My faith is falsifiable, Professor Coyne. Is yours?

_{Vincent Torley

October 12, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a recent article in USA Today, Professor Jerry Coyne made the following claim:

I’ve never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world, that a true believer can’t rationalize as consistent with a loving God.

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Vincent Torley, and I’m a Christian whose faith in God, Jesus Christ and Intelligent Design is falsifiable. I have the greatest respect for your acknowledged expertise in the field of biology, and I don’t wish to question it for a moment. My Ph.D. is in philosophy, not science. For the record, I accept that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, and that all living things spring from a common ancestor that lived approximately 4 billion years ago. However, I do not believe that non-foresighted processes (random mutations plus natural selection, in popular parlance) are adequate to account for the complexity we observe in organisms today, or that natural processes suffice to explain the origin of life. Here is a list of observations that would cause me to abandon belief in God, belief in Christianity and belief in Intelligent Design.

Observations that would cause me to abandon belief in God

1. The discovery of a naked singularity – a point in space which could literally spew forth anything “out of the blue” – chairs, pizzas, computers, works of literature, or whatever.

2. The discovery that it was possible for intelligent agents (such as human beings) to go back in time and alter the past.

3. The invention of a machine that could read the propositional content of my thoughts – or those of any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason.

4. A scientific demonstration that our thoughts, words and actions are completely determined by external circumstances beyond our control (heredity plus environment).

5. The invention of a machine that could control the propositional content of my thoughts, and make me believe anything that the machine’s programmer wanted me to believe – or do the same to any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason.

6. The invention of a machine that could control my actions, without impairing my ability to reason and without impairing the link between my beliefs/thoughts/judgments and my actions – or do the same to any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason. Which brings me to…

7. The invention of a machine that could turn me into a person who would willingly perpetrate atrocities like those those committed by the Nazis, without impairing my ability to reason and without impairing the link between my beliefs/thoughts/judgments and my actions – or do the same to any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason. In answer to your question about the Holocaust, Jerry: Nazis wouldn’t destroy my faith in God, but a machine that could turn me (or anyone else) into a willing Nazi, would.

Observations that would cause me to abandon belief in Christianity

1. The discovery of Jesus’ dead body in Palestine.

2. The discovery of archaeological proof that any of the following individuals never existed: Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, Ezra and Nehemiah – e.g. a letter by a scribe, confessing to having made them up as a work of fiction. (I haven’t included Noah on this list because I suspect that the Biblical Noah is a “telescoping” of two individuals – one of whom lived two million years ago and another who lived 5,000 years ago. I’ve included Daniel and Jonah, because Jesus Christ referred to them as historical individuals.)

3. A human being coming back to life, with an indestructible body. (This human being would also have to contradict one or more of the claims of Christianity.)

4. Documentary evidence of 3., which was at least as strong as the documentary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

5. Observations confirming that the universe is infinitely old, or is infinite in size.

6. Scientific proof that human beings did not spring from a common stock, and that the human race had a polyphyletic origin.

7. Scientific proof that the following distinctively human abilities arose at different times in the past: the ability to create a language with rules of discourse and a structured grammar; the ability to engage in logical argument (and not just means-end reasoning); the ability to entertain abstract concepts such as “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty”; the ability to entertain a concept of God who is worthy of worship and who punishes wrongdoing; and the ability to believe in a personal after-life. (As a Christian, I believe that all of these human abilities emerged literally overnight, although some of these abilities may not have manifested themselves in the fossil record until long after they appeared.)

8. The discovery of a non-human animal (e.g. a dolphin) possessing one or more of the abilities listed above.

9. The discovery of a race or tribe of human beings who are currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason, but who are utterly incapable of even comprehending – let alone accepting – the Gospel message.

10. The creation of a machine that was capable of conversing at length about any topic – including its own mental states and life story – in such a way that it could fool an audience of intelligent people into thinking that it was human.

Observations that would cause me to abandon belief in Intelligent Design

1. An empirical or mathematical demonstration that the probability of the emergence of life on Earth during the past four billion years as a result of purely natural processes, without any intelligent guidance and starting from a random assortment of organic chemicals, is greater than 10^-120.

