Compared to a sound deductive argument, yes, of course it is. — Sapientia

Ok. So what sort of evidence do you want of god's existence?

What other cause do you have in mind? Also please read my reply to jamalrob. — TheMadFool

It wouldn't make much sense to answer that question without going into specifics, but if you do so, you could probably answer the question yourself by first applying some common sense.

And I had already read your reply to jamalrob, and I've replied to it.

lol, five pages of the same crap and this guy still doesn't get it. I bet he is still thinking we are wrong.

Guys, I think it is about time we stop answering to this guy. We have had to answer same thing over and over again about the fallacies for five pages and TheMadFool seems unable to address this issue and claims he is still "scientifically" (but as a matter of fact fallaciously) proving existence of god (fallaciously). His method is fallacious and his conclusion is also fallacious as well as any other claims he makes about science/measurement/logic crap is also fallacious. This is getting ridiculous. He is too ignorant to understand his mistakes no matter how much we point them out.

TheMadFool, I think you should stop for a moment and come back like a week later. Maybe it is better if you read the entire thread again to see how little the discussion has advanced. It is obvious that the last few replies you are reading right now is essentially the same replies you got initially. Why do you think everyone is saying the same thing over and over again?

Ok. So what sort of evidence do you want of god's existence? — TheMadFool

That isn't what I asked for. I made reference to evidence that an existing God is a more likely cause of all of these effects than any other possible cause. If you think you have it, then I simply ask that you provide it.

X-)

Ether or better I declare — TheMadFool

What? "Either or better I declare"? That doesn't make grammatical sense to me. — Terrapin Station

I almost spat out my drink! >:O

X-) — TheMadFool

What does that mean? Evidence that you're just trolling?

Then please tell me in what way one could provide evidence/proof that an entity exists? — TheMadFool

Scientifically:

If we can directly observe the entity, well, we can look for the actual entity itself. If I want to prove that there are sharks, I find an actual shark and document its existence.

If we cannot directly observe the entity, then we must do what I described before: we have to first set up conditions that would falsify the hypothesis we have ("This entity exists") and must falsify the other hypotheses that would serve as alternative explanations for our observations and potential evidence of "this entity exists". The point to nail home is "falsify": we have to show why the other hypotheses cannot work and are not true. We cannot appeal to intuition and say "that hypothesis seems less likely than that one". For the observation of "people perform certain behaviors and religious practices in the name of God", please refer to my previous example of Christianity and Islam that shows why we do not need some conception of god to exist in order to explain the observation.

No I'm not trolling. FLUX23 found some humor in all this. I was just joining in the fun.

As for my arguments they are sincere attempts to understand our world.

Well you haven't come across as either particularly sincere or particularly reasonable.

Well you haven't come across as either particularly sincere or particularly reasonable. — Sapientia

Sorry. I've adressed every counterpoint made against my position.

Sorry. I've adressed every counterpoint made against my position. — TheMadFool

No, I don't think you have. You've replied, but that isn't the same thing.

Measurable effects of God:

1. How many people pray?

2. How many times do people pray?

3. How many people avoid a certain kind of food item?

4. How many people undergo circumcision?

Etc. — TheMadFool

Are you sure you're not a troll? Because that is pretty funny.

Even if you have "addressed" every counterpoint, you're still making the same basic errors, which stand out like a sore thumb.

Let's try something more direct.

Which of the following do you believe:

1. Judaism
2. Christianity
3. Islam
4. Zoroastrianism
5. Other Theistic Belief

If you do not want to say, you do not have to. Just make sure you have one picked.

Well, scientifically speaking, all of them exist.

But, scientifically, they can't, as they are mutually exclusive hypotheses, as they make contradictory claims about God, what God is, and what God has done. The Trinitarian conception of god that mainstream Christianity adopts is incompatible with the Islamic conception of god, whose theology emphasizes the oneness of Allah. Christianity says Jesus was fully divine and fully man, making Jesus the "Son" part of the Trinity. Islam says Jesus was a divinely inspired prophet, but was certainly just a man and could not be God, as this would violate Allah's oneness and uniqueness. Islam claims God divinely spoke to Muhammad and made him the final prophet. Christianity claims God never spoke to Muhammad, making him a false prophet. Both gods cannot be true, so, scientifically, we know that at least one hypothesis, either the Christian hypothesis or the Muslim hypothesis, is false, and that the adherents of the religion are not motivated by God, but by something else. Correct?

Correct? — Chany

Good point. However I think you're being unfair.

In science light is both a particle and a wave. Waves and particles are mutually exclusive BUT that doesn't mean light doesn't exist.

