Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!hplabs!sdcrdcf!uscvax!kurtzman
From: kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.origins
Subject: Re: Unprovable ideas in science and God
Message-ID: <155@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 18:44:51 EST
Article-I.D.: uscvax.155
Posted: Mon Oct 28 18:44:51 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 01:55:28 EST
References: <2294@ukma.UUCP> <121@uscvax.UUCP> <139@sdcc7.UUCP>
Reply-To: kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 108
Keywords: Black holes, Creationism, Evolution
Xref: watmath net.religion:8089 net.origins:2535
Summary: 

In article <139@sdcc7.UUCP> ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes:
>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 question does not pertain to the history of a particular individual. The
question is how are failed predictions treated by the practising astrologer?
What theories are used to explain failed or accurate predictions? You will
find that accurate predictions are touted as proof that astrology is valid
and that failed predictions show the limitations of data or the astrologer.
In other words, for the practising astrologer, nothing can falsify his
subject.

>
>> 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. 
>
>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?

You are right. The problem is that much of Christianity is based on a
concensus of belief by a number of chosen people. The Roman Catholics have
the college of cardinals and the pope, many protestant sects have
organizations for pastors and elected leaders, and some sects look to a single
individual for spiritual truth such as the Moonies. Christianity has always
been defined by what people that call themselves christian think and do.

>
>> 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.

Nothing is wrong with starting with a premise as long as you do not give it
some special status just because it is your premise. You should be just as
willing to disprove (as well as prove) any hypothesis that results from the
premise. In the case of creationism the premise is that the earth was created
by God in a certain way and nothing can be said to disprove it. Creationists
give their premise the special status of being true. In science every
premise is ultimately challengable.

>
>> 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.

That is true. Some Christians take the product of scientific inquiry and say
that God is awfully clever to have set things up that way. Creationists on
the other hand believe that evolution does not occur. Forget about all those
pesky DDT resistant mosquitos out there - they say nothing about natural
selection.

>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

Why doesn't your God fall prey to that "same original cause dilemma"? Just
because you define your god to be the uncaused cause? Just because you
define something doesn't make it real. Unicorns and hobgoblins have been
defined by people, but they aren't real. This is part of the creationism
problem: they define a theory and continue to dogmatically assert it even
after it is demonstrated to be false because they have truth (god) defined
to be on their side (regardless of which side they are on).

So you think a god is likely because of the way man perceives questions of
being and order. What are your definitions of order and disorder? When did
matter come from nothing? It sounds as though you are assuming that the
universe was not and then it was. In order to make this assumption seem
reasonable you hypothesize the existence of a an uncaused cause which you
call god. Why can't I just assume that the universe is uncaused?
What is it about the universe that makes you think it must have been caused
by something? Why can't the universe be the uncaused cause? Don't you think
that it is rather egocentric for you to assume that there is some being
somewhat like yourself that caused everything?