The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Immanuel Can]

... before I bother to respond to the rest of your post, can we first agree that I am not defending post modernism?

I didn't think you were. But if you're defending epistemic relativism...

I have told you that I'm not.

Well, your "underdetermined" concept, when used as a catch-all for describing science, and when coupled by the claim that all the evidence counts equally for different hypotheses, would certainly add up to epistemic relativism...unless there's some clarification you would like to make.

Science is about differentiating hypotheses, based on the preponderance of evidence, and the most telling evidence. And that always assumes that a) hypotheses are not all equal in epistemic value, b) evidence is not equal among opposed hypotheses, and c) there are criteria for differentiating between the value of different theories.

All of which you seemed to have denied in regard to Idealism.

Not that it matters much to the present discussion, since Idealism isn't a reply to the infinite regress hypothesis, anyway. But it does matter to science, of course.

[Will Bouwman]

I didn't think you were. But if you're defending epistemic relativism...

I have told you that I'm not.

Well, your "underdetermined" concept, when used as a catch-all for describing science, and when coupled by the claim that all the evidence counts equally for different hypotheses, would certainly add up to epistemic relativism...unless there's some clarification you would like to make.

What, again? This clearly escaped your notice:

I am not applying underdetermination to all hypotheses, only to certain scientific and philosophical questions. Post modernism goes much further, too far in my opinion, by applying it to things like astrology, witchcraft and religion.

Science is about differentiating hypotheses, based on the preponderance of evidence, and the most telling evidence.

Well, as I said in an article I wrote for Philosophy Now, science means different things to different people:

With which of these three propositions do you most agree? A scientific theory must be:
(1) A logically coherent explanation.
(2) Supported by evidence.
(3) Useful.
If you are firmly of the opinion that one of these is the defining feature of science, then in philosophical terms you are either (1) a rationalist, (2) an empiricist, or (3) a pragmatist. Moreover, if you happen to be a scientist, then it is likely that your main interest is (1) Theoretical, (2) Experimental, or (3) Instrumental. More generally, you might just like to (1) Have an idea about how something works, (2) Find out how it works, or (3) Just make it work.
When philosophers of science are doing what they are paid for, one of the key things they consider is what blend of the above elements makes an activity a science. On the face of it, it shouldn’t be all that difficult to work out. There are only three variables; how hard can it be?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

And that always assumes that a) hypotheses are not all equal in epistemic value...

Bollocks. Clearly you will not listen to me so perhaps you will listen to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:

"At the heart of the underdetermination of scientific theory by evidence is the simple idea that the evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... rmination/

b) evidence is not equal among opposed hypotheses...

Sometimes it is. Again, as Richard Feynman put it:

"we must keep all theories in our head, and every theoretical physicist that's any good knows six or seven theoretical representations for exactly the same physics."

c) there are criteria for differentiating between the value of different theories.

Not always.

All of which you seemed to have denied in regard to Idealism.

Whaddya know? You got something right at last.

Not that it matters much to the present discussion, since Idealism isn't a reply to the infinite regress hypothesis, anyway.

Sorry mate, that is not what I am currently discussing. I have already told you why it is unsound.

But it does matter to science, of course.

Your view of science. People have different views of science, which illustrates my point.

[Immanuel Can]

I have told you that I'm not.

Well, your "underdetermined" concept, when used as a catch-all for describing science, and when coupled by the claim that all the evidence counts equally for different hypotheses, would certainly add up to epistemic relativism...unless there's some clarification you would like to make.

What, again? This clearly escaped your notice:

I am not applying underdetermination to all hypotheses, only to certain scientific and philosophical questions.

Okay. Say what sorts those are.

Science is about differentiating hypotheses, based on the preponderance of evidence, and the most telling evidence.

Well, as I said in an article I wrote for Philosophy Now, science means different things to different people:

So do many words. But words also have meanings, common meanings, and legitimate meanings. They're not just whatever somebody makes up. They're used in communication, which always requires multiple understanders to arrive at the same sort of understanding. In that sense, theyr'e a kind of community property, not a free-for-all.

With which of these three propositions do you most agree? A scientific theory must be:
(1) A logically coherent explanation.
(2) Supported by evidence.
(3) Useful.
If you are firmly of the opinion that one of these is the defining feature of science,

I'm not. And they're far from a complete list.

