On Apr 25, 2013, at 3:47 AM, Matthew West wrote: (01)
> Dear Pat,
>
>> The basic scientific argument against the existence of God is that there
> is
>> absolutely no observational evidence for the existence of a God, nor any
>> reason to hypothesise such an entity in order to explain anything that is
>> observable.
>> A very straightforward application of Occam's principle then
>> suffices. Of course this is not a *proof*, but it is a sound *scientific*
>> argument.
>
> MW: That is not a scientific argument. If it were, we should not have
> thought the Higgs Boson was a possibility until very recently, and we should
> not be talking about dark matter. (02)
The HIggs boson was hypothesised for a very convincing reason: it was the only
way, within the (highly) confirmed framework of current quantum particle
physics, to explain why some particles have mass. If it had not been found, it
would have been necessary to completely revise the entire framework of physics.
Similarly, dark matter has been proposed to explain otherwise incomprehensible
observations about the distribution of matter in spiral galaxies. The
hypothesis of a God (indeed, of anything supernatural at all) is not analogous
in the slightest. Such a hypothesis not only is not needed to explain anything;
it would, if confirmed, require the entire apparatus of phsyical science to be
abandoned. (03)
>
> MW: All one can say scientifically is that the existence of God is a
> hypothesis that it is unlikely that we will ever be able to prove or
> disprove scientifically, because there is no experiment that we can conduct
> (or at least I cannot think of any) that would prove or disprove the
> hypothesis. (Of course you can always set up God hypothesises that you can
> disprove, but they are not generally ones the "faithful" actually believe
> in). (04)
No, this makes the situation seem symmetrical. But scienve is not symmetrical
in this way: one only has a burden to show something that is hypothesised in
order to explain something else. God does not explain anything that cannot be
explained better without using that hypothesis. Every attempt throughout
history to offer an argument for the existence of God (eg to explain the
cosmos, to explain life, to explain morality) has turned out to be wrong. Every
one, without exception. I would say that this was pretty convincing argument,
myself. (05)
As for experiments, how about the recent empirical tests of the efficacy of
prayer? (In sum: it has zero effect.) (06)
>
>> Proofs are irrelevant here. There is no proof that the flying
>> spaghetti monster does not exist, but that does not shake the faith of the
>> true Pastafarian.
>
> MW: And that is the essence. It is a matter of faith, not science. So any
> scientific argument is irrelevant. Irritating though that may be to those
> who believe only in science. (07)
The hypothesis of there being a god is a scientific hypthesis, no matter how
much the faithful would like to protect it from the rigorous gaze of actual
scientific practice. (08)
Pat (09)
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> https://sites.google.com/site/drmatthewwest/
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire,
> SG6 2SU.
>
>
>>
>> Pat
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>> bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
> (010)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (012)
|