what would happen if someone proved there is no Go

[sceptic]

comments please

[bid_em_up]

Then I guess we would all be stuck right where we are :)

[luke warm]

Then I guess we would all be stuck right where we are :)

heheheh

[pclayton]

And what is someone proved there was one?

 

In the meantime, we are stuck with our beliefs :)

[paulg]

Is God Hiding or Not? by Scott Adams.

[helene_t]

The game of Go almost surely exists. If it were proven not to exist, I'm afraid people would be sceptical about bridge, too. But I suppose you meant "God".

 

The (non)-existence of God is not something that's supposed to be "proved".

 

There are certain things that defy scientific explanation, either because

- we are too ignorant (e.g. the origin of the first fatty cell membrane), or because

- it is inherently unknowable (e.g. what consciousness is), or because

- the scientific explanation given is estethically unacceptable to some (e.g. quantum physics), or because

- the scientific explanation given is too difficult to some (e.g. almost all of modern science), or because

- the scientific explanation given has undecided social implications in some peoples' opinions (e.g. evolutionary psychology)

 

Now you can solve this proble either by stating

- We default to Ocam's razor until something better has been suggested

- It's the domain of God

- Who cares, if we can't know it's a waste of time to discuss it

 

All three viewpoints are valid. DrTodd and Jimmy prefer the second one, Gerben and I prefer the first one. You might argue that one of the three is superior in some pragmatic sense but it's a waste of time to discuss which of the three is "true".

 

If you have some specific idea about how God manifests him(her?it?)self in the contemporary World, then that idea would probably have some factual consequences that could be tested, and some social consequences that could be argued to be good or bad. This wouldn't enable you to prove anything since believers could always argue that the assumed manifestation was not necesarily correct, while non-believers could allways argue that even if the state of the universe is in agreement with the existence of God, there are better alternative theories.

 

The (non)existence of God is a non-issue, at least in a scientific context.

[mgoetze]

I have played Go myself, so obviously there would be something wrong with the proof.

 

Now you can solve this proble either by stating

- We default to Ocam's razor until something better has been suggested

- It's the domain of God

- Who cares, if we can't know it's a waste of time to discuss it

 

All three viewpoints are valid. DrTodd and Jimmy prefer the second one, Gerben and I prefer the first one. You might argue that one of the three is superior in some pragmatic sense but it's a waste of time to discuss which of the three is "true".

 

Guess I'll have to speak up for viewpoint number three then. :) I will, however, argue that organized religion is bad for society... don't bother trying to get me to do it on such a large forum as this one, though. :)

[joshs]

If there was no Go, I would not collect $200, and I would probably end up bankrupt after paying my utility bills, and staying in my friend's hotels, and taking a ride on reading railroad..

[joshs]

Is God Hiding or Not? by Scott Adams.

Having read Spinoza, I am certain that after creating the world out of a single monad, God had nothing left to do and went into hybernation.

[Trumpace]

It has already been proved by Homer Simpson.

[DrTodd13]

There are areas that we just don't currently understand and there are other areas where there is some reason to believe that it is impossible to know the answer to a question. It is weird but sometimes science can prove that we can never prove an answer to a question, one way or the other. While not proven, the provability of the existence or non-existence of God is probably impossible. In such cases where something is provably unprovable, I think it is acceptable to have a position based on faith. So, faith should not conflict with science.

[mikeh]

I gather that a Christian organization recently conducted a long-term study of the efficiacy of prayer, in the hope that it would demonstrate a correlation between prayer and health. The study arranged for various groups to pray for the speedy recovery of named patients from major surgery.

 

It was hoped that this would result in statistically significant differences between the recovery of the non-prayed for control population and the prayed for groups. It was an extensive study.

 

Unfortunately, for those of superstitious inclinations, there was virtually no difference and, ironically, what difference there was manifested itself in a higher rate of post-operative complications for the 'prayed-for' group than for the control sample.

 

Similar objective debunking has been done with respect to most mystical interventions, such as the laying on of hands. However, true believers possess the common and all too human ability to rationalize away disproofs or, if rationalization is impossible, simply to ignore the contrary evidence.

 

That is not to say that disproof of the efficiacy of prayer or the false nature of claims of healing powers by preachers disproves the major tenets of religion or disproves the existence of some entity which could be called 'god'.

 

In any event, no amount of objective evidence will ever persuade the superstitious to give up the crutch of belief... religious bodies, including the Christian church(es) have shown remarkable ability to overcome disproof of some of their belief structure in the past, by rationalization or by recasting stories once held to be literally true to be only allegorical, etc. And many of the sects seem to inculcate the ability to actually ignore awkward evidence... hence they can continue to assert that the Bible is literally true even while apparently ignoring the multitude of internal contradictions found therein. And we haven't even touched upon such abysmal efforts to preserve the role of 'God' as by way of the so-called 'intelligent design' idiocy.

