Evidence for your beliefs

[Todd]

Hi,

This is my first post and Topic on this site, so I'll quickly introduce myself.
My name is Todd, 15 years old live in Sydney and I'm Christian and happily got saved about 2 months ago.

So anyway, I think this is a similar topic to something was put on before but anyway, I'd like to try it again.

I want people on this to state their belief and give evidence for why they think it is right or why they believe in it.

I myself as stated above am Christian, I don't know how many people have heard of this but before that I was an evolutionist, take note of what I say here evolutionists, "I didn't WANT to believe in God, because I was afraid of going to Hell for sinning, so I decided that if I believed there wasn't a God there wasn't a hell to possibly end up going to when I die, so I chose something that ruled God out, it took me ages but after 3 years I realised how pathetic evolution is because although I DID believe in it I never saw any proof of it" So anyway after this, I became Christian and saw proofs of it straight away, I've had a lot of my personal prayers answered and there's easily much proof in the bible with so many fulfilled prophecies and SCIENTIFIC FACTS that support the Bible, so thats my reason for trust in the Lord now, I'd write something longer but I'm tired right now.

Anyway, everyone else, I wanna hear your thoughts

[Icarus]

mrmufin, dd, pw,
Forgive me if I skip any points you really want me to respond too. But now I have three people arguing with me with different styles, takes and info. If you do have something that you really wanted me to answer repost it and I'll do my best. Also, Happy Thanksgiving.


Potwalloper,

Ask them if God is all powerful (ie can it do anything it wants) and the answer will be an unqualified "YES". The same for the other omnis.

There seems to be a crossing of ideas here with what I read from you. You are going from "all" to "anything it wants". Two different connotations. Do you want to use the "all" or the "anything" for your argument. I understand your intent with this question, but it confuses the matter to switch in mid stream with the idea. But probably the likely reason a Christian answers yes is to the basic understanding that nothing is more powerfull than God, so the claim omni- can be attributed. Which I think you partly agree with too. Just you don't like that omni has a contradiction with "can do anything" logic. Which most Christians understand the logic of how the term is used. Not a huge matter really.

I have not proposed the existence of a god and the obvious default is non-existence - why should I have to prove a negative?

Because you said this (below) in your previous post.

... If he is then he cannot exist unless one can explain the inherent contradiction.

You don't have to prove a negative. But then why should you post it if you don't want me to ask you about it? Unless I misread the reason you posted it in the first place, I didn't understand how your arrived at it.

The key issue here is that scientific models/theories are just that, theories. I am well aware of the flaws in scientific understanding and of the current gaps in our knowledge.

The thing that I am turning back on you is exactly what you are pointing [at me]. It seems too odd that [you] know of flaws et al with science and the subjective humans that practice it, but you'll tear apart a tiny miniscule word with all zeal on [our] side. The