Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcc7.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc7!ln63fac From: ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.origins Subject: Re: Unprovable ideas in science and God Message-ID: <139@sdcc7.UUCP> Date: Sun, 27-Oct-85 02:08:11 EST Article-I.D.: sdcc7.139 Posted: Sun Oct 27 02:08:11 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 05:23:28 EST References: <2294@ukma.UUCP> <121@uscvax.UUCP> Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center Lines: 83 Keywords: Black holes, Creationism, Evolution Xref: watmath net.religion:8075 net.origins:2527 Summary: Fun with assumptions. In article <121@uscvax.UUCP>, kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: > > One of the criteria which is used in deciding whether or not a subject > (theory) is science (scientific) is whether or not it is falsifiable > in principle. Great so far. > > If an astrologer makes a bad prediction it is not > because astrology is bogus but because he misread the signs, or did not > have enough information about a birthdate, or some such nonsense. To those > who believe in astrology, nothing can falsify it. Here's where you start going off track. Has no one who ever gotten into astrology gotten out of it because they realized it was rediculous? People have left astrology and denied its truth and validity even after believing in it whole heartedly. > The same can be said for > religion. If one could prove that God does not exist a true (Christian) > believer would probably take such a proof as a deception perpetrated by > Satan. Thus religion is not falsifiable and whence not a science. Christians, too, fit into the category of having people who have (to use a horrible phrase) 'left the flock' and denied what they once affirmed. Lots of children 'grow out' of their childhood beliefs and there are a number of converted (out of what they were) Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon's and all sorts of cults. These people got out and felt that their religion had been 'falsified'. You're 'would probably' might hold for a great percentage of Christians but it has nothing to do with Christianity. If a specific scientist wouldn't accept proof that the earth revolves around the sun does that mean that science is unfalsifiable or that you're dealing with one (or maybe thousands) or thick-headed people? > Creationism starts with the premise ... What's wrong with starting with a premise? I'll grant you that you'll be more likely to find what you're looking for, but if you as a person are objective (like a creation/scientist could conceivably be) than you'll accept what must be accepted and explain away what truly doesn't fit. > Every observation that discounts this belief is rationalized away ... Again I'll grant you that many creationists rationalize away, throw away and ignore evidence, but that doesn't mean that creationist is a label that proves that anyone who believes God created the Heavens and the Earth does those things. > > Most people that look for evidence for God in nature take the overwhelming > beauty and complexity of nature to be a proof. In reality this is not a > proof but an emotional reaction. > In reality? How did you determine the reality of my thoughts, reactions, impressions? Maybe I unemotionally feel that God created nature. Maybe I can simply look at a mountain and 'know' (subjectively of course) that God created it without getting all mushy inside. > >I will grant that we > >can't prove that humans evolved from some life form a couple million years > >ago, but have you seen creationism proved by observation any time recently? > > Nope, not at all. Just like you can't prove anything that happened in the past. You can show what's more likely, but like you argued above, it would seem to me that the Christians have the upper hand here. They can stick to creationism (in its many and wondrous forms) until it either gets proven or shot to heck and then they can simply go back to an omnipotent, 'mysterious' God whose ways are inscrutable. Just for the sake of asking, what is 'unlikely' about God existing? The fact that it would make life very uncomfortable for a lot of people? What could possibly be unlikely about a God who can answer every question and do anything and be everywhere? I can see easily that the greeks' gods are unlikely. One major problem is that they fall prey to the same original cause dilemna to which something like God (an uncaused cause) is the most plausible explanation. Given the natural laws we know, on the outside it would seem that scientists are rationalizing away problems like matter coming out of nothing and order coming out of disorder. Granted it's somewhat on the outside, but at that level, who looks like they're trying to rationalize? Rick Frey