In fact, a theory might be all three. Some of the best ones are. But there are other virtues of scientific theories as well; they're called "epistemic virtues," and they include other qualities like "coherence," "consistency," "logical integrity," "objectivity," "replicability," and so on.

And that always assumes that a) hypotheses are not all equal in epistemic value...

Bollocks. Clearly you will not listen to me so perhaps you will listen to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:

"At the heart of the underdetermination of scientific theory by evidence is the simple idea that the evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it."

This does not imply what you think it does. It says that it is possible for there to be underdetermined theories, which nobody denies. It does not say that all theories, the best theories, or even most theories are of this kind.

Consequently, your claim about underdetermination is either trivial or untrue. Either it's so obvious that it adds no useful insight, or simply not reflective of most scientific theories.

c) there are criteria for differentiating between the value of different theories.

Not always.

Very, very often...much more often than we run into underdetermined situations. Even Stanford says it only "may" happen.

Not that it matters much to the present discussion, since Idealism isn't a reply to the infinite regress hypothesis, anyway.

Sorry mate, that is not what I am currently discussing.

Oh. Then we're done with Idealism. I was only interested in the infinite regress problem.

Thanks for the chat.

[Will Bouwman]

I am not applying underdetermination to all hypotheses, only to certain scientific and philosophical questions.

Okay. Say what sorts those are.

Underdetermined questions.

I only interested in the infinite regress problem.

Make your mind up.

[Immanuel Can]

I am not applying underdetermination to all hypotheses, only to certain scientific and philosophical questions.

Okay. Say what sorts those are.

Underdetermined questions.

I know why you didn't answer. You don't know.

I only interested in the infinite regress problem.

Make your mind up.

It's all I was ever interested in, here. I only engaged your nonsense about Idealism because YOU seemed to think it was relevant. And now that we know it's not, we can disengage. I was a red herring from the start, it seems.

[Will Bouwman]

Okay. Say what sorts those are.

Underdetermined questions.

I know why you didn't answer. You don't know.

I think this must have slipped your mind:

Prior to Galileo pointing his telescope upwards, there were competing theories for how the universe worked. By studying the movement of celestial bodies, Ptolemy worked out a way to predict the future positions of the Sun, Moon and planets very accurately. Using exactly the same evidence, Copernicus also created a way to predict planetary movements. The geocentric and heliocentric models were empirically equivalent; the evidence available was "evidence FOR" both. Of course we now know that neither explanation is correct, or more precisely, that the odds of either obtaining are vanishingly small.
Today, there are still many phenomena that even different scientists interpret in different ways. There are loads of interpretations of quantum mechanics, or gravity for example. Those different scientists are not privy to some data that is denied others; they are all interpreting exactly the same evidence.

I only engaged your nonsense about Idealism because YOU seemed to think it was relevant.

It's an example of an underdetermined hypothesis, as is your belief that the universe is strictly causal, which again, is challenged by quantum mechanics. Since that is a premise in your argument, you are, probably without realising it, choosing to believe something you cannot prove. That is entirely your prerogative, but the fact that something seems certain to you doesn't make it necessarily true.

And now that we know it's not, we can disengage.

You are, of course, free to disengage.

I was a red herring from the start, it seems.

Seems to you. Other underdetermined hypotheses are available.

[Immanuel Can]

Underdetermined questions.

I know why you didn't answer. You don't know.

I think this must have slipped your mind:

Prior to Galileo...

No, I remember that. I also remember answering it.

I was a red herring from the start, it seems.

Seems to you.

And to you, apparently. For you now say it has nothing to do with the infinite regress hypothesis. And I agree. So it's just off topic.

There's nothing less "underdetermined" than mathematics. And mathematics are all you need.

[Age]

I have told you that I'm not.

Well, your "underdetermined" concept, when used as a catch-all for describing science, and when coupled by the claim that all the evidence counts equally for different hypotheses, would certainly add up to epistemic relativism...unless there's some clarification you would like to make.

What, again? This clearly escaped your notice:

I am not applying underdetermination to all hypotheses, only to certain scientific and philosophical questions. Post modernism goes much further, too far in my opinion, by applying it to things like astrology, witchcraft and religion.

Science is about differentiating hypotheses, based on the preponderance of evidence, and the most telling evidence.