Correction: light is observed in experiments to behave as both a wave and a particle and we have found that applying light as both a particle and wave is workable in our models. Explanations that explain why we see this observation and how light can both be a particle and a wave are hypotheses. At this point, unless you are a physicist who deals with quantum mechanics regularly or would be considered an expert in the field, whatever you have to say is conjecture. I do not like when people bring quantum mechanics and use it to justify whatever bad argument they are making at the time, considering that most of them have never done any experimentation involving it in their lives and probably could not do physics at all. I am not versed in quantum mechanics, so I would suggest we submit to the position of scientists working the field and let them sort it out.

Islam and Christianity are both hypotheses about the overall metaphysical nature of things, particularly about God. They are complete metaphysical pictures. The contradiction is both internally present in both hypotheses and both systems actively exclude the other from being true. Either God has a trinitarian nature or God does not. Either Jesus was full man/full divine or was full man. Islam specifically states that Christianity is wrong, and vice versa; you cannot endorse Islam without saying Christianity is false. There is no wiggle room between mutually exclusive hypotheses.

''Measurable'' simply requires a unit of measurement and we can count how many people pray, how many times we pray, etc.

''Scientific'' means one must have measurable evidence. Kindly refer to the paragraph above. — TheMadFool

You're simply affirming what you believe and bandying words about.

The fact that 'millions of people' do something, proves nothing apart from that's what they're doing. There are also millions of people who don't do that.

'Science' means considerably more than a slogan about measurement.

If you're going to bother to turn up here and post, at least know what at argument is.

Sorry. I've adressed every counterpoint made against my position. — TheMadFool

You haven't 'addressed' them at all, you've simply ignored them and talked past them.

Correction: light is observed in experiments to behave as both a wave and a particle and we have found that applying light as both a particle and wave is workable in our models. Explanations that explain why we see this observation and how light can both be a particle and a wave are hypotheses. At this point, unless you are a physicist who deals with quantum mechanics regularly or would be considered an expert in the field, whatever you have to say is conjecture. I do not like when people bring quantum mechanics and use it to justify whatever bad argument they are making at the time, considering that most of them have never done any experimentation involving it in their lives and probably could not do physics at all. I am not versed in quantum mechanics, so I would suggest we submit to the position of scientists working the field and let them sort it out. — Chany

For your information, the particle-wave duality is a classical attempt to understand quantum physical particles. Most physicists consider and accept that quantum physical particle as it is, a particle with properties of classical particle and wave. There is no classical definite analog. Explanations to how and why we observe these properties has to do with interpretations, not hypotheses. That is why it's called Copenhagen interpretation, Many-worlds interpretation, quantum decoherence interpretation, etc.

You are absolutely right that most of those people out there using quantum physics as a way to explain God or some other philosophical argument are simply bogus. Some famous physicians also made the same mistake of applying this to explain heaven. In fact, most of the physicists consider such attempt to be a poor application of reasoning. I've seen people make hilariously bad interpretation of quantum physics and its application to something unscientific because they are not used to the formulations used in quantum physics. They have to rely on the classically intuitive picture, which will always be wrong one way or another.

In the end, trying to interpret any philosophical idea with science or use science to explain philosophical idea generally lead to an illegitimate argument. It is well advised that you don't do this.

You haven't 'addressed' them at all, you've simply ignored them and talked past them. — Wayfarer

This.

The way I see it is people are some kind of measuring instrument and we detect/measure god's effect. Each person being unique we detect and measure god's effects differently, sometimes in seemingly contradictory ways. However, these "contradictions" can be explained in terms of the uniqueness of each individual. In short different instruments (people) detect god in different ways. This doesn't mean god is non-existent. It simply means there are different paths to the same destination (god).

Can we test these interpretations, or, at the least, collect more data and evidence to further refine them? Science is not my field beyond some research into it for various reasons, like epistemology and having to listen to people talk about the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.

The fact that 'millions of people' do something, proves nothing apart from that's what they're doing. There are also millions of people who don't do that — Wayfarer

I remember you posted on a thread regarding how many observations cancel out subjectivity and the result is objectivity. Same principle applies here. The majority of the world population are theists of some kind. Using your rationale shouldn't that be considered objective proof/evidence for god?

'Science' means considerably more than a slogan about measurement — Wayfarer

I'll ask you something. Can science exist without measurement? Obviously it cannot. So I'm not sloganeering here. I've actually mentioned a very essential/necessary feature of science viz. measurement.

You haven't 'addressed' them at all, you've simply ignored them and talked past them — Wayfarer

Have I addressed your issues as regards my view?

Setting aside the notion of God for the time being (I believe the world is exactly as it seems, and that is We are creating and observing everything that Is), I would most assuredly agree that science is simply about measuring with the tools that We have created. Besides being at times lots of fun (e.g. measuring distances to stars), it also is handy when creating new tools and weapons (if you are off that persuasion).

Problems are born when people, especially scientists but also often philosophers, confuse the theories and tools we create with We the creator. It is not only problematic but also quite unhealthy.

To emphasize, I'm not attacking the existence of God, I'm attacking the notion that people worshiping God and following the tenets of a religion is scientific evidence for God.

The Christian believes his conception of God to be true and acts accordingly. The Muslim believes his conception of God to be true and acts accordingly. The Muslim and Christian would scoff at your explanation (I've witnessed it firsthand). If what you are saying is true, then Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Zoroastrianism are false and you picked option five from my list (Other Theistic Belief).

1. Judaism
2. Christianity
3. Islam
4. Zoroastrianism
5. Other Theistic Belief

These are mutually exclusive hypotheses about the nature of God. If one is true, the others must necessarily be false. However, all these religions have adherents who are motivated by their unique faith and attribute their behavior to their religion. This means at least four of the religions are incorrect. Therefore, people can be motivated by false beliefs, even if those beliefs are about God. If Islam is false, then Muslims are motivated by a false god- they are motivated by a fantasy. Therefore, I've falsified the hypothesis that God is causing this belief, as I've shown how the belief in a nonexistent entity can generate the observation we see.

. The majority of the world population are theists of some kind. Using your rationale shouldn't that be considered objective proof/evidence for god? — TheMadFool

No, because it's not a question of democratic governance. Just because large numbers of people believe something, doesn't mean it's true. It's not decided by a majority. Japan has the lowest percentage of people who profess belief in God - less than 7%, I seem to recall. But that doesn't prove the non-existence of God, any more than countries with large numbers of believers prove the opposite.

You've got a problem in your argument with what constitutes evidence or proof. You're basically arguing from effect to cause, which is called abductive reasoning. You're simply saying, because belief in God causes certain behaviours, then God must be a real cause. But the counter-argument is simply that 'belief in God' is a social convention which causes such behaviours; the belief doesn't have an objective referent. So the fact that many people pray isn't able to prove that God exists, as the sceptic can always say it's just mass psychology.

I'll ask you something. Can science exist without measurement? Obviously it cannot. So I'm not sloganeering here. I've actually mentioned a very essential/necessary feature of science viz. measurement. — TheMadFool

Obviously science can't exist without measurement, but there's more to science than measurement. It also makes predictions. Here's a very succinct summary of scientific method:

Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.

Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. It includes both in a particular way. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations. Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical. Hans Reichenbach summarizes the connection: “Observation informs us about the past and the present, reason foretells the future.” — Edward R Doherty

Now I think there are many things science can't predict, or inform us about, including questions about the reality of otherwise of God. I'm very sympathetic to the arguments of natural theology, but your argument is not one of them!

Have I addressed your issues as regards my view? — TheMadFool

So, not really. I think the 'argument from belief' is never really going to work.

Therefore, I've falsified the hypothesis that God is causing this belief, as I've shown how the belief in a nonexistent entity can generate the observation we see — Chany

This same logic must apply to science and all its knowledge. There's no way of distinguishing whether atoms, molecules, etc. actually exist or whether these are simply beliefs as you put it.

So, either science is wrong or god exists.

There's no way of distinguishing whether atoms, molecules, etc. actually exist or whether these are simply beliefs as you put it. — TheMadFool

There are centuries of medical trial data, about the effectiveness of medicine, which have measurable consequences in terms of healing illnesses.

Data on miracle cures, homeopathy or 'faith healing', by contrast, is extremely hard to come by.

But the counter-argument is simply that 'belief in God' is a social convention which causes such behaviours; the belief doesn't have an objective referent. — Wayfarer

Please read my reply to Chany

There are centuries of medical trial data, about the effectiveness of medicine, which have measurable consequences in terms of healing illnesses.

Data on miracle cures, homeopathy or 'faith healing', by contrast, is extremely hard to come by. — Wayfarer

In response I quote you below

the counter-argument is simply that 'belief in God' is a social convention which causes such behaviours; the belief doesn't have an objective referent. — Wayfarer

In response I quote you below — TheMadFool

Clearly you don't understand what you're quoting, so unless you care to try explain it further, I think the discussion is finished.