[luke warm]

And we haven't even touched upon such abysmal efforts to preserve the role of 'God' as by way of the so-called 'intelligent design' idiocy.

just curious, have you read behe's 'darwin's black box'? if so, what's your take on his concept of an organism being irreducibly complex?

[hrothgar]

And we haven't even touched upon such abysmal efforts to preserve the role of 'God' as by way of the so-called 'intelligent design' idiocy.

just curious, have you read behe's 'darwin's black box'? if so, what's your take on his concept of an organism being irreducibly complex?

I've read some stuff by Behe, as well as a number of articles that are sharply critical of his work. Personally, I'm much more convinced by his critics.

 

For example, Behe cites a number of examples of organelles or pathways that he claims are irreducibly complex. (Flagellum on bacterial, blood clotting, and the complement system in the immune system are some of his favorite examples) However, Behe's critics have been able to offer reasonable evolutionary pathways for each of these systems.

 

Behe tried to trott out the flagellum example during the recent Dover court case and got his butt handed to him. Indeed, a lot of that opinion was a very explicit rejection of Behe's theories...

[Winstonm]

Is this the right room for an argument? :P

[luke warm]

just curious, have you read behe's 'darwin's black box'? if so, what's your take on his concept of an organism being irreducibly complex?

I've read some stuff by Behe, as well as a number of articles that are sharply critical of his work. Personally, I'm much more convinced by his critics.

we all are predisposed to give credence to the ones who espouse our own points of view

 

For example, Behe cites a number of examples of organelles or pathways that he claims are irreducibly complex.   (Flagellum on bacterial, blood clotting, and the complement system in the immune system are some of his favorite examples)  However, Behe's critics have been able to offer reasonable evolutionary pathways for each of these systems.

really? i was unaware of that... what do his critics say about the flagellum in a cell? iow, what do they say about the chance that it simply evolved?

 

Behe tried to trott out the flagellum example during the recent Dover court case and got his butt handed to him.  Indeed, a lot of that opinion was a very explicit rejection of Behe's theories...

i guess it depends a lot on the definitions used, and on whether one is speaking of science or the philosophy of science (as hawking does with string theory)... for example, the judge in the trial depended on a definition of science that contained the word 'falsifiable'... is darwinism falsifiable?

[mikeh]

And we haven't even touched upon such abysmal efforts to preserve the role of 'God' as by way of the so-called 'intelligent design' idiocy.

just curious, have you read behe's 'darwin's black box'? if so, what's your take on his concept of an organism being irreducibly complex?

I have not read his books, but I read a great many verbatim quotes from the trial judgment to which Richard refers and I have read several books by Richard Dawkins and many by Jay Stephen Gould, as well as other 'natural scientists' as they would once have been known. Their arguments, which these days include reliance upon genetic analysis as well as fossil remains, appear logical and convincing.

 

I have also read some other of the arguments put forward by creationists, including the argument that there is no evolutionary purpose for a partly formed eye or a rudimentary wing, etc. Elegant, plausible rebuttals of these arguments can be readily found in Dawkins... read Climbing Mount Improbability as an example.

 

It is truly sad that the US, which has based its climb to pre-eminence in the global economy on innovation, usually based on science, and which continues to attract the largest number of pure science thinkers in the world, fetters so many of its students by promoting such pseudo-babble as creationism or intelligent design. Even intelligent politicians such as McCain seem to feel that they have to pander to the irrational element of the Republican Party by asserting that there is a place for the teaching of what are essentially creation myths AS SCIENCE!

 

I almost understand the depth of the need to believe in a God... else we have to confront the reality of death without the fudge that it is only a passage to another existence. I can also almost understand why accepting that consciousness seems to be an emergent property arising out of what are essentially random (quantum) events in a complex structure is so threatening to people's sense of their own importance in the universe. Self-delusion may make some comfortable... the words of Pink Floyd's song.. comfortably numb.... come to mind... but refusing to accept reality is no way for the species to move forward into the future.

 

And, as for the probability that we may never be capable, as a species, of internally grasping the nature of 'reality' or the universe, that does not mean that God exists... it merely means that we, as a species, have evolved in circumstances in which our brains cannot hold the concept. A dog watching televison may (mine do) bark at images that appear on the screen, but no dog can write the script for the show it is watching, any more than a dog will grasp any of the mathematics underlying string theory. Now, I don't either, but I know that I could have done so 30 years ago (well, i may be self-delusional here, but certainly some of our species can do this and, as far as we know, no other can)

 

I think that acceptance of our actual significance (or lack thereof) is the biggest problem underlying the need for religion, but I confess I am attracted to simplistic answers when they resonate with my core beliefs :P

[hrothgar]

really? i was unaware of that... what do his critics say about the flagellum in a cell? iow, what do they say about the chance that it simply evolved?

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

 

The first link contains some links to professional papers

[kenrexford]

I have absolutely no intention of revealing my own views on this matter. However, as one who loves the intellectual challenge of hypothesizing, I thought I'd share a thought experiment.

 

The concept of "God," or of a god or gods, often is reacted to by those who "believe" and those who are skeptics, by pre-determined definitions of those terms. "God" is deemed a mystical idea, defined by prior religious understandings, even if not shared by the person discussing his belief, views, and the like.

 

Some try to correct this problem with a concept like a "higher power" or some other strange incantation, to no avail.

 

I think through the concept by comparison of natural phenomena. First, I think of ants. Ants run around annoyingly doing their thing, until I crush them. But, despite no little cell phones in their little foot things, they seem somehow to "communicate" in a way that a tiny civilization forms, until I douse the anthill in poison.

 

Then, my cells. Each cell functions somehow as a completely symbiotic organism. However, the conglomeration of cells somehow communicate with each other such that my personality, frightening as it is, emerges. Great civilizations of cells, like my foot, have no clue this is going on. But, it does.

 

The strange thing about my conglomeration of cells is that individual cells all over can "die" and be replaced by new cells. In fact, I believe that just about every cell could die, if timed right, and I would go on if new cells replaced them. All of this, while my memory remains intact.

 

I am just a little spot on the planet. If I was large enough, with a big enough brain, I might be able to remember the experiences of each cell, or at least each conglomeration of cells (foot, hand, etc.) This would not make me "good" or "omnipotent," but it would be impressive, and quite natural.

 

What if, somehow, I could download my memories onto the internet? What is the internet, but a series of computers linked together? Some are linked by wireless connections.

[helene_t]

In such cases where something is provably unprovable, I think it is acceptable to have a position based on faith. So, faith should not conflict with science.

 

I'm delighted that Todd (a Christian) and me (an atheist) can agree on this.

 

Maybe I'm not the right person to deem certain ideas "blasfemic", but I wonder if Jesus, Moses and the apostels, had they been alive today, would have any sympathy for fundamentalist science-bashing. I can immagine that when the Bible was written, there was no established science that deemed the miracles reported in the Bible impossible. The miracles were extraordinary, but not impossible. And the book of Genesis provided the most plausible explanation for the origin of the Universe and mankind, given the level of scientific understanding at that time. So nothing anti-scientific was written in the Bible. If it was written today, the miracles would be things like solutions to the Riemann Hypothesis, the nature of consciousness, life on other planets, and about new technology such as quantum computers, fusion power and many nice things that non-spiritual academics like me lack the fantasy to envision.

 

It's my impression that almost all Christian scholars, and also most Islamic etc. scholars, are quite reasonable in their relation to science. The previous Pope recognized Darwinism, as does Dalai Lama. Several bishops write friendly recomendations on the back of Dawkins books. Science-bashing often comes from people who not only lack academic training in science but also in theology. If I recall correctly, the funder of this ID thing is a lawyer.

 

I admire those bilogists who have the patience to answer those claims of bacterium organels that are "ireducibly complex". Similar claims were once made about eyesight, snake poison etc etc. Now those were easily refuted by biologists, but nature is full of impressing phenomena and you can always find something the origin of which hasn't yet been studied scientifically.

[luke warm]

really? i was unaware of that... what do his critics say about the flagellum in a cell? iow, what do they say about the chance that it simply evolved?

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

 

The first link contains some links to professional papers

thanks for the links... in the first, mr. matzke admits he might not be up to the task (since he's an undergraduate and mr. behe is an acknowledged leader in the field of biochemistry)... but i'll read all tree links in it... i couldn't get the 2nd link to open

[mgoetze]

The concept of "God," or of a god or gods, often is reacted to by those who "believe" and those who are skeptics, by pre-determined definitions of those terms.  "God" is deemed a mystical idea, defined by prior religious understandings, even if not shared by the person discussing his belief, views, and the like.

Indeed, the word "God" is so ill-defined that it is essentially meaningless, and on a good day, if asked whether I believe in "God", my answer will be "Sorry, I don't understand you." (You don't want to know about the bad days. :rolleyes: )

 

6.53   The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other -- he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy -- but it would be the only strictly correct method.

 

(Then there is always his later work, Philosophical Investigations, for a more complicated view of the matter...)

