Is God an Unnecessary Hypothesis?

[Thief]

meaning there are no cases or instances when one must resort to claiming god did it

then substance is 'self' creating
'self' motivating
and will fail your life......all things die

and you are dust

and Man is a mystery upon this planet.....no resolve
no purpose
and is terminal

 

[Heyo]

You and Dawkins are afflicted with Reason Worship, IMO.

Yep. That's why our reasoning skills are so much higher than the ones of those who deny or downplay reason.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's hard to think of a culture that hasn't believed in a higher power. I think there's an instinct or intuition that moves these beliefs.

In all those cultures, there are also men who claimed to know more than others about a higher power but I think of them as distractions. The interesting question: Is this instinct based on reality or not?

Thats actually interesting. One of my thoughts during the time I was a theist was thinking if there was anything instinctual involving a belief in God.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

FYI: when you have only one digit it is called base 1.
(Base 2 has two digits, 1 and 0, base 10 has 10 digits 0 .. 9, etc.)
In base 1 0 + 0 = 00.

Just to refresh your fifth class maths knowledge.

I'm glad you asked this. I think when I asked about base 1, they directed me here.

Unary numeral system - Wikipedia
Base (mathematics) - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"For example, in this system the number 0 (zero) would be represented as the empty string, i.e. the absence of symbols, and the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... would be represented as: (basically nothing but ones)." They go on to say that this is basically a tally.

So, in essence, base 1 must be 1 (something), while base 2 is 1 (something) and 0 (nothing).

Therefore, base 0 means only nothing exists. Your math teacher may define it differently, but I define the bases as:
(nonzero numbers < 1; if true 0; else false 1) x 0 = Base 0 (that is, ONLY zero)
(nonzero numbers = 1; if true 1; else false 0) x (nonzero) = Base 1 (that is, ONLY nonzero)
(nonzero numbers > 1; if true 1; else false 0) x (nonzero +1) = Base 2 (0,1), Base 10 (0, 1 to 9), Base 16 (0, 1 to 15)

The teacher may say otherwise, but according to the fact that I am multiplying by 0, having no nonzero numbers makes it base zero.

 

[Heyo]

I'm glad you asked this. I think when I asked about base 1, they directed me here.

Unary numeral system - Wikipedia
Base (mathematics) - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"For example, in this system the number 0 (zero) would be represented as the empty string, i.e. the absence of symbols, and the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... would be represented as: (basically nothing but ones)." They go on to say that this is basically a tally.

So, in essence, base 1 must be 1 (something), while base 2 is 1 (something) and 0 (nothing).

Therefore, base 0 means only nothing exists. Your math teacher may define it differently, but I define the bases as:
(non-zero numbers>1; if true 1; else false 0) x 0 = Base 0 (that is, ONLY zero)
(non-zero numbers>1; if true 1; else false 0) x 1 = Base 1 (that is, ONLY nonzero)
(non-zero numbers>1; if true 1; else false 0) x (nonzero +1) = Base 2 (0,1), Base 10 (0, 1 to 9), Base 16 (0, 1 to 15)

The teacher may say otherwise, but according to the fact that I am multiplying by 0, having no nonzero numbers makes it base zero.

You definition is inconsistent. When you have a 0, you have a one digit system (base 1) and 0 + 0 = 00.
To get to a zero base number system, you'd have to have zero symbols. There would be no 0 to add to anything.
At best you'd land in set theory (where "+" isn't defined) and {} ⋃ {} = {}.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Even if it is inconsistent, this is how the mathematical bases are defined.

Unary (base 1) numbers are defined as just 1. In fact, they do not use just 0, because it is mathematically useless. In fact, we only use base 0 here because it is theologically useful, a mathematician would not have a base 0 in most cases. You can't count with it, nor do any sort of math. It's only slightly less broken math than using infinity.

∞ * 2 = ∞
∞ / 2 = ∞
∞ + 2 = ∞

(Because infinity refers to a set of numbers with no boundaries such as {1,2,3,4,5, 6...} or {2,4,6,8...} doubling it or halving it doesn't change its state of having no boundaries)

From any point more than one numbers, you appear to multiply 1 by the total number of numbers + 1. And any point less than 1 number, you multiply zero by either one or zero (doesn't matter, because the other number is already zero).

I did this equation based on already defined bases. And you're right, it doesn't seem consistent. Go complain to your math teacher.

Base 0 is theologically useful because it helps us define that without number system that contained any numbers, any process grinds to a halt.

Btw, "base 1" is a lie. There is an assumed 0 when no ones are added. Bases start at two, because base 1 is a lie, and base 0 cannot have anything exist. So forget you ever saw either base 0 or base 1. They're not real. 0 and 1 must both exist. Therefore, the math is consistent as only this part ever is dealt with:

(non-zero numbers>1; if true 1; else false 0) x (nonzero +1)

 

[McBell]

In its essential nature, an hypothesis is a factual claim. Facts are either true or false. They can only be properly labeled necessary or unnecessary (trivia) if true.



You're using a claim unsupported by evidence to justify applying the "unnecessary" label to the God hypothesis. Doing that only reveals your bias. It doesn't make a valid argument.

**Climbs up onto pontoon boat.**

Nice try though

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, for anything besides abject chaos to happen, some sort of control has to be imposed on it. Since that control, in the case of our universe, has resulted in enormous variety and complexity; far beyond that which we humans can understand, we perceive an incredible intelligence within it. "God" is just a word many use to refer to that mysterious omni-intelligence.

The laws of physics impose control on the universe, & are wonderful
at explaining the variety & complexity. And they're testable.
Thus, I pare away the unnecessary explanations of gods & minds
running things. They add nothing useful.

 

[Polymath257]

There's no replicated science to support you on that. Science has only a crude tool for observing the effects of the right brain as flashes of light(fMRI).

Until very recently, scientists thought that the moral decisions which rule our lives were the product of left brain reasoning function. In the last 20 years or so, research has confirmed that Hume was right centuries ago when he described the judgments of conscience as feelings (intuition).

Which mostly happens in the midbrain, not the left brain.

Researchers haven't yet tried to explain how the unconscious mind can make immediate judgments when the specific moral case is unique among a countless variety.

It does so by eliminating a good part of the incoming data to make quick judgements.

Bottom Line: To say that the "God hypothesis" is unnecessary to science only reveals one's bias. The truth is that science is limited in scope because our senses are limited in scope. Anything outside that scope is not unnecessary to science. It's simply currently unavailable to science.[/QUOTE]

Which is what makes it unnecessary to science as well as anything related to understanding.

An hypothesis is true or false. The notion of an hypothesis being necessary or unnecessary is absurd. It's the product of flawed reasoning.

I think this is clearly wrong. For example, the ether hypothesis is no longer necessary for understanding the propagation of light.

The hypothesis of angels pushing the planets is unnecessary to explain the motion of the planets.

Now, science typically attempts to eliminate any unnecessary hypotheses.

Furthermore, scientific hypotheses are not either true or false. They are useful for making testable predictions that are verified or not. That is a different matter than truth or falsity (although a counter-example does prove falsity).

 

[Polymath257]

In its essential nature, an hypothesis is a factual claim. Facts are either true or false. They can only be properly labeled necessary or unnecessary (trivia) if true.

This may be the case in everyday parlance, but it is NOT the case with science. A hypothesis in science is a proposal that makes testable predictions. if those predictions are validated by observation, the hypothesis is supported (not proved). if the predictions are NOT validated by observation, then the hypothesis is falsified.

A hypothesis can be unnecessary when it produces no testable predictions. In that case, it 'isn't even wrong'.

You're using a claim unsupported by evidence to justify applying the "unnecessary" label to the God hypothesis. Doing that only reveals your bias. It doesn't make a valid argument.

For what is the God hypothesis necessary? Certainly not to describe the universe scientifically. That is quite well done without that hypothesis. It isn't necessary to explain morality. Again, that is quite well explained by our being social apes.

So, for what is the God hypothesis necessary?

 

[Polymath257]

You and Dawkins are afflicted with Reason Worship, IMO.

There are intuitions and instincts that ,IMO, will trump reason. The best example is conscience, a intuitive sense of right and wrong, which Dawkins doesn't understand (The Selfish Gene hypothesis).

Intuitions and instincts are very frequently wrong. They are fast judgements that are good enough in a crunch, but need to be supervised by reasoning to see if and when they are valid.

Conscience is a learned behavior.

 

[joe1776]

...So, for what is the God hypothesis necessary?

The God hypothesis is neither necessary nor unnecessary. It's either true or false.

This may be the case in everyday parlance, but it is NOT the case with science. A hypothesis in science is a proposal that makes testable predictions. if those predictions are validated by observation, the hypothesis is supported (not proved). if the predictions are NOT validated by observation, then the hypothesis is falsified.

As you admit: This may be the case in everyday parlance... When you debate the God hypothesis with me or anyone else, we aren't scientists doing science, so why should I, or any other debate opponent care what language scientists would use? An hypothesis is virtually a claim of fact. It's either true or false.

The hypothesis of angels pushing the planets is unnecessary to explain the motion of the planets.

In an ordinary discussion like ours, the word unnecessary in your example is a weasel word. Why avoid saying that the theory was replaced because it was either wrong or unsupported by evidence?

