From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:13:04 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Nov8.224256.10394@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>
> I have not read the posts you refer to, but I do have a question for  
> you.  Falsifiable on what grounds?  Saying that the hypothesis that God does  
> not exist is falsifiable by producing this God is like saying that I have a  
> hypothesis that no unstoppable forces exist, and you can disprove it by  
> bringing me some unstoppable force in a bottle.

No, you could refer me to *anything* at all which you consider to be evidence
that such a force exists. I would then have to decide whether I felt the
evidence persuasive. If there were no such evidence I would feel justified
in continuing to believe that no such force exists. If you were, further,
to derive palpable comfort from your belief that such a force existed, that
would make me even more skeptical when you were unable to point me toward
any evidence.

Anyhow, the theist has claimed that some kind of supernature, and specifically
his god, have an objective, observer-independent existence. Yet he can produce
no evidence which shares these attributes, which to me suggests that his claim
exceeds that which can logically be inferred; it is preposterous. The only
evidence he can produce is a subjective conviction indistinguishable from
delusion, and there, as they say, is the rub: how *are* such convictions to
be distinguished from delusion? If it all boils down to truth being an
observer-dependent subjective matter (who am I to call somebody deluded?),
then the claim of an objectively existing supernature is again illogical.

To be honest, I have some sympathy with the guy who says "Yes, of course I
have evidence for my claim; just look around you at the wonders of Creation"
and so forth. I can discuss with this person why he might consider the
existence of the universe as evidence for his god instead of any other,
we can thrash out the weaknesses of the Argument From Design, and so on.

But if somebody makes essentially the same claim, and before I can blurt
out "So what evidence led you to this view?" the guy says "But don't ask
for evidence, because there can by construction be none", then I cease to
be interested because this is pure sophistry which, frankly, I find to be
masturbationary in the extreme and with which I get bored very quickly. A
personal failing on my part perhaps, but life's too short to spend time
arguing with sophists who, after all, insist that they are only figments
of my imagination anyhow. :-)

> No, no, if I did manage to "produce" this God (whatever that means), every
> scientist who values being able to show his face in public would demand
> that I demonstrate scientifically that this was God. Unfortunately,
> scientific methods always assume that what you observe is not due to any
> supernatural interference.            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good, you've used the phrase "what you observe", and that is the crux of
the matter. If we were to drop the scientific assumption that supernature
is not operative, do you think even then that supernatural interference
could reasonably be inferred from "what you observe" or from some part of
it? How could we test whether or not this inference is indeed reasonable?
Yes, I know this is all sounding like science again, but that is exactly my
point. You inevitably get drawn back to asking scientific questions whenever
you want to establish *anything* beyond sophistry.

>	What you are doing, it seems to me, is demand that theistic claims be  
> verified by science, which assumes the non-validity of theistic claims. This
> is exactly the same as when theists demand that scientific theories conform
> to the current interpretation of their particular scriptures. It is a demand
> that you use an axe to fix my plumbing instead of a toilet plunger.

Well, speaking personally, I'll consider any method of verification which
actually *is* a method of verification, unlike those stalwart exhortations
to "Open your heart to Jesus" or "Believe it's true and then its truth will
be apparent." I'm sure that I could be convinced by any number of unscientific
means, such as if I had dreams in which I was told that <insert here> would
demonstrate <its> existence by causing me to witness highly unlikely and
specifically predicted events which duly came to pass. I am quite sure that
many of us, even the most ardent atheists, have had a `dialogue' with the
night silence in which we have appealed to whatever might be `out there'
to show itself in some -- any -- way. Nothing. But that kind of thing is
quite capable of convincing me even if it were horrifyingly unscientific.
I would of course suspect delusion on my part first, and no doubt I would
attempt to inject some science by, say, writing down these predictions and
mailing them to myself or to others before events unfolded.

>	The two assumptions are LOGICALLY equivalent-- they are both  
> assumptions.  They are not SCIENTIFICALLY equivalent.

Still find myself unable to concede this. Even if we drop the scientific
business and allow verification for me alone by some subjective experience
(dare I use the word `revelation'?), the two remain asymmetric. I can have
no revelation which will convince me that there is *no* supernature, although
I *could* be convinced through revelation that there *is* a supernature.

> Erik Powers

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism