Science NEVER considers the "god did it" hypothesis

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss Atheism and Agnosticism, post inspirational Atheist and Agnostic memes and quotations, ask questions of an Atheistic or Agnostic nature, and discuss your Atheist or Agnostic views on Life and the Outdoors. If you don't want to see Athesim and Agnosticism being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. This Forum was not created for the purposes of you talking people out of thier beliefs or insult their intelligence. We respect your right to do so, but will not allow that kind of discussion here.
User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Science NEVER considers the "god did it" hypothesis

#16

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:19 am

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:Apparently, Michio Kaku's determination that the Univerase was created by an intelligence relied on data as well.
Have a look at Kaku's portions of this debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmkrI-K7yBo

He provides a good, short explanation of science. "God did it" is not verifiable, so it doesn't work as a scientific hypothesis.
What he repeatedly says is that the question- from science- is undecidable. He also makes a prophecy that 100 years from now- I assume he means if the world or civilization does not end from some unexpected event - that other folks will be there having the same discussion and debate. The reason is that the answer is– from a scientific standpoint–undecidable. Just as he says.

Time will tell if he is as accurate of a prophet as the biblical prophets are. Although, again if the Lord doesn't return first, or if civilization does not end or some other reason, I think the odds of his prophecy being correct are quite high. Because I agree with him that from science it is undecidable. So that is not really a very hard prediction to make. Not quite the same as telling your new nation, which is just coming into existence for the first time, that in the future–because of their sins-they will be kicked out of the land they are now coming to occupy. And then they will be scattered to the farthest nations on earth, where they will be hated and in fear for their lives. Until they have paid for their sins , then in the last days they will be gathered up, brought back, and given the lands of their fathers again, where they will be more prosperous than their fathers ever were. Etc, etc. The odds of that happening were quite low. So low that it has never happened with another people except the one the Bible said it would happen to.

So while I don't think his prophecy is it all in the category of the latter, it is still a prophecy and with certain assumptions beforehand, one that is very likely to be fulfilled. Because, again, the question is undecidable from science. Or at least that is what Kaku says.


Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Science NEVER considers the "god did it" hypothesis

#17

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:55 pm

Don't know if this little video had already been posted, sorry if it has:
http://conservativetribune.com/physicis ... -god-like/

As Kaku says, Einstein( and I suppose Kaku ) did not believe in the same God as I do, but in the God of order, of precision. As the universe is so beautiful, so precise, and it did not have to be that way at all. It could have just as easily been chaotic, and ugly. Then he starts talking about all of the equations, and says we naturally ask where the equations came from. I suppose since equations tend to come from intelligence? He says "this is what Einstein asked: did God have a choice? Was there any choice in building the universe?".

He is apparently- as he seems to think Einstein was - talking about a creator God. A designer. A being who would have a choice. He seems to think- or at least be open to the idea- that it is blatantly obvious that all the precision we all observe daily could not have fallen into place out of chaos. I agree with him, and apparently with Einstein.

Though I of course, take it one step further. I don't say that it could just as easily have been ugly and chaotic(indeed, if even coming into existence in the first place.) I claim that rather than "could just as easily have been" it would be more correct to say " is far more likely to have been chaotic and ugly". But he does at least appear to be on the right track. If they keep working on it, maybe they will get it someday.

BTW, for the purpose of most of our debates, it is irrelevant whether or not he or Einstein believes in the God of the Bible or not, though I would consider their apparent intelligence a notch higher if they did. ;) When i repeatedly claim that design of the universe is blatantly obvious, I do not claim that any of that obvious evidence proves anything about the God of the Bible. It just proves design. I certainly believe there is also plenty of evidence that the God of the Bible is the one true God, that the Bible provides so much evidence that it is truth that it again is obvious, and only a powerful bias against it, a desire to not or refusal to accept it, can blind one to that evidence. At least once it is studied with an open mind. And most likely neither Kaku or Einstein have spent a lot of time researching the truth in the Bible. Unlike Newton, they probably didn't spend a lot of time on Bible prophecy, or anything else re: the Bible. But if the Bible did not exist, the evidence for design is still overwhelming. I'm starting to think Kaku, and maybe even Einstein, are/were starting to suspect the same thing. But, for Kaku's way of thinking, it is undecidable! That is certainly not the same thing as all of the data indicate or prove there was no designer, or even that he believes there was no designer.
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Science NEVER considers the "god did it" hypothesis

#18

Post by GregD » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:37 am

BillyBob66 wrote:When i repeatedly claim that design of the universe is blatantly obvious, I do not claim that any of that obvious evidence proves anything about the God of the Bible. It just proves design. I certainly believe there is also plenty of evidence that the God of the Bible is the one true God, that the Bible provides so much evidence that it is truth that it again is obvious, and only a powerful bias against it, a desire to not or refusal to accept it, can blind one to that evidence. At least once it is studied with an open mind. And most likely neither Kaku or Einstein have spent a lot of time researching the truth in the Bible. Unlike Newton, they probably didn't spend a lot of time on Bible prophecy, or anything else re: the Bible. But if the Bible did not exist, the evidence for design is still overwhelming. I'm starting to think Kaku, and maybe even Einstein, are/were starting to suspect the same thing. But, for Kaku's way of thinking, it is undecidable! That is certainly not the same thing as all of the data indicate or prove there was no designer, or even that he believes there was no designer.
So if the hypothesis "god exists" is undecidable, then the hypothesis "god did it", which cannot be true unless "god exists" is true, must also be undecidable. Do you agree?

