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