Cheecky thing !

Ok !! IMHO there are NO correct religions & we would be better of without them.

Ok, let's repeat the discussion in parts. In post #100, Dilettante said the following:

-----
"Zeus shoots lightening bolts at people who curse his name." (a quality of my hypothetical Zeus)
"If Zeus exists, then when someone curses his name I should observe lightning bolts hitting them." (some evidence to look for)
If, the next time I see someone curse Zeus I then see lightning rain down upon them from on high, I have some evidence for the existence of Zeus.
-----

If we take this in reverse order we have the statement that if Dilettante sees someone curse Zeus and get hit by lightning from above then Dilettante will have evidence of Zeus. Why? Solely because a statement was made that Zeus shoots lightnings bolts at people who curse his name?

Here's the entire presupposition: A test of the existence of Zeus can be made by making the assumption that Zeus shoots lightning bolts at people who curse his name and by observing that lightning bolts fly at people who curse his name. Now, what if I claimed that unicorns shoot lightning bolts at people when they curse the name of Zeus? If I make the same observation as above, do I then have evidence of the existence of unicorns? A third person could claim that the Christian god did it by the very logical and in the Bible well documented reason that uttering the name of Zeus would be a violation of the second and third Commandments. Would it then be evidence of the Christian God?

Of course not. Such conclusions are circular references. Having to state that X exists in order to conclude that X exists is no good. It fits any X, and I do mean any X imaginable.

Sure, at the very most you can say that there is a connection between cursing a specific name and the release of lightning bolts that appear to have predestined targets. But whether or not you call that connection Zeus, unicorns or God or whatever is irrelevant and in no way does it provide any evidence of what is usually associated with those designations. We could call the connection Volkswagen and it will have nothing to do with a German car.

IIIX, as a side note, I would be very interesting in hearing about "a lot of the existing science" that I would have to reject if my "attack on Dilettante's reasoning is correct". Did you have a specific part of science, a theory or a line of research in mind?

Sounds okay to me. It's not sufficient evidence, but it definitely is evidence. Scientists do the same things (for exemple Newton).
I'm really not proud of resorting to something as vulgar as this, but I see no other way. Sorry about that

Anyway, let's go straight for the philosophic core of the problem.

I don't think you're going to claim that the reasoning you displayed is any different from the reasonings which led to most scientific discoveries, as evidenced in my previous example.

The question is rather, can a theory or a concept be shown to have a counterpart in reality ? That's an ontological question which leads to two answers among epistemologists:
a) Scientific realism: science tries to find out what the world is made of.
b) Instrumentalism: theories are useful tools.

I'm more inclined towards instrumentalism, for historical reasons: each new theory makes it obvious that the previous one was wrong. To use the same examples taken previously, Newton was wrong - light is not made of particles, at least not of particles as Newton understood it. A few decades after Newton's theory was accepted, Fresnel wave theory was shown to be more successful, and thus people accepted that light was a wave in an "ether". This was wrong, too. Maxwell's theories weren't right either, and Einstein's theories will most likely be proven wrong when we find an acceptable theory of everything. This theory of everything is likely to be proven wrong as our knowledge of "everything" becomes fuller. And so on, and so on.

So, according to this reasoning, you're right - one cannot absolutely prove the existence of Zeus. However, Zeus' existence can still be proven as much as a photon's existence can be proven.

If we are to follow the same path towards acceptance of the theory as in scientific circles, it would go this way:
1) A theory of Zeus' existence is formulated, based on observed facts and intuition
2) This theory is used to make predictions.
3) Additional observations are made to check the predictions made, and to compare which theory works best: for example, if a huge perturbation resembling a bearded guy is observed on top of mount olympus, the unicorn theory is likely to lose support.
4) A branch of meteorology is established concerning the study of the celestial creature "Zeus". Obviously, this last step would be difficult to implement, because people would constantly wonder wether their research is going to be deemed acceptable by Zeus, instead of caring about truth. But that's more of a social difficulty than a logical one.

That's why the reasoning "full of flaws" which I posted earlier makes sense.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

Evidence of what?

IIIRX, there is no "so". Your preceding paragraph has nothing to do with the flawed reasoning that Dilettante made use of. Let's first see if he can formulate a theory of Zeus before we try to discuss if it's up for revision, please.

As I implied in the previous post, Zeus existence can be proven as much as a photon's existence IFF (ie., if and only if) you choose to call the connection between cursing a specific name and a lightning bolt for Zeus. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with any evidence of the Greek god of the same name.

A photon is merely a name for the particle which exists according to evidence. The name was invented in order to communicate that particular finding and it does not in any way refer to anything else than that very specific finding. We could have called it a zaptadazian instead. Zeus, however, you cannot call anything else than Zeus. That name communicates a Greek god with very well established characteristics and features. And, also as heavily implied in the previous post, evidence of the existence of that character does not appear just because you choose to call something else by the same name.

Well, to be as correct as can be, a hypothesis is formulated. The results of your predicitions will aid you in formulating a theory, if any.

The hypothesis is used to formulate predictions. Sure.

Observations are made, by experiment or otherwise, to test the predicitions. The observations then compare with the contents of the hypothesis. Yes.

No, it is not. I can merely state that unicorns are shapeshifters. No problem. The bearded guy is hereby a unicorn taking the shape of a bearded guy.

Huh? You mean a branch of apologetics is established, right?

All of the above could establish no such thing as the existence of the Greek god named Zeus.

Or, all religions are likely "incorrect". Depending on how you define "correct", this is an equally accurate statement and SHOULD be equally acceptable etiquette. Like saying, "hey, we're all assholes sometimes", is an honest concession to human frailty.

Of course, the problem would be conceding there is anything inconsistent/lacking/wrong with your own religion.

hmmm...And if you believe you have the "correct" religion, or even the most correct religion, or the most correct version of the most correct religion, why would you make any concession at all? You are staking your eternal soul on it...etiquette be damned! What's more important, offending an equally assholish human or offending God(s) who knows everything you do and rules your soul for all eternity?

I know what I'd do! If I discovered such a quandary. Thankfully, there probably really is no such quandary and if there is, no one has identified such.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

I'm sorry for using irregular methods as well but I have already answered this:
IIIX, the thing is that Dilettante claims evidence of Zeus where there is none. There is only the "concept [of] Zeus". It could just as well be the concept of God or the concept of horned equestrians. The evidence is merely claimed for whatever concept you can imagine and that concept then becomes the existence of what the concept is about. That's circular reasoning in a nutshell. I don't really know how to be any more clear on this.

Couldn't be more correct.

Oops that would be horned riders and not horned horses. Oh well, now we're at it, it could be a concept of horned riders just as well as anything else

Of the fact that the origin of lightning bolts is Zeus or, if you prefer having it formulated like that, evidence that Zeus exists.


What is the essential difference between the concept of Zeus and the theory of Zeus?

Okay, so:
1) The term photon does not refer to anything else than a photon
2) The term Zeus does not refer to anything else than a greek God
3) The photon could have been called any other name
4) Zeus could not have been called by any other name
I disagree on #4. Allah, God, Dieu, there's a lot of different names refering to the same single deity. Besides, we could still decide to call Zeus by any other name (although Zeus himself might not like it, if he existed).

I have no idea what you're trying to get at here

Okay.
I can merely state that photons are shapeshifters. No problem. The particle is hereby a wave taking the shape of a particle.

More seriously, ad hoc hypotheses are very common in science. However, when a theory is available which explains things better without having to rely on numerous ad hoc hypotheses, the simpler theory is generally adopted over the ultra-complicated one. (This is one of the reasons why heliocentrism was considered better than geocentrism).

This is why scientists dismissed the theory of light as a particle, prefering the wave theory, even though some of light's properties weren't really compatible with the wave theory (straight propagation). If they had used an ad-hoc hypothesis, they would have said immediately "light is a wave sometimes, but it can turn into a particle". This is not exactly what scientists did, although it looks a bit like it.

This is why the unicorn theory would be dismissed after the observation of that bearded guy. Unless those who study the phenomenon are not scientists in the first place. But the whole point is to determine whether scientists would manage to prove the existence of Zeus (if he existed), right? If we were trying to find out whether apes would manage to prove the existence of Zeus, the task would be much easier.

Or of a photon.
As long as these concepts include the property "shoots lightning bolts at people who use the name 'Zeus' in vain". Okay.
The evidence can only be claimed as long as it fits the concept. For example, greek gods are modeled on humans. Thus, evidence for Zeus involves the fact that he acts as a human person: if natural events associated to Zeus show human like behavior, this is evidence for Zeus. However, if they appear to be random or due to causes which have nothing to do with humans, this is evidence against Zeus.

Evidence must be found on every aspect of the concept, as much as possible. For example, if we're talking about God or a unicorn, we must try to find evidence that the cause of lightning is a horned horse or an infinite being.

Sure, it's nearly impossible to do it if the initial concept is too vague (for example, shapeshifting unicorn or God). Dark matter, which you mentioned earlier, has the very convenient properties of being invisible and of unknown composition. Many scientists criticized it on this ground - according to them, dark matter is pretty much a shapeshifting unicorn, very useful to account for unexplained perturbations of gravitational fields, but too vague to be disproven. Once again, you did a good job at pointing out a difficulty - but this difficulty is not specific to deities - on the contrary, it is a difficulty which is common in scientific theories.

The concept of Zeus luckily doesn't have these problems (unlike many deities), since Zeus' properties of living on top of mount Olympus and being a bearded anthropomorphic creature shouldn't be too hard to observe.
You could make an additional effort on the bolded sentence

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

Please tell me you are not serious, IIIX

In the following, though, I will pretend that all you write here is meant seriously.

I don't know the theory of Zeus. If you know it then please enlighten me and we can take it from there.

You are not trying to call Zeus by another name, you are trying to call an observation Zeus. Huge difference. Calling an observation Zeus of people being hit by lightning while uttering the name Zeus does not connect the observation to the Greek god called Zeus. First you need to establish the existence of whatever you try to use in a deduction of possible causes of an observed phenomenon.

Let's retry a previous approach once more. Try finish the last sentence for me, please:

Chewmarks on a cable can be studied because chewmarks on a cable can be observed
Gravitational forces can be studied because gravitational forces can be observed
Lightning bolts can be studied because lightning bolts can be observed
Light can be studied because light can be observed
Zeus can be studied because ...

You can state that because that is a possible conclusion of observations made by experiment (again, an experiment made possible on the sole account that light can be observed, measured and studied). If you want to infer something about unicorns then make them possible to study in the first place, please. It's bad karma to presume their existence a priori.

Ok. I have no quarrel with that.

No, nothing would dismiss the possibility of a bearded guy appearing on top of a mountain being a unicorn other than the fact that you can't conclude in any way whether such an apparition is in fact a god, a UFO, a unicorn or X, where X is everything you can ever imagine. And it has nothing to do with the people trying to study it being scientists, dentists or shoemakers. It's the methodology itself that doesn't work. You cannot make any study without having a point of reference, the existence for which there is evidence. Again, the properties or components, if you like, of, say, light can be studied because there is ample evidence of the existence of light. In fact, so much so that we rather tend to call the phenomenon of light a fact.

Now, this is an extraordinary peculiarily. Why on earth would scientists only manage to prove the existence of Zeus if Zeus existed? I somehow get the impression that you're just bored and want to kill some time.

Yes, it can. If I once more repeat that light exists and therefore can be studied, perhaps I won't have to waste time repeating that the existence of photons can be studied as well.

So you were in fact kidding all along? Now you say that there can be no evidence of Zeus by observing lightning bolts hitting people that use the name Zeus in vain?

Thanks for letting me know. I won't go any further with this.

Where in any scriptures did Jesus say that Israelites had the power to be oracles of God?

Here is what I have learned from studying many religions. All religions, even Islam and Paganism, are paths to God. All. None are better than another. It only depends on your needs as a person to decide which path suits you.

Your post was too weighed down by tired Christian dogma and myths. And that is the major flaw of religion.

Religion is an emotion based thought process. In order to demonstrate key elements of a religion, stories are created.

Jesus was not truly a virgin birth, this is a myth created to make people understand that he was special. And herein lies the issue: most people get too caught up in the myths and stories and completely miss the point. This is especially true of Christianity and Islam.