Science only deals with decidable hypotheses. Science never considers the "god did it" hypothesis.

The other remarks are topics for other threads.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Science NEVER considers the "god did it" hypothesis

#19

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:43 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:When i repeatedly claim that design of the universe is blatantly obvious, I do not claim that any of that obvious evidence proves anything about the God of the Bible. It just proves design. I certainly believe there is also plenty of evidence that the God of the Bible is the one true God, that the Bible provides so much evidence that it is truth that it again is obvious, and only a powerful bias against it, a desire to not or refusal to accept it, can blind one to that evidence. At least once it is studied with an open mind. And most likely neither Kaku or Einstein have spent a lot of time researching the truth in the Bible. Unlike Newton, they probably didn't spend a lot of time on Bible prophecy, or anything else re: the Bible. But if the Bible did not exist, the evidence for design is still overwhelming. I'm starting to think Kaku, and maybe even Einstein, are/were starting to suspect the same thing. But, for Kaku's way of thinking, it is undecidable! That is certainly not the same thing as all of the data indicate or prove there was no designer, or even that he believes there was no designer.
So if the hypothesis "god exists" is undecidable, then the hypothesis "god did it", which cannot be true unless "god exists" is true, must also be undecidable. Do you agree?

Science only deals with decidable hypotheses. Science never considers the "god did it" hypothesis.

The other remarks are topics for other threads.
Yes, if science only deals with decidable hypotheses, to be decided by scientific method, (observations, hypothesis, experiments, repeatability(SP?), etc), then your statement may well be correct. I agree that it is probably undecidable via the scientific method. As is evolution IMO. Which is not at all the same as saying that individuals, scientist and otherwise, may not observe a ton of evidence that there is intelligent design and even that the Bible is divinely inspired. But I suppose "God did it" or "God did not do it" can not be decided in a science lab.

But, of course, there is much more to life than science. On the medical end of science, I often have to deal with the so called gold standard of the double blinded, placebo controlled, and/or FDA approved study. Very often, medical treatment that is not proved by such a study is either not allowed, not considered, or it's effectiveness ridiculed as a myth. But we do not need such studies in order to know that it is not smart to jump off of a roof or stick a pin into a 120 volt, 15 amp house circuit. There is plenty of non-scientific evidence, available by years of observation, about such behavior that leads most sane people to know they should avoid it. But I know of no medical studies that prove that humans should not do this, or that prove that it is harmful to bash someone's head in with a base ball bat. Nor are any double blind, placebo controlled studies needed for such activities. Observation and common sense are enough.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Science NEVER considers the "god did it" hypothesis

#20

Post by GregD » Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:06 am

BillyBob66 wrote: But, of course, there is much more to life than science. On the medical end of science, I often have to deal with the so called gold standard of the double blinded, placebo controlled, and/or FDA approved study. Very often, medical treatment that is not proved by such a study is either not allowed, not considered, or it's effectiveness ridiculed as a myth. But we do not need such studies in order to know that it is not smart to jump off of a roof or stick a pin into a 120 volt, 15 amp house circuit. There is plenty of non-scientific evidence, available by years of observation, about such behavior that leads most sane people to know they should avoid it. But I know of no medical studies that prove that humans should not do this, or that prove that it is harmful to bash someone's head in with a base ball bat. Nor are any double blind, placebo controlled studies needed for such activities. Observation and common sense are enough.
Jumping off roofs and sticking pins into outlets can, in fact, be done with no ill effects. Sometimes by luck, other times by design.

Those examples of evidence ARE scientific evidence, although the reliability of any observation depends upon the conditions of the observation. Double blind placebo controls are only important in certain circumstances.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Science NEVER considers the "god did it" hypothesis

#21

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:19 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: But, of course, there is much more to life than science. On the medical end of science, I often have to deal with the so called gold standard of the double blinded, placebo controlled, and/or FDA approved study. Very often, medical treatment that is not proved by such a study is either not allowed, not considered, or it's effectiveness ridiculed as a myth. But we do not need such studies in order to know that it is not smart to jump off of a roof or stick a pin into a 120 volt, 15 amp house circuit. There is plenty of non-scientific evidence, available by years of observation, about such behavior that leads most sane people to know they should avoid it. But I know of no medical studies that prove that humans should not do this, or that prove that it is harmful to bash someone's head in with a base ball bat. Nor are any double blind, placebo controlled studies needed for such activities. Observation and common sense are enough.
Jumping off roofs and sticking pins into outlets can, in fact, be done with no ill effects. Sometimes by luck, other times by design.

Those examples of evidence ARE scientific evidence, although the reliability of any observation depends upon the conditions of the observation. Double blind placebo controls are only important in certain circumstances.
Well I am amazed that doctors and teachers don't just go ahead and advise us we can do those things with no worries! You did not include the bashing in of heads with baseball bats, so maybe you at least accept that example of something that we all know to avoid without scientific level of proof?

I agree with that last sentence. Common sense based on observation is normally all the proof needed for most things in life, even for sciency types.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Science NEVER considers the "god did it" hypothesis

#22

Post by GregD » Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:41 am

BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: But, of course, there is much more to life than science. On the medical end of science, I often have to deal with the so called gold standard of the double blinded, placebo controlled, and/or FDA approved study. Very often, medical treatment that is not proved by such a study is either not allowed, not considered, or it's effectiveness ridiculed as a myth. But we do not need such studies in order to know that it is not smart to jump off of a roof or stick a pin into a 120 volt, 15 amp house circuit. There is plenty of non-scientific evidence, available by years of observation, about such behavior that leads most sane people to know they should avoid it. But I know of no medical studies that prove that humans should not do this, or that prove that it is harmful to bash someone's head in with a base ball bat. Nor are any double blind, placebo controlled studies needed for such activities. Observation and common sense are enough.
Jumping off roofs and sticking pins into outlets can, in fact, be done with no ill effects. Sometimes by luck, other times by design.

Those examples of evidence ARE scientific evidence, although the reliability of any observation depends upon the conditions of the observation. Double blind placebo controls are only important in certain circumstances.
Well I am amazed that doctors and teachers don't just go ahead and advise us we can do those things with no worries! You did not include the bashing in of heads with baseball bats, so maybe you at least accept that example of something that we all know to avoid without scientific level of proof?

I agree with that last sentence. Common sense based on observation is normally all the proof needed for most things in life, even for sciency types.
Common sense says the world is flat. Common sense can get things wrong.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Science NEVER considers the "god did it" hypothesis

#23

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:18 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:
Jumping off roofs and sticking pins into outlets can, in fact, be done with no ill effects. Sometimes by luck, other times by design.

Those examples of evidence ARE scientific evidence, although the reliability of any observation depends upon the conditions of the observation. Double blind placebo controls are only important in certain circumstances.
Well I am amazed that doctors and teachers don't just go ahead and advise us we can do those things with no worries! You did not include the bashing in of heads with baseball bats, so maybe you at least accept that example of something that we all know to avoid without scientific level of proof?

I agree with that last sentence. Common sense based on observation is normally all the proof needed for most things in life, even for sciency types.
Common sense says the world is flat. Common sense can get things wrong.
So can science. You know as well as I do that it is just a matter of time until science disproves some currently accepted as truth part of science. Especially claims regarding the ancient past. It has happened before, it will happen again( a prophecy from book of bill)
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Science NEVER considers the "god did it" hypothesis

#24

Post by GregD » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:45 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:
Well I am amazed that doctors and teachers don't just go ahead and advise us we can do those things with no worries! You did not include the bashing in of heads with baseball bats, so maybe you at least accept that example of something that we all know to avoid without scientific level of proof?

I agree with that last sentence. Common sense based on observation is normally all the proof needed for most things in life, even for sciency types.
Common sense says the world is flat. Common sense can get things wrong.
So can science. You know as well as I do that it is just a matter of time until science disproves some currently accepted as truth part of science. Especially claims regarding the ancient past. It has happened before, it will happen again( a prophecy from book of bill)
The difference being that science is constantly trying to do better, and generally succeeds. Common sense, on the other hand, generally leads to confirmation bias.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Science NEVER considers the "god did it" hypothesis

#25

Post by sarge » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:44 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:
Common sense says the world is flat. Common sense can get things wrong.
So can science. You know as well as I do that it is just a matter of time until science disproves some currently accepted as truth part of science. Especially claims regarding the ancient past. It has happened before, it will happen again( a prophecy from book of bill)
The difference being that science is constantly trying to do better, and generally succeeds. Common sense, on the other hand, generally leads to confirmation bias.

I seen that in people who profess to love Science, too------
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Science NEVER considers the "god did it" hypothesis

#26

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Dec 22, 2016 8:10 pm

sarge wrote:
GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:
So can science. You know as well as I do that it is just a matter of time until science disproves some currently accepted as truth part of science. Especially claims regarding the ancient past. It has happened before, it will happen again( a prophecy from book of bill)
The difference being that science is constantly trying to do better, and generally succeeds. Common sense, on the other hand, generally leads to confirmation bias.

I seen that in people who profess to love Science, too------
Aint that the truth!
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Post Reply

Return to “Atheism and Agnosticism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest