Is my biology teacher dumb...

[T_Money]

okay so we had a review session for a bio test today and the teacher says, "A hypothesis can never be proven, it can only be not disproven. After it has been tested and shown to be correct 'over enough trials' then it becomes a theory. Theory's will only stand until they are disproven, and they will also never be proven."

So my question is this. Everytime someone says "prove god exists" and then someone else says "disprove he exists" most of the atheists say the burden is on the person to prove it. So what's up with this, apparently this is against the scientific method or something.

P.S. Yes I know this isn't even a "scientifically questionable" topic since the subject doesn't reside in the physical world.

[DougShrapnel]

People don't say things like that. Your prof is correct. Evidence, show some evidence of God. However your point that "the burdon of proof" might need to be modified a bit.

[Duke]

The idea that there is or may be a god is not a hypothesis, since it makes no testable claims.

[Taraz]

A scientific hypothesis has to be testable. There is no way to test whether or not God exists scientifically (yet).

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
So my question is this. Everytime someone says "prove god exists" and then someone else says "disprove he exists" most of the atheists say the burden is on the person to prove it. So what's up with this, apparently this is against the scientific method or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligent atheists generally allow for the theoretical possibility of a God, it's just very remote. Also, "X is possible" and "It is correct to believe in X" are two distinct statements (Also, "A god might exist" vs. "The Christian God might exist"). Hence my repeated contention that most self-described agnostics are actually atheists.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
A scientific hypothesis has to be testable. There is no way to test whether or not God exists scientifically (yet).

[/ QUOTE ]

There can't ever be. Since the general religious 'hypothesis' is that God cannot be tested for and that any documented historical claims become metaphor if contradicted.

Otherwise we could test for him using double blind effectiveness of prayer, and testing biblical historical claims.

[AvivaSimplex]

[ QUOTE ]
"A hypothesis can never be proven, it can only be not disproven. After it has been tested and shown to be correct 'over enough trials' then it becomes a theory. Theory's will only stand until they are disproven, and they will also never be proven."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true. It is also true that in any controversial area, there are competing hypotheses. For example, look at the recent dietary debate about omega-3 fatty acids. There are two popular hypotheses:
1. Increasing consumption of omega-3 acids reduces a person's risk of heart disease.
2. Increasing consumption of omega-3 acids has no effect on a person's risk of heart disease.

Of course, there are an infinite number of other possible hypotheses. Omega-3's increase the risk of heart disease. It increases it in some people but decreases it in others, etc. But given other pieces of background evidence, the scientific community has reached a consensus that 1 or 2 is far more likely than the others.

Therefore, any evidence which disproves one hypothesis makes the other much more likely to be true.


Let's apply this to the God/no God debate. Again, we have competing hypotheses--"There is a God" and "There is not a God". In practice there are many different hypotheses, "There are many Gods" "Allah is God and Muhammed is his prophet" etc., but let's concentrate on the simplest version.

In relation to the scientific method, each side is trying to disprove the other's hypothesis. If we found human and dinosaur remains in the same geological layer, that would disprove many claims of geology and evolution, making the No God hypothesis less likely, and thereby increasing the likelihood of the God hypothesis. On the No God side, people make arguments such as "If God existed, why has he not performed any verifiable miracles in the modern age?"

More generally, though, the atheist/agnostic side argues that science has built a model of the physical and biological universe which functions without a God factor. In order to update that model to include God, theists must demonstrate how that model could better explain the universe if there were a God.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
In order to update that model to include God, theists must demonstrate how that model could better explain the universe if there were a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely. This is the so-called "burden of proof."

But as others have pointed out, a hypothesis has no scientific credibility unless it makes specific predictions. A scientific hypothesis can be disproved if its predictions are not accurate, and that's what makes it valuable. An idea that makes no specific predictions and cannot be disproved is not a scientific idea and is not subject to scientific standards of evaluation.

(This is an advantage for the religious right now.)

[Nielsio]

There is no theory of god.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
okay so we had a review session for a bio test today and the teacher says, "A hypothesis can never be proven, it can only be not disproven. After it has been tested and shown to be correct 'over enough trials' then it becomes a theory. Theory's will only stand until they are disproven, and they will also never be proven."

So my question is this. Everytime someone says "prove god exists" and then someone else says "disprove he exists" most of the atheists say the burden is on the person to prove it. So what's up with this, apparently this is against the scientific method or something.