Intuitions and instincts are very frequently wrong. They are fast judgements that are good enough in a crunch, but need to be supervised by reasoning to see if and when they are valid...Conscience is a learned behavior.

Your belief regarding conscience is a popular myth that never made sense logically and research has been challenging over the past 20 years. I don't have the time now to provide links but this quote will give you the idea of what you're up against:

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist.

 

[PureX]

The laws of physics impose control on the universe, & are wonderful
at explaining the variety & complexity. And they're testable.
Thus, I pare away the unnecessary explanations of gods & minds
running things. They add nothing useful.

What you're "paring away" is of no philosophical consequence. And so has no bearing on the proposed necessity or lack of it, of "God". The "laws of physics" are what we call those imposed limitations that result in an extremely diverse and complex universe. But they reveal nothing of their mystery source or purpose. Nor do they in any way explain away the omni-intelligent results that we experience/perceive as their consequence.

 

[Thief]

then substance is 'self' creating
'self' motivating
and will fail your life......all things die

and you are dust

and Man is a mystery upon this planet.....no resolve
no purpose
and is terminal

They add nothing useful.

a lack of faith .....may prove....useless

 

[Revoltingest]

a lack of faith .....may prove....useless

It's been useful to me so far.
I've not wasted time & effort
believing in things unevidenced.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yep. That's why our reasoning skills are so much higher than the ones of those who deny or downplay reason.

Here is the test of the limit of reasoning:
You to the effect of: I am rational.
Me: Okay, and it follows that I am then irrational in some sense. What is next?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Ever notice that people who claim to be rational appear to have no idea what the word means?

"I am rational! Because I accept whatever science says (even when it is in the pocket of politics or or otherwise biased). In fact, I follow the science to such a degeee that I resemble a cultist more than someone who understands scientific method. Also. Climate change, because science says so. "

"Oh really? So what about those times when they predicted a warming trend and the ice actually froze more? And what about when they decided it was cooling and it warmed? What about predictions of acid rain? Oh that's right! They've been wrong solidly for 50 years! "

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

What we have is not actually science. It's voodoo. If they can convince us that dire warnings are happening, society falls apart. People get a hysteria. But nothing predicted has ever measured up. It's a sham.

You know what is rational? Quitting with magical thinking, accepting when ideas are half-baked and stopping trying to push something with no success after 50 years. No how ration "science" seems to you, if something doesn't work, it doesn't work.

 

[night912]

Ever notice that people who claim to be rational appear to have no idea what the word means?

I have a feeling that you will be showing us that you're one of those people.

"I am rational! Because I accept whatever science says (even when it is in the pocket of politics or or otherwise biased). In fact, I follow the science to such a degeee that I resemble a cultist more than someone who understands scientific method. Also. Climate change, because science says so.

Spoken like a true politician is talking about science.

"Oh really? So what about those times when they predicted a warming trend and the ice actually froze more? And what about when they decided it was cooling and it warmed? What about predictions of acid rain? Oh that's right! They've been wrong solidly for 50 years! "

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

Who are "they?" Oh that's right, the people who were using selected scientific data to fit with their agenda. And apparently that worked for a lot of people and when the time came and they finally realized that they were duped into believing someone's personal agenda, they turn around and blame science instead of those people.

What we have is not actually science. It's voodoo. If they can convince us that dire warnings are happening, society falls apart. People get a hysteria. But nothing predicted has ever measured up. It's a sham.

I agree that it wasn't science, but disagree that it was voodoo. I rather call it politics.

You know what is rational? Quitting with magical thinking, accepting when ideas are half-baked and stopping trying to push something with no success after 50 years. No how ration "science" seems to you, if something doesn't work, it doesn't work.

Yes, I know what is rational, and if being rational, one should be able to think critically and see the connections. A rational person, if they are attempting to refute some scientific data, they would've used actual scientific data as evidence. Only someone with an irrational way of thinking would present news articles that does not contain any scientific data in them, and try to pass it along as evidence against science, especially the articles that talks about politics, politicians talking about science.

I point this out. The reason why there were those predictions in the past and today, is because the method is working. It has nothing to do with the scientific method, but the political method. And that method is this, pick any topic and present it by aiming specifically for the people who are ignorant of that topic.

 

[Thief]

I've not wasted time & effort
believing in things unevidenced.

how is it a waste of time and effort

you could think of it as background noise
like that tune that gets stuck between your ears

you know the one

 

[Revoltingest]

how is it a waste of time and effort

Studying scripture written by anonymous goatherds
thousands of years ago is a waste of time....time
that could'a been spent watching porn or cat videos.

you could think of it as background noise
like that tune that gets stuck between your ears

you know the one