This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Those fanatical atheists

Major Bloodnok's Avatar Jump to comment 107 by Major Bloodnok

Dianelos Georgoudis:

So, we have an observed phenomenon - conciousness - and a hypothesis to explain it - God. Now, as hypotheses go, "God" could do with a bit of fleshing out, but let's skip that and go to the next stage of the scientific process - testing. Can you now come up with some experiment or further observation to test your hypothesis? That is, the result of the experiment should potentially be inconsistent with your hypothesis. If it isn't, fine, we need another experiment, and another and another, constantly refining the hypothesis to match the observations or finally discarding it if we do get an inconsistent result.

The problem is that it's hard to think of any experimental result that would be inconsistent with the God hypothesis. And if nothing's inconsistent with it, then the hypothesis has precisely zero explanatory power.

And the same question to mjr1007: if I grant, for the sake of argument, your proposition that nothing happens at the QM level without an observer, then how do we test your Universal Observer hypothesis to explain the fact that things do, indeed, happen? Again, we're looking for a result that is potentially inconsistent with the hypothesis.

Tue, 15 May 2007 09:55:00 UTC | #38318