P.S. Yes I know this isn't even a "scientifically questionable" topic since the subject doesn't reside in the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are getting confused between the casual meaning of the word "proof" among most lay people, and the more rigorous scientific definition.

Technically, your biology teacher is correct, we never actually "prove" a scientific hypothesis or theory. It only becomes more certain as more supporting evidence is gathered. Proof is generally reserved for mathematical theorems.

That being said, the "burden of proof" is indeed on the theist. However, to be more precise, the atheist should demand evidence, not a proof. (And even the demand for evidence is probably premature, because the claim "god exist" does not provide an intelligible or cogent hypothesis.)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In order to update that model to include God, theists must demonstrate how that model could better explain the universe if there were a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely. This is the so-called "burden of proof."

But as others have pointed out, a hypothesis has no scientific credibility unless it makes specific predictions. A scientific hypothesis can be disproved if its predictions are not accurate, and that's what makes it valuable. An idea that makes no specific predictions and cannot be disproved is not a scientific idea and is not subject to scientific standards of evaluation.

(This is an advantage for the religious right now.)

[/ QUOTE ]

But it also cannot have any bearing on reality. If it did, it would be testable in theory.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Intelligent atheists generally allow for the theoretical possibility of a God, it's just very remote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure this is true. Can I get some feedback? I agree that most atheists would say that there is only a very remote (i.e. miniscule) chance of a certain God (e.g. a Christian God or the God of the Jews or Allah) existing. I can’t see atheists giving any probability to a non-specific God existing or not.

If “intelligent atheists” say that the existence of God is only very remotely probable, how in the sam heck do they come up with any percentage? What is their criteria? It seems to me that the only intelligent thing one can say regarding the probability of God existing is that it is indeterminate. Am I wrong probability wise.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure this is true. Can I get some feedback? I agree that most atheists would say that there is only a very remote (i.e. miniscule) chance of a certain God (e.g. a Christian God or the God of the Jews or Allah) existing. I can’t see atheists giving any probability to a non-specific God existing or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can god X exist? sure, since we have no attributes to dispute. It's like asking can X exist.

Can a specific God Y exist? no, because of ( ..fill in the reasons that atheists give for that specific god).

luckyme

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Can god X exist? sure, since we have no attributes to dispute. It's like asking can X exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just say “Yes, RJT you are right”? It won’t make you a theist. Correcting a fellow atheist won’t make you one either.

[ QUOTE ]
Can a specific God Y exist? no, because of ( ..fill in the reasons that atheists give for that specific god).

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, that is a horse of a different color. Do want to go on record as stating for a fact the probability of any specific God existing is zero? Seems like that is what you just said. If so then we need to start a new thread.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can a specific God Y exist? no, because of ( ..fill in the reasons that atheists give for that specific god).

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, that is a horse of a different color. Do want to go on record as stating for a fact the probability of any specific God existing is zero? Seems like that is what you just said. If so then we need to start a new thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

At base, given an infinite number of potential gods, the likelihood of any specific god existing is definitely 0.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can a specific God Y exist? no, because of ( ..fill in the reasons that atheists give for that specific god).

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, that is a horse of a different color. Do want to go on record as stating for a fact the probability of any specific God existing is zero? Seems like that is what you just said. If so then we need to start a new thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

At base, given an infinite number of potential gods, the likelihood of any specific god existing is definitely 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you have to pare down your list of possible Gods to <infinite? And the only way to do this is to ascribe allowable properties to your God? Please explain this statement a little bit.

Oh, and I am pretty sure I aced my physiology exam. Now I just gotta work on biochemistry.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can a specific God Y exist? no, because of ( ..fill in the reasons that atheists give for that specific god).

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, that is a horse of a different color. Do want to go on record as stating for a fact the probability of any specific God existing is zero? Seems like that is what you just said. If so then we need to start a new thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

At base, given an infinite number of potential gods, the likelihood of any specific god existing is definitely 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "at base". Are you saying "basically". I am talking specifically.

[T_Money]

[ QUOTE ]
"If God existed, why has he not performed any verifiable miracles in the modern age?"


