Re The Atheist's Guide to Disproving God Part 1

This is going to be a video response to user UNFFwildcard.
Wildcard recently I took a look at your channel to find something very very unusual.
Unlike most of the theists out there in youtube, some of the videos you made are not utterly brainless.
I was wondering why are you in theirs side, why not on ours?
Why are you so desperate to cling onto a position which is intellectually inferior
absolutely unproductive and morally corrosive such as theism?
Anyway, this video will be focused primarily on two videos you made.
You made two major claims in those videos
firstly you said, you can not scientifically disprove god
and secondly, in the issue of the existence of a supernatural guardian
“god does not exist” is not the default position.
Before I explore these issues let me ask you a question
How would you feel if I tell you that beside the real one you are carrying an extra invisible head on your shoulder?
And after thoroughly examining your head- I mean the visible one- and the areas surrounding it
when you respond“no I'm not”
what if then I tell you “well you can not feel you invisible head with your visible hands.
You can feel it only with the invisible pair of hands of yours that project out from right beneath your underarms.”
And after thoroughly examining your arms and underarms when you respond “I don't have any extra arms”
and I counter-respond “look at it with the invisible eyes on your invisible head, you'll find them there.”
Won't it be too hard for you to suppress your laughter?
In a blatant attempt to exempt their delusional fantasy from any rational enquiry
it is a popular strategy of the theists to take their god beyond everything and out of everywhere
by claiming “god doesn't adhere to any natural law or god resides out of the universe” and so on.
This proposition is something to be ridiculed not something to be discussed intellectually.
It is nothing new, nor is it unique; and just like all the other arguments of theists
this specific one has been refuted a millions of times.
Instead of simply ridiculing it I will better logically refute it one more time.
You may call this a favour.
So, if you are into educated discourse, not into doctrinal adherence to any brainless dogma
then you may watch the rest of my response.
If you pick up a science book all you gonna find is a bunch of claim.
Now if you take a closer look at these claims you will see them falling into two categories.
They can either be a claim of observation or a claim of process.
Every claim describes one or more events taking place.
Claim of observation usually answers the question what event takes place
while claim of process answers question why or how it takes place.
It is one of the elementary rule of epistemology that in order to be considered true
every claim must be supported with evidence.
How does science gather evidence in support of a claim?
Well, a claim must make predictions and if those predictions can be confirmed positively the claim is considered true
otherwise the claim is false.
Let's make a claim, let's say “axis forms during the embryonic development.”
what prediction does it make?
Well, it says- if we take a closer look at an embryo under microscope we should see axis forming.
And, this is exactly what we see or in other words the prediction is confirmed positively.
That's why this claim is true. An observation must make some sensory input in the human brain.
You can gather evidence in two ways by, experimentation and by logical deduction.
Experimentation is the deliberate manipulation of materiel while logical deduction is self-explanatory.
Such as Hardy-Weinberg theory which says
“the probability of finding a homozygote genotype of an allele
is equal to the square of the probability of finding that allele alone in a genepool.
Mullers ratchet theory that says in absence of recombination
asexually reproducing organisms will build up genetic load in their genome.
Or founder effect theory that says a population barred into two unequal halves will experience different drift
All these are derived by mathematical deduction.
Now, let's consider the claim of process.
Previously we had an observation taht “axis forms”
now if we propose a mechanism about “how does axis form” that will be a claim of process.
Let's make such a claim. Let's say “organizer forms axis.”
It doesn't have any sensory implication, we do not see organizers forming axis
because our optic system did not evolve to sensationalize atoms.
So, how can we gather evidence in support of this claim?
Well the method science uses to gather evidence in support of a claim of process
is a bit more comprehensive and more complicated.
First, it gathers correlative evidence which is just another observation
that is correlated to the observation we are trying to explain.
In this specific circumstance our correlative evidence is going to be this
“during axis formation cells of a gastrula migrates through a structure called organizer.”
This observation is correlated to our initial observation that axis forms.
But, this is not sufficient to prove that the organizer forms axis.
Maybe something other than the organizer forms axis and through the organizer is the only path cells can migrate.
So, in order to make our claim more conclusive we now need loss of function evidence.
In this circumstance the function is axis formation.
So, what should we see if the organizer doesn't form axis?
Well, we should see surgical removal of the organizer having no effect on axis formation.
Is this what we see?
No. We rather see no axis forming in the absence of the organizer.
So, this is the loss of function evidence in support of our claim that organizer forms axis.
But hang on, still it doesn't mean that organizer forms axis.
Maybe the removal of organizer caused the embryo to die, that's why we see no axis forming.
So, in order to make our claim more conclusive we need gain of function evidence.
What should we see if the organizer forms axis?
Well, we can add one more organizer to an embryo that already has an organizer and we should see two axes forming.
And this is exactly what we see in the nature.
It is the hierarchical gathering of these three kinds of evidence that proves our claim to be true.
It is this gain of function evidence that is the most important in science.
Well, gain of function evidence does not prove a claim absolutely conclusively
but it does prove a claim reasonably conclusively.
You may still say you are not absolutely sure whether organizer forms axis or not
it would be a true statement but above all it will be an diotic statement.
And if you are fool enough to write it down to an exampaper despite it being true you know what will happen.
Evidence strengthens our confidence in the correctness of a statement.
That's what we need, we do not need absolute truth.
Under this circumstance swelling the metaphoric balloon of fantasy by saying
“science can not prove anything true” is simply pathetic.
Now my question to you is- is your claim “god exists” a claim of observation or a claim of process?
It can not be a claim of observation because the existence of god doesn't have any sensory implication to our brain.
So, it must be a claim of process. If it is, then what process are you describing?
Or, what is your null hypothesis?
Are you explaining the aggregation and culmination of dictyostelium discoideum
or sporulation in bacillus substillis
or migration and metastasis of a malignant carcinoma of the intestinal epithelium?
Notice here, even if we grant you that your god exists outside the reality
the process in order to find a reason for which you are invoking the god hypothesis must be inside the reality.
Because, a null position must be something that is objectively and universally agreed.
In our aforesaid example the null hypothesis was “axis forms”
narrowing down which we derived an h1 hypothesis called “organizer forms axis”
and we had to gather correlative evidence in support of our claim before we could do so.
What is your null position or what was your process that could only be explained by your god hypothesis
and what correlative evidence did you gather before you narrowed down your null hypothesis to an h1 god hypothesis?
Even if you can come up with an observation to explain or a null hypothesis
and correlative evidence to narrow it down to the god hypothesis
what loss of function and gain of function evidence can you gather to make your claim reasonably conclusive?
If you can answer these questions please let me know
because in the record of our 7500 year old written history no one has ever answered these questions.
because in the record of our 7500 year old written history no one has ever answered these questions.
because in the record of our 7500 year old written history no one has ever answered these questions.