary". Statistics.berkeley.edu. 2010-07-25. Retrieved 2010-07-29.
OED quote: 1935 R. A. Fisher, The Design of Experiments ii. 19, "We may speak of this hypothesis as the 'null hypothesis', and it should be noted that the null hypothesis is never proved or established, but is possibly disproved, in the course of experimentation."
"Can We Accept the Null Hypothesis?". StatTrek.com. Retrieved 2011-05-27.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

Can We Accept the Null Hypothesis?

Some researchers say that a hypothesis test can have one of two outcomes: you accept the null hypothesis or you reject the null hypothesis. Many statisticians, however, take issue with the notion of "accepting the null hypothesis." Instead, they say: you reject the null hypothesis or you fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Why the distinction between "acceptance" and "failure to reject?" Acceptance implies that the null hypothesis is true. Failure to reject implies that the data are not sufficiently persuasive for us to prefer the alternative hypothesis over the null hypothesis.

http://stattrek.com/hypothesis-test/hypothesis-testing.aspx

Scot,

Notice that neither Dictionary.com nor Merriam-Webster return a definition for “empty hypothesis.” Suppose the term might exist, but a more logical supposition is that you’re mis-speaking the term “null hypothesis.”

Two observations:

In neither definition of “null hypothesis” referenced above is the phrase “all evidence supports it and no evidence disproves it”, or its equivalent, found.
In neither definition of “null hypothesis” referenced above is there any indication that use of the “null hypothesis” is applicable to a discussion of the existence/non-existence of YHVH Elohim.

It appears that the introduction of “null hypothesis” into this discussion is inappropriate, as it appears that “null hypothesis” has “no probative value.”

by oftenwrong Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:17 pm

Sherlock Holmes quote:

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

by Guest Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:33 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Sherlock Holmes quote:

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Applicable axiom in discussions of the existence/nonexistence of YHVH Elohim.

Roger Penrose (click here), described as a “statistical physicist” in some accounts, a scientist of some renown within the circle of those who study the origin of existence/origin of the universe, and a self-proclaimed atheist, calculates the probability of the universe existing as it does by chance at ten to the tenth to the one hundred twenty-third power to one.

Cutting Edge’s format will not allow for proper depiction of this statement in Arabic numerals base ten format; accordingly, in viewing the statement below, one must imagine “123” as being the superscripted exponent of the superscripted “10.”

10^{10 123} to 1

Note 1: Amongst those who study the origin of existence/origin of the universe, the number of atoms within the Milky Way Galaxy (perhaps 100 billion stars strong) is by some estimated to be on the order of ten to the sixty-ninth power, 10⁶⁹.

Note 2: 10⁶⁹ = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

by bobby Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:41 pm

Note 2: 10⁶⁹ = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Start counting now Roc, and come back when youve finished.

by trevorw2539 Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:23 pm

bobby wrote:Note 2: 10⁶⁹ = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Start counting now Roc, and come back when youve finished.

In terms of eternity that number does not even exist. Neither does any number.

by bobby Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:37 pm

In terms of eternity that number does not even exist. Neither does any number.

Well it should keep him busy for a while then shouldnt it.

by Sponsored content