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not for sure saying this isn't true, but I had a friend tell me that his church group went to some Latin country and they had like 50 unconfirmed and like 8 confirmed miracles while they were there. I asked him like what and he said that some kid had back problems his whole life and by the end of the week he was up walking and stuff, something he hadnt done for years. And another guy had something similar. I can't remember all of it. Also, if any of you watch lost, Echol has the job from the catholic church to verify whether a reported miracle was real or not. I have no idea if this is real, but basically I'm asking if you're positive on your statement. One personal thing I know of was when my dad got sick, some guy that was an atheist his whole life got diagnosed with brain cancer and was given literally a few weeks. This was a St. Something hospital and someone came by and asked him if he wanted to pray and he said whatever, why not. Anyway he said during the course of this prayer and meeting, he actually "gave his life to jesus." The next day he had no cancer. And the only reason I know this is because after that day he quit his job and now just goes around the hosptital telling people about god and such.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and I am pretty sure I aced my physiology exam. Now I just gotta work on biochemistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I look forward to the day you start posting again! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by "at base". Are you saying "basically". I am talking specifically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Worded poorly. There are an infinite number of potential gods, so any specific God will have at base a 0 probability.

Gods are like the real numbers. Choose a random number between 1 and 10. What is the probability that number is 1.333? The probability is 0. There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 10 (and an infinite number between any two numbers), and gods are the same way.

It is possible to make dichotomous divisions (as negative versus positive numbers, or in the God case personal gods verus not-personal gods), but even then it's impossible to come up with any probabilities. You can't say that "half the numbers are negative and half are positive," it seems intuitive but if you "split" the number system at a billion instead of zero, you have an equal proportion on each side. Thus, if half the real numbers are negative and half are positive, then half the real numbers are above 1 billion and half are below. True? Perhaps, but meaningful only in that it indicates the fact that the ratio of numbers from 0 to 1 billion within the reals is 0.

When you're selecting one out of infinity, your likelihood of being right is 0.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
When you're selecting one out of infinity, your likelihood of being right is 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might indeed be correct - I’ll take your word for it. But that is not the same thing we are talking about.

The statement was made that:

[ QUOTE ]
At base, given an infinite number of potential gods, the likelihood of any specific god existing is definitely 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which I see analogous to this: Someone says, “Pick a number, any number” and I answer, “I can’t pick a number because there are infinite numbers“.

He isn’t saying he will guess my number. If he says that, then I will agree with you that the probability of him guessing my number might be zero.

[madnak]

Why is this like the former situation, and not the latter?

[RJT]

Forget the analogies. Do you understand that the two statements in quotes are not the same?

[madnak]

Ah, I see. Perhaps I should have said "given an infinite number of potential gods, the likelihood of any specific god existing is definitely 0 based on what we know."

Obviously if God exists, the actual probability of his existence is 1. My point is that we can't claim to know with any degree of certainty that any specific god exists.

[m_the0ry]

God has no place in the scientific process because to be part of the scientific process a concept must be disprovable. You cannot disprove God.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
God has no place in the scientific process because to be part of the scientific process a concept must be disprovable. You cannot disprove God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a convenient mantra, and it is basically a 'get out of argument free' card, but its not always the case. I would argue that it is ONLY the case when dealing with watchmaker gods. If your God has certain properties, and you could describe how a world without your God would differ from a world with him, he is in theory testable and falsifiable.

[m_the0ry]

I think you might have misunderstood me; my point being God is such an elusive and inherently immeasurable concept that it isn't protected by the "considered true until disproven by counterexample" axiom of science.

This stems from the fact that "God" is a dynamic theory that changes whenever a counterexample is found.


A theist would argue that God does abide by the scientific process because God consequently would be a valid theory until disproven.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Intelligent atheists generally allow for the theoretical possibility of a God, it's just very remote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure this is true. Can I get some feedback? I agree that most atheists would say that there is only a very remote (i.e. miniscule) chance of a certain God (e.g. a Christian God or the God of the Jews or Allah) existing. I can’t see atheists giving any probability to a non-specific God existing or not.

If “intelligent atheists” say that the existence of God is only very remotely probable, how in the sam heck do they come up with any percentage? What is their criteria? It seems to me that the only intelligent thing one can say regarding the probability of God existing is that it is indeterminate. Am I wrong probability wise.

[/ QUOTE ]
A god is possible, a benevolent and therefore worthy of worship one is out of question, unless you are prepared to submit to and worship a tyrannical one. Just look around you!

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise we could test for him using double blind effectiveness of prayer, and testing biblical historical claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wait, we did. If he does, he is of the deist sort.