[mikeh]

really? i was unaware of that... what do his critics say about the flagellum in a cell? iow, what do they say about the chance that it simply evolved?

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

 

The first link contains some links to professional papers

thanks for the links... in the first, mr. matzke admits he might not be up to the task (since he's an undergraduate and mr. behe is an acknowledged leader in the field of biochemistry)... but i'll read all tree links in it... i couldn't get the 2nd link to open

Have you now read the various links? Including those links in which the irreducible complexity of the flagellum has been 'reduced'??

 

I love (and agree with) the description of the Intelligent Design argument as an argument based on personal incredulity.

 

Clarke said it long ago, in a different context: any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguisghable from magic. The point is that evolutionary science does not purport to have detailed step by step genetic or bio-chemical answers for every structure that exists in the natural world: why not? Because we haven't got there yet! The scientific tools and pre-cursor knowledge haven't been around long enough. That is no reason to resort to 'magic' or ID as an explanation.

 

Arguing that ID is the explanation because evolution cannot yet explain the problem under consideration is like cartographers of old writing 'Here be Monsters' on their maps.. to reflect that no-one had yet explored and reported back on the blank areas. It didn't mean that the blank areas were filled with monsters... and a logical person would have known that in all likelihood the maps would eventually be filled with rivers, lakes, mountains, forests etc... once exploration was sufficiently advanced.

 

Eventually, if our society lasts long enough and does not lapse into mystical avoidance of truth, it appears inevitable that the underlying biochemical origin of all structures found in life will be known.

 

Why can I say this with confidence? Because evolutionists have yet to fail at any of these tasks... every time a creationist or ID proponent makes another argument from incredulity, it seems that the argument is disproven.

 

We all suffer from an inability to grasp large numbers and the depths of time. One of the articles linked discusses the mutation rate of e coli: I can't write it here accurately, but it was one mutation every 10 to the 7th power of replication. That is a huge number.. mutation is very, very rare. Yet, there are truly huge numbers of e coli in the world, and they reproduce every 20 minutes in the presence of abundant food... so there are mutations occuring every second in your gut alone! (please note that I may be out a trifle on this, I am stating the 'fact' to prove a point.. mutation may be individually rare, but collectively it is frequent)

 

And this has been going on for millions of years.

 

So time has given the e coli innumerable opportunity to evolve to its current state.. including the mutations that resulted in the development of the flagellum.

 

Our inability to intuit the staggering number of iterations available is, I am sure, one reason why some of us feel repulsed by evolution.

 

And perhaps more importantly, there are those of us who, from a fear of death, need to believe that we, as individuals and as a species, have some right or purpose for existence. Evolutionary theory reveals that we are the extraordinarily unlikely product of eons of random change, mediated by the winnowing effect of natural selection.... and, moreover, that there is neither direction nor purpose to our coming into being. Finally, evolution shows us that there is a virtual certainty that, on a geological time scale, we are going to become extinct and that the world, some unknown number of millions of years from now, will contain no trace of that we ever existed, other than as fossils.

 

Kind of makes us realize our insignificance... reminds me of the device in one of the later series of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in which the Vortex forces us to perceive our true significance in the Universe... it is a torture machine.. altho the character, Zaphod Beeblebrox, survives because it reveals to him what he already knew.. .that he was the most important being in the Universe... :o

[Al_U_Card]

Indeed. Throw a handfull of sand up in the air......only one grain of the many thousands, if it lands in your eye, will cause discomfort but that is enough.

[luke warm]

Have you now read the various links? Including those links in which the irreducible complexity of the flagellum has been 'reduced'??

some of them, and some others from authors who critique both behe's 1st book and the 'revisited' article later written... but i repeat what i said above, behe has a doctorate from u of pa. in biochemistry while the author is an undergrad... behe is a recognized, highly honored scientist (even by those who disagree with him)

 

The point is that evolutionary science does not purport to have detailed step by step genetic or bio-chemical answers for every structure that exists in the natural world: why not? Because we haven't got there yet! The scientific tools and pre-cursor knowledge haven't been around long enough. That is no reason to resort to 'magic' or ID as an explanation.

what is your personal definition of "science?" ... does the term 'evolutionary science' fit that definition? or should it perhaps be referred to as 'evolutionary theory'? if we can't falsify a thing, can that thing be considered 'science'?

 

Arguing that ID is the explanation because evolution cannot yet explain the problem under consideration is like cartographers of old writing 'Here be Monsters' on their maps.. to reflect that no-one had yet explored and reported back on the blank areas.

fine, but then don't argue that because evolution can't yet explain the problem proves it to be true...

 

time to go home