2. An empirical or mathematical demonstration that the probability of the emergence of any of the irreducibly complex structures listed on this page, as a result of non-foresighted processes (“random mutations plus natural selection”) is greater than 10^-120.

Observations that would cause me to abandon belief in Christianity and/or Intelligent Design

1. A scientific demonstration that the human brain was sub-optimally designed for a human primate – in other words, that it would have been possible for an Intelligent Designer to have manipulated our ancestors’ genes in such a way as to generate human beings which looked just like us, but whose neural architecture was much more efficiently wired.

I could go on, but I think that’s about enough for one day. Suffice it to say that my faith is falsifiable. What about your atheism?

Comments

vjtorley #15 (1) With regard to the brain. Suppose someone discovers a gene which if it had a certain simple mutation would allow people to have much longer memories and no other side effects. This sounds like a design improvement and one that could well arise in the foreseeable future. Will you then accept this as falsifying the existence of God?markf_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Mark: So you are saying ID could be refuted by an example of something for which there is no plausible explanation based on necessity or chance and which is not designed. No. Something which is not designed (because we know it was generated in a system where no designer intervened) and which exhibits CSI. I think you remember that "no plausible explanation based on necessity or chance" is only a colateral requirements to affirm CSI. The main requirements are (functional) specification and complexity. So, the emergence of a pseudo random string of values in a system where no design is implied, which carries information for a functional protein (or for a meaningful drama, or for a working software), and whose sequence is not the product of a specific necessity mechanism, would falsify a). I don't believe that your example of cryogenic electron emission has anything to do with functional specification, unless I have missed something. Just to be more clear: Show me a system of this kind: A coin is flipped 500 times or more. The results are recorded. Reading the results as a sequence of binary numbers, we obtain a software (let's say at least 500 bits long) which, when compiled, can order numbers in input in a computer (or any other objectively definable function for which at least 500 bits are necessary). That would falsify a). As you can see. it is not necessary that we have no idea of how the system works according to physical laws. We do know which physical laws determine the flipping of a coin. The important thing is that no necessity mechanism, in that system, can explain the specific emergence of a sequence which has that functional information. So, as you can see, a), which is an empirical statement, can absolutely be empirically falsified. But that will never happen. Because a) is empirically true.gpuccio_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

vjtorley #15 (1) I will split the two subjects into separate comments. 1. You asked me why I specified a cutoff probability of 10^-120 for the evolution of life and not 10^-10. I apologise - I was being a bit too cryptic in my earlier comments. I wasn't really interested in why you adopted the specific probability of 10^-120. I am familiar with the arguments about the universal probability bound. My slightly indirect point is that actually there is nothing special about 10^-120, 10^-10 or even 0.9. They are all lower than the probability of the event arising through an omnipotent designer. So logically ID should not be falsifiable through any alternative explanation other than perhaps necessity. I have read the Dembski article many times thanks - as Gpuccio will know because he disagrees with some of it (the definition of CSI in there conflicts with Gpuccio's definition of dFSCI).markf_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

JM you ask: 'How is saying that you don’t believe in something making a positive claim?' Though you claim you are merely stating that you don't believe in Almighty God, that is merely dressing on the cake for a argument from Theodicy that you are really basing your logic on for you atheistic presupposition!!!. But to ignore the blatant Theodicy of your presuppositons it is by denying the Theistic basis of reality that you are in fact affirming the materialistic basis of reality. Yes you affirming it in the most positive sense possible since you have denied the only other rational positive affirmation possible i.e. Theism,,, You do this in spite of the patent absurdities of materialistic claims once the classical definition of materialism has been falsified. And you does this however loosely materialism must be defined, as is now vogue with atheists, so that you may have false cover for the argument from Theodicy that you are really trying to make. The whole thing is shallow and repugnant to sound logic that would be displayed in you if you were really concerned in finding the truth for how reality is actually constructed!!! etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

markf, I have almost no clue what you are saying here: 'Well no. As it happens I am also a materialist. But it is quite consistent to believe there are no Gods and also believe there are things that are immaterial – human minds for example. Of course, it depends a bit how you want to define “God” – but that was my point.' Does everything come from a material basis, as materialism is classically defined, or does it not come from a materialistic basis? i.e. If human minds do not have a material basis, but are in fact thoroughly immaterial in their independent basis as many studies indicate, how does your own brain not explode on your inconsistency of logic for saying your are a materialist and yet believe in the immaterial human mind???bornagain77_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