Well, as I said in an article I wrote for Philosophy Now, science means different things to different people:

With which of these three propositions do you most agree? A scientific theory must be:
(1) A logically coherent explanation.
(2) Supported by evidence.
(3) Useful.
If you are firmly of the opinion that one of these is the defining feature of science, then in philosophical terms you are either (1) a rationalist, (2) an empiricist, or (3) a pragmatist. Moreover, if you happen to be a scientist, then it is likely that your main interest is (1) Theoretical, (2) Experimental, or (3) Instrumental. More generally, you might just like to (1) Have an idea about how something works, (2) Find out how it works, or (3) Just make it work.
When philosophers of science are doing what they are paid for, one of the key things they consider is what blend of the above elements makes an activity a science. On the face of it, it shouldn’t be all that difficult to work out. There are only three variables; how hard can it be?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

All 'scientific theories' are useless, especially comparing 'the alternative'.

For example, why 'theorize' that the Universe began, and/or is expanding, when the data that is used as so-called 'evidence', for 'that theory', leads to the irrefutable proof, and Fact, that, actually, the Universe, Itself, never began, and is not expanding.

And, as always, if absolutely any one would like to see and obtain the irrefutable proof of 'this', then let 'us' just have a discussion.

And that always assumes that a) hypotheses are not all equal in epistemic value...

Bollocks. Clearly you will not listen to me so perhaps you will listen to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:

"At the heart of the underdetermination of scientific theory by evidence is the simple idea that the evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it."

1. Having or holding 'beliefs' is why 'these people', back when this was being written, took so, so long to 'catch up'.

2. 'These people' kept using the 'should' word, when, as can be clearly seen, here, using 'that word' was holding them back from learning, and understanding.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... rmination/

b) evidence is not equal among opposed hypotheses...

Sometimes it is. Again, as Richard Feynman put it:

"we must keep all theories in our head, and every theoretical physicist that's any good knows six or seven theoretical representations for exactly the same physics."

Again, highlighting and showing the uselessness of 'theories', themselves.

And, also again, considering 'the alternative', which is readily available.

c) there are criteria for differentiating between the value of different theories.

Not always.

All of which you seemed to have denied in regard to Idealism.

Whaddya know? You got something right at last.

Not that it matters much to the present discussion, since Idealism isn't a reply to the infinite regress hypothesis, anyway.

Sorry mate, that is not what I am currently discussing. I have already told you why it is unsound.

Here, "immanuel can", very clearly ,has 'a belief', which "immanuel can" obviously does not want to 'let go of', and just as clearly wants to just keep 'trying to' argue and fight for.

Now,

1. as "will bouwman", and 'I', have 'pointed out', on many occasions, here, "Immanuel can" keeps 'missing 'the point' and the mark' in relation to what "will bouwman" has been saying, and meaning, here.

2. What "immanuel can" believes, here, has already been shown, and proved, to be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

3. Because of "Immanuel can's" 'current' beliefs, here, "Immanuel can" is completely incapable of just being able to see, let alone of being able to be capable of understanding, 1. and 2., here.

[Age]

Well, your "underdetermined" concept, when used as a catch-all for describing science, and when coupled by the claim that all the evidence counts equally for different hypotheses, would certainly add up to epistemic relativism...unless there's some clarification you would like to make.

What, again? This clearly escaped your notice:

I am not applying underdetermination to all hypotheses, only to certain scientific and philosophical questions.

Okay. Say what sorts those are.

Science is about differentiating hypotheses, based on the preponderance of evidence, and the most telling evidence.

Well, as I said in an article I wrote for Philosophy Now, science means different things to different people:

So do many words. But words also have meanings, common meanings, and legitimate meanings.

Will you list examples of 'those words' with 'common meanings', and 'legitimate meanings', and then write down what the 'common meanings', and 'legitimate meanings' are, exactly, and then inform the readers, here, what makes the 'legitimate meanings' 'legitimate', exactly?

If no, then why not?

What could possibly be stopping and preventing 'you' from informing 'the readers', here, of what 'you' consider to be what is true, right, accurate, and/or correct, in Life?

They're not just whatever somebody makes up.

Really?

If yes, then how did 'they' come to be, exactly?

What could be found, once more, here, is that the exact opposite of what "immanuel can" claimed, is the actual and irrefutable Truth, in Life.

They're used in communication, which always requires multiple understanders to arrive at the same sort of understanding. In that sense, theyr'e a kind of community property, not a free-for-all.

Okay. So, 'the meanings' of 'words' are, really, just what people make up.

With which of these three propositions do you most agree? A scientific theory must be:
(1) A logically coherent explanation.
(2) Supported by evidence.
(3) Useful.
If you are firmly of the opinion that one of these is the defining feature of science,

I'm not. And they're far from a complete list.

In fact, a theory might be all three. Some of the best ones are. But there are other virtues of scientific theories as well; they're called "epistemic virtues," and they include other qualities like "coherence," "consistency," "logical integrity," "objectivity," "replicability," and so on.

And, as always, 'they' are all more or less just 'assumptions' and/or 'guesses', only. Which means that 'they' all could be partly or absolutely fully False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. Which, again, leaves 'them' in the useless and/or waste of time and/or energy pile/s.

Again, especially considering 'the alternative', which is, again, readily available.

There is no wonder why 'these human beings' are taking so, so long, considering that 'they' obviously always choose 'one' over 'the other', here.

And that always assumes that a) hypotheses are not all equal in epistemic value...

Bollocks. Clearly you will not listen to me so perhaps you will listen to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:

"At the heart of the underdetermination of scientific theory by evidence is the simple idea that the evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it."

This does not imply what you think it does. It says that it is possible for there to be underdetermined theories, which nobody denies. It does not say that all theories, the best theories, or even most theories are of this kind.

Consequently, your claim about underdetermination is either trivial or untrue. Either it's so obvious that it adds no useful insight, or simply not reflective of most scientific theories.

c) there are criteria for differentiating between the value of different theories.

Not always.

Very, very often...much more often than we run into underdetermined situations. Even Stanford says it only "may" happen.

Not that it matters much to the present discussion, since Idealism isn't a reply to the infinite regress hypothesis, anyway.

Sorry mate, that is not what I am currently discussing.

Oh. Then we're done with Idealism.

Great.

See how, once again, "immanuel can" has introduced 'another red herring', and, again, 'tried to' use a straw man argument.

The lengths of 'deception' that "immanuel can" goes to, in this forum, is at the exact same level 'of deception' as 'the devil', itself.

I was only interested in the infinite regress problem.

Clearly.

And, you are so 'only interested' in that 'made up', but not able to be backed up and support so-called 'problem', you, still, have not been able to see, and understand, how 'that' is not even a 'problem', in and of itself, nor that 'it' has any actual bearing on any thing, here.

you only use 'that' because you have absolutely nothing else that could back up and support 'your belief', here. your Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect interpretation of 'that so-called problem' is the only thing that you have left to use.

And, by the way, your hopes of 'that' helping and supporting you, here, are fading very fast, and fully.

Thanks for the chat.

[Age]

Okay. Say what sorts those are.

Underdetermined questions.

I know why you didn't answer. You don't know.

Is the 'exact same reason' you not answer, because you, also, 'do not know'?

Once more, 'we' have, here, another example of 'projecting' and/or making 'assumptions' based on what one "them" 'self' does.

Why did "immanuel can" assume and claim that 'the reason' 'another' does not answer is because of the 'one thing', 'they do not know', only?

After all, on numerous occasions when "immanuel can" does not answer, its excuses are because 'it could not be bothered' or 'the other' 'will not understand', among other 'excuses'

So, why can "will bouwman" not choose these 'other excuses' that you frequently use for 'not answering?

Why did you presume or believe that 'the reason' "will bouwman" did not answer you is because 'it did not know', only?

Once again, the hypocrisy by "immanuel can", here, seems to be never ending.

I only interested in the infinite regress problem.

Make your mind up.

It's all I was ever interested in, here.

So, all "immanuel can" is, supposedly, interested in, here, is its own 'made up' version of, and definition for words, the 'infinite regress'.

And, 'the reason' for 'this', as I said previously, is because 'this' is all "immanuel can" has left in its quest to 'try to' back up and support its 'current' belief that a man with a dick, who created every thing all at once, exists.

I only engaged your nonsense about Idealism because YOU seemed to think it was relevant. And now that we know it's not, we can disengage. I was a red herring from the start, it seems.

How does it feel?

[Will Bouwman]

I know why you didn't answer. You don't know.

I think this must have slipped your mind:

Prior to Galileo...

No, I remember that. I also remember answering it.

No doubt with the clarity with which I remember answering your answer. There is no point you trying to argue that underdetermination is not a feature of science, unless you can demonstrate that one theory of gravitation is true, one interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, one conjecture about either the origin or fate of the universe is right, one idea about how life emerges from matter, the diversity of living creatures, how consciousness emerges in some of them, what dark matter and dark energy might be. There are underdetermined hypotheses to all the above and many more. It is just a fact.

For you now say it has nothing to do with the infinite regress hypothesis. And I agree.

Well, if you accept it's an hypothesis, we do agree.

So it's just off topic.

We're all grown ups; you can use your discretion to reply to what you will.

There's nothing less "underdetermined" than mathematics.

Strictly speaking underdetermination is about empirical evidence, which doesn't apply to pure mathematics, but even in that domain, there is Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which in a nutshell proves you can't prove mathematics. Where mathematics applies to evidence, it is exactly as underdetermined as any ontological model it is attached to. So ironically, that there is nothing less underdetermined than mathematics is an underdetermined hypothesis.

And mathematics are all you need.

Well, that and credulity.

[Immanuel Can]

For you now say it has nothing to do with the infinite regress hypothesis. And I agree.

Well, if you accept it's an hypothesis, we do agree.

Right. Wrong word. Let's just call it what it is: "the infinite regress of causes impossibility mathematics." Labourious, but much more correct.

[Belinda]

For you now say it has nothing to do with the infinite regress hypothesis. And I agree.

Well, if you accept it's an hypothesis, we do agree.

Right. Wrong word. Let's just call it what it is: "the infinite regress of causes impossibility mathematics." Labourious, but much more correct.

I gather that Immanuel believes God is the single first cause that originally caused time, space, and force. Without time, space, and force there could be no change from one state of reality to another state of reality.

This is not infinite regress but to the contrary implies that God is finality, Alpha and Omega, the transcendent Cause at the beginning and end of time, space, and force.

[Belinda]

For you now say it has nothing to do with the infinite regress hypothesis. And I agree.

Well, if you accept it's an hypothesis, we do agree.

Right. Wrong word. Let's just call it what it is: "the infinite regress of causes impossibility mathematics." Labourious, but much more correct.

I gather that Immanuel believes God is the single first cause that originally caused time, space, and force. Without time, space, and force there could be no change from one state of reality to another state of reality.

This is not infinite regress but to the contrary implies that God is finality, Alpha and Omega, the transcendent unchanging Cause at the beginning and end of time, space, and force.

[Age]

There’s no universally accepted “first piece of evidence” that proves God does not exist, because the question of God is ultimately not something that can be proven or disproven with scientific evidence.

Why do you claim some thing that you can not even prove is True, and Right?

Once could just as simply and as easily say and claim,
'The claim' that the question of God is ultimately not some thing that can be proven, nor disproven with scientific evidence, is not some thing that can be proven, nor disproven, with scientific evidence, neither.

Most arguments against God’s existence come from philosophy, not empirical proof.

If there is an actual argument against God's existence, then I would love to see 'that' presented, here, in this forum.

But, please remember that if an argument is not a 'sound and valid argument', then there is no use in repeating it. (unless, of course, to show what not to do.)

And, if you did not already know 'this', then now you do.

Here’s a simple, clear way to put it:

There is no definitive evidence against God—just like there’s no definitive scientific evidence for God.

But, as I have explained previously, 'evidence' is, really, absolutely worthless and useless, in comparison with 'proof', itself. Therefore, it really would not matter one iota if there was so-called 'definitive evidence', 'scientific evidence', nor just 'evidence', itself.

Once again, without 'proof', itself, there is no real use in even bothering to make a claim about some thing.

Instead, people use reasoning such as:

the problem of evil (“why would an all-powerful, all-good God allow suffering?”),

But, 'this' is just a 'clarifying question'. And, 'it' is not 'reasoning', itself. 'it' may well be a 'reasonable question', itself, to ask, but until people start answering it, properly, and Correctly, actual 'reasoning' is not yet being carried on.

the lack of empirical evidence (“no measurable or observable signs of divine action”),

Again, some people are so 'blind' they can not 'see' what is presented before them. Again, 'this' happens because of pre-existing beliefs and presumptions.

or natural explanations replacing supernatural ones (e.g., evolution, physics).

Obviously there is absolutely nothing at all separate from, beyond, nor apart from 'Nature', Itself, so if 'this' is what the word, 'supernatural', here, is meant to be implying, then 'we' can get rid of 'that word', completely, here.

But none of these count as proof in the strict sense—they’re arguments, not evidence that settles the question.

What even was, or is, 'the question', here, exactly?

Also, and again, obviously, if, and when, one presents a sound and valid argument for some thing, then there is not a single thing that could refute, nor disprove, 'that argument'.