#14 Gpuccio In #10 I wrote: If the only way to falsify ID is to show that an alternative is just about possible then there is something odd about it. You offer two ways of falsifying ID: a) You can show a single case of true CSI which was not designed. b) You can show that biological information is not CSI, because a credible necessity or chance necessity mechanism can explain it. (b) clearly requires showing an alternative is probable. (a) is more interesting. Remember that if there is an outcome for which I find an explanation based on necessity or plausible chance then it no longer counts as CSI - by definition. So you are saying ID could be refuted by an example of something for which there is no plausible explanation based on necessity or chance and which is not designed. As these three are meant to exhaust all possible explanations this means - find an outcome for which there is no plausible explanation. A little Googling reveals several phenomena for which there is no known plausible explanation e.g.Cryogenic electron emission . Something tells me you are not going to accept that as evidence against ID!markf_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Thank you very much for the video link to Justin Brierley's interview with Dr. Alistair McGrath. Dr. Alistair McGrath's life was completely transformed by his encounter with the person of Christ. Alex73's life has been transformed in a similar way (thanks for the testimony, Alex73). I also wanted to thank you for the NDE video links you posted in an earlier thread, bornagain77.vjtorley_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 13:
Atheism is actually a positive argument in one sense since it postulates a purely materialistic type cause for everything
ba77, perhaps you can elaborate on this a bit more, I must admit I've never understood the logic in statements like this. An atheist says "I do not believe there is a god." How is this different than saying "I do not believe there is a flying spaghetti monster?" How is saying that you don't believe in something making a positive claim? Calling atheism a 'belief' is like calling 'not collecting stamps' a hobby. Even postulating materialism isn't making a positive claim. It's just saying that one doesn't believe in the supernatural. Now, materialism could be demonstrably wrong, and yet still not a positive claim. A few decades ago, one could have said: "I don't have any reason to believe that extrasolar planets exist." Like atheism, this is not a positive claim. It is only expressing lack of belief in something. The belief that there are no extrasolar planets also happens to be incorrect; it is refuted by the recent discovery of several of them. In that same way, Atheism would be refuted by proof of the existence of God. Neither atheism nor a-extrasolarplanetism are positive claims.jurassicmac_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

#13 BF77 markf, and yet the shallowness of your excuses escapes you? I am afraid it does. Atheism is actually a positive argument in one sense since it postulates a purely materialistic type cause for everything Well no. As it happens I am also a materialist. But it is quite consistent to believe there are no Gods and also believe there are things that are immaterial - human minds for example. Of course, it depends a bit how you want to define "God" - but that was my point.markf_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

tjguy Thank you for your comments. Let me say at the outset that I am not a theologian, but a philosopher. I have explained my views on the Flood at length at the following Web site: here . I am quite aware that Jesus Christ spoke about the Flood; that's why I affirm that it was an historical event. But if you want an event that wiped out the whole human race (except for a family of eight people) then the only time it could have happened is two million years ago, when the human race was still confined to a small region of the globe: East Africa. (Note - I'm assuming that geological and archaeological dating techniques are substantially correct. The explanations I've seen in books and on the Web sound pretty convincing.) That would account for the Scriptural teaching of an anthropologically universal Flood, but not the story of Noah's ark. People two million years ago couldn't build boats, and the Biblical account implies that Noah knew how to make one ("Go and build yourself a boat.") However, there is some archaeological evidence (albeit highly controversial) of a worldwide catastrophe about 5,000 years ago in which mega-tsunamis wiped out most (but not all) of the human race - about 50 to 75%. For a popular summary, see Did a comet cause the Great Flood?. For a scholarly article, see The Archaeology and Anthropology of Quaternary Period Cosmic Impact by W. Bruce Masse (N.B. scroll down to page 46). Tales of this terrible event would have been passed down by the few survivors. It is quite possible that one of these (Noah) was warned by God to build a boat of some sort, to protect himself and his animals. That would account for the ark tradition. You will doubtless tell me that this goes against the plain meaning of Holy Scripture. But I don't believe that Scripture is ever "plain" - especially when we're dealing with accounts written 3,000 years ago, in a foreign tongue (ancient Hebrew), by a Divinely inspired author who may have been drawing upon oral traditions as well. Scripture has many layers of meaning. Jesus Christ told his disciples that there was a flood, and the New Testament authors mention a family of eight. They also mention an ark. I am supposing that two historical events have been telescoped, for the sake of convenience, by the author of Genesis. I should add that telescoping of events was a recognized biographical technique in the ancient world, as the Christian apologist Glenn Miller has demonstrated here in a very different context. I know that there are Christians who prefer to maintain that scientific dating techniques are all wrong and that the "plain reading" of Genesis is the correct one. Personally, I think it is far more likely that the "plain reading" of Genesis is not always the correct one, than that several dozen independently validated dating techniques are all mistaken. That's my opinion; I respect your right to hold a different one.vjtorley_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Markf Thank you for your emails. In response to your queries: 1. You asked me why I specified a cutoff probability of 10^-120 for the evolution of life and not 10^-10. You also argued that since an intelligent designer can produce life with a probability of 1, a designer would be a more reasonable hypothesis. Not so fast. What if there were a 90% chance that non-foresighted natural processes (i.e. chance plus necessity) could produce life over a four-billion year period? 90% is still less than 1, so by your logic, the designer hypothesis would still be preferable. The reason why I picked such a low number was to forestall the atheist objection that although the emergence of life on our Earth might be fantastically improbable, there are lots of other Earthlike planets out there, so one of them had to get lucky, and it just happened to be ours. To rule out that line of argument, I made use of Professor William Dembski's universal probability bound. I quoted the 10^-120 from memory, actually; to get a more accurate figure, you might like to read Dembski's article Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence . I have to admit, though, that if someone could prove to me that the probability of life emerging on Earth by unintelligent natural processes was 10^-10, I'd be very much inclined to favor intelligent design as an explanatory hypothesis. I've never been terribly impressed with arguments from "sheer, dumb luck," and it sounds lame to say that we just happen to be living on a lucky planet. 2. Regarding the brain: it is true that we forget things and perform mis-calculations at times, but that doesn't prove that the brain is sub-optimally designed. To establish that, you'd have to show that some alternative design for a human primate brain would improve our mental performance. Maybe; but maybe not. Maybe every alternative design for the human brain would make it perform worse. In response to your query about epigenetics: I have to say that I know very little about the subject, as I'm not a biologist, but I suppose it would be an acceptable mechanism for a Designer to use, in addition to genetic manipulation.vjtorley_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Mark: I remember that we arrived at a point of friendly disagreement, but not well the details. Anyway, I don't agree that "ID is not falsifiable unless we make some assumptions about the designer’s intentions". That's not my idea at all. Maybe I can be more clear by splitting the concept of ID in two parts: 1) ID theory rests on the concept of CSI. CSI, in one of its forms (in my case, as you know, I do prefer dFSCI) is used as an empirical condition which allows the design inference. So, the theory assumes that where CSI is found (with satisfaction of all the conditions of the explanatory filter), design can be safely inferred. This part of the theory has nothing to do with biological inforamtion, least of all with assumptions about the designer. It is as simple as that: CSI is present, design is inferred. The assumption is that such a method empirically works, and that it has no false positives, if an appropriate complexity threshold is used. This part of the theory can be easily be falsified: it wouyld be enough to show a single case of true CSI which is certanly noy genereated by design. That has never been done and, IMO, never will be, because the concept is sound and works always. 2) The second part of ID theory is its application to biological information, for instance to the observed proteome. Here the question is: does biological information satisfy the conditions to affirm CSI? If the answer is yes, we assume design for it. Otherwise we don't. ID answers yes. Biological information, in most of its examples, clearly exhibits the properties of dFSCI. If that is true, the only way to falsify the design inference for it would be to falsify point 1), which has never been made. But there is another possibility. Darwinian theory poses itself indeed as a chance - necessity based mechanism which, in the opinion of darwinists, can explain biological information. If that were true, biological information could no more be considered CSI, although functionally specified and complex, because we would know a necessity mechanism which can explain it, provided that its random procedures did not reach individually the complexity level of CSI. We in ID do believe that such an explanatory mechanism (darwinian theory) is false, inconsistent and unacceptable. Therefore, the design inference for biological information remains valid. It could, anyway, be falsified if darwinists (or anybody else) could show that a credible necessity, or chance necessity, mechanism to explain that information in absence of design can really be shown. That's the real point. Darwinists are continuosly trying to falsify ID psrt 2), by showing that their theory makes sense. And they regularly fail :) For instance, a way to falsify part 2) would be to show a credible way through which all, or most, of the information in protein domains can be deconstructed into selectable steps, and each transition from one step to the following one shown in the range of a credible random search. Up to now, that has never been made, not even for a single case. And we have thousands of them. So, to sum up, you can falsify ID in two different ways: a) You can show a single case of true CSI which was not designed. b) You can show that biological information is not CSI, because a credible necessity or chance necessity mechanism can explain it. Neither a) nor b) has ever been done, to my knowledge, but both a) and b) could be done, in principle. So, ID is perfectly falsifiable, but not falsified. Moreover, neither point 1) nor point 2) require any assumption on the designer. Although, as I have said many times, assumtions about the designer can certainly be made, after design is inferred.gpuccio_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

markf, and yet the shallowness of your excuses escapes you? Atheism is actually a positive argument in one sense since it postulates a purely materialistic type cause for everything,,, How about you play fair with the main question of the post and say something to the effect, Well if materialism were shown to be false then I would consider my atheism severely to be compromised??? But then again I guess you already know that that is actually how the science now sits, so I guess we will be waiting a long time to receive such honesty from you. Off topic: I found this AWESOME new Christian song yesterday: Heather Williams - Hallelujah - Lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX2uM0L3Y1Abornagain77_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

bf77 #11 the main question of the post, which you have completely failed to address, is this, “exactly what criteria is falsifiable with atheistic materialism?” I didn't address this question because it will only lead to a sterile discussion. Atheism is a negative statement - I believe there is no God. It is falsified by demonstrating that there is a God. But this leads to a discussion as to what counts as a God - far too big a thing to discuss here. I am well aware of Behe's position on falsifying ID, as repeated in the video clip. It repeats the point that Gpuccio made in #8 in the form of an example. I don't think that putting it in video form makes the argument any sounder!markf_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

but markf though this post deals with a basic outline of falsifying Theism in general and Christianity in particular, the main question of the post, which you have completely failed to address, is this, "exactly what criteria is falsifiable with atheistic materialism?" i.e. what evidence, on top of the overwhelming evidence against atheism already brought forth, would make you finally acknowledge the futility of your philosophical precept? note: Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_Abornagain77_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

#8 Gpuccio I have discussed this with you before. I think I understand ID theory quite well. What I am trying to illustrate is one of its conceptual weaknesses. If the only way to falsify ID is to show that an alternative is just about possible then there is something odd about it. However, there does not appear to be any other way unless ID theoru is prepared to commit itself to some statement about the methods and/or intentions of the designer - which can then be inspected. I seem to remember on the previous occasion that eventually you conceded that ID was not falsifiable unless we made some assumptions about the designer's intentions - but that was many months ago and I couldn't possibly find the thread. I wonder if you remember this?markf_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

Torley said: "The discovery of archaeological proof that any of the following individuals never existed: ....(I haven’t included Noah on this list because I suspect that the Biblical Noah is a “telescoping” of two individuals – one of whom lived two million years ago and another who lived 5,000 years ago. I’ve included Daniel and Jonah, because Jesus Christ referred to them as historical individuals.)" Sir, I don't know what principles you base your biblical interpretation on, but Jesus also referred to Noah as a historical individual and the flood as an historical event. This is a problem for IDers who try and ride both sides of the fence and include molecules to man evolution in the Bible. Here are the relevant passages: Jesus Christ our Creator, who is the Truth and would never tell us a lie, said that during the “days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26–27) “Noah entered the Ark” and “the Flood came and took them all away” (Matthew 24:38–39). He spoke of these events as real, literal history, describing a global Flood that destroyed all land life not on the Ark. Therefore, sir, I hope you will rethink your position on Noah. If you include Daniel and Jonah because Jesus referred to them as real people, if you are going to take that kind of approach, then you are in trouble, because you would also be forced by that same logic to accept Noah AND the flood as real historical people/events. This is of course the right position to take. Any other position does irreparable harm to the validity of the Bible. We can't pick and choose what we will and won't accept in the Bible. It is all God's Word, from the very first page to the last page. It is important that we believe what Christ told us(this would include the whole Bible because it is His Word), rather than accept the ideas of fallible scientists who base their ideas on unbiblical assumptions and who weren’t there to see what happened in the earth’s past. Your ideas about two Noah's are indeed strange. The Bible says nothing about two Noahs. Jesus speaks of one Noah and it would indeed be strange if His reference to Noah in Matthew is to the Noah who lived 2 million years ago. Strange because the Bible doesn't even mention this Noah so how would anyone know what in the world He is talking about. The clear understanding of Jesus' reference to Noah is to the one who lived during the time of the flood. Any other meaning would make Scripture hopelessly difficult to interpret. Besides Jesus said that that He made Adam and Eve at the beginning of creation. That doesn't fit with a Noah created before them 2 million years ago.tjguy_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Mark (#4): This is a common misunderstanding of ID. ID theory states that design is the best explanation for biological information, because any explanation based on chance and necessity is not empirically credible. If there is an empirically credible non design explanation for biological information, then ID is falsified. You are right that biological information could still in principle be designed, but there would be no scientific evidence for that. ID would definitely be falsified as a scientific theory.gpuccio_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

The problem is that my conversion from atheism to Christianity and the maintenance of this faith for 20 years is best described as meeting with a real but yet invisible person I did not know before and starting a life together with Him. This is very personal, but my decisions based logically on the validity of this encounter resulted in a vast transformation of my personality with innumerable positive changes as testified by my acquaintances. I have also found that the world around me is consistent with what the Bible says about God and His creation. In my case you have to prove that I went insane, but at the same time became healthier, fixed my family, made new friends, had a successful academic carreer and although I do not have a problem free life I feel quite happy in general. You can start with pointing to articles in mental health journals that describe this syndrome and show that after a cure the patients invariably became even happier with life, more successful in social relationships etc.Alex73_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

I agree with 1,2. Number 2,3,4 shouldn't be included into falsifying God because these are linked to an interpretation of "free will" which is linked to a belief held by a certain version of a Christian God. I don't believe that free will has anything to do with our ability to take decision completely independtly from material causes. It's more to do with the fact that God treat us according to what we are doing now and not what we are going to do in the future.Kyrilluk_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT}

1. A scientific demonstration that the human brain was sub-optimally designed for a human primate – in other words, that it would have been possible for an Intelligent Designer to have manipulated our ancestors’ genes in such a way as to generate human beings which looked just like us, but whose neural architecture was much more efficiently wired Obviously our brain is suboptimal in the sense that we forget things, make miscalculations etc. Why do you limit this to what can be achieved through the manipulation of genes? Are epigenetic routes out of bounds to the designer?markf_{October 13, 2010
October
10
Oct
13
13
2010
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

An empirical or mathematical demonstration that the probability of the emergence of life on Earth during the past four billion years as a result of purely natural processes, without any intelligent guidance and starting from a random assortment of organic chemicals, is greater than 10^-120. Why would this cause you to abandon your belief in ID? Say I demonstrated the probality was a mere 10^-10. A designer of unlmited powers and motives can produce life on earth with a probability of 1. So surely the designer hypothesis is far better supported?markf_{October 12, 2010
October
10
Oct
12
12
2010
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

The creation of a machine that was capable of conversing at length about any topic – including its own mental states and life story – in such a way that it could fool an audience of intelligent people into thinking that it was human.
Sounds like the Turing test. One problem with the test as you have presented it is that a truthful machine could not talk about its history without failing to convince you it is human. A more reasonable test would be one that required the machine to discuss topics in a way that demonstrated understanding of novel ideas, or novel expression of ideas. Somewhat along these lines:
The invention of a machine that could read the propositional content of my thoughts – or those of any other human being who is currently capable of exercising their faculty of reason.
Of course humans differ widely in this respect. I see no reason why one should hold a computer to a higher standard.Petrushka_{October 12, 2010
October
10
Oct
12
12
2010
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

I'd also tack on that Coyne states the existence of God is entirely compatible with science. Just he stipulates that this God would have to be uber-Deistic, and utterly hands-off with creation in just about any sense you could imagine. I'll leave it to others to ferret out the problems with that sort of claim.nullasalus_{October 12, 2010
October
10
Oct
12
12
2010
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

I agree with Nullasulus. Why, for example, would number 2 under the God list falsify your belief in God?zeroseven_{October 12, 2010
October
10
Oct
12
12
2010
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Dr. Torley, I think that is a fair list of falsifiable items you have presented. Many of which are of the 'elephant in the living room variety'. It will be interesting to see if atheists will be as fair in their criteria for falsifiability: of related note: A new TV interview on Premier TV: Alistair McGrath - From aggressive atheist scientist to Professor of Theology. He tells his story to Justin Brierley on Premier TV. http://www.premier.tv/bornagain77_{October 12, 2010
October
10
Oct
12
12
2010
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Frankly, I'm so tired of these sorts of exchanges. The question on the hand is "What would cause you to abandon your belief (in God / atheism)?" and the reply is usually to give a list of arbitrary examples. While I think some of the list of what would falsify Christianity is more on target, the entire "God" list is ridiculous. Not a single thing on it would falsify the existence of God - and if the reply is "yes, but it would make me personally doubt God's existence", that would be admitting that this isn't about falsification at all. If I decide that if sun ever looks blue at high noon in Dallas then God doesn't exist, have I provided a falsifiable test for God's existence? But if someone is interested in playing Coyne's game, then this quote is worth noting: The nature of this god is always vague and undefined and most annoyingly, plastic — suggest a test and it is always redefined safely away from the risk. Furthermore, any evidence of a deity will be natural, repeatable, measurable, and even observable…properties which god is exempted from by the believers' own definitions, so there can be no evidence for it. And any being who did suddenly manifest in some way — a 900 foot tall Jesus, for instance — would not fit any existing theology, so such a creature would not fit the claims of any religion, but the existence of any phenomenon that science cannot explain would not discomfit science at all, since we know there is much we don't understand already, and adding one more mystery to the multitude will not faze us in the slightest. So yes, I agree. There is no valid god hypothesis, so there can be no god evidence, so let's stop pretending the believers have a shot at persuading us. That would be PZ Myers. So, we have two atheists here. One is insisting that a belief is not respectable unless it's open to being abandoned due to evidence. The other is saying that no evidence could ever suffice to change his belief about God (And he also suggests that other atheists should follow after him) because any "evidence" could always be explained away. And incidentally, Coyne already wrote up a post where he talked about what would get him to believe God exists (or at least so he implied): There are so many phenomena that would raise the specter of God or other supernatural forces: faith healers could restore lost vision, the cancers of only good people could go into remission, the dead could return to life, we could find meaningful DNA sequences that could have been placed in our genome only by an intelligent agent, angels could appear in the sky. All the things that PZ Myers says could be open to explanation, even potential explanation, by scientists, and thus would not constitute any reason to believe in God whatsoever. Because no such evidence is possible. I humbly suggest that both of these approaches are deeply wrong, and that the response given to Coyne here is wrong as well.nullasalus_{October 12, 2010
October
10
Oct
12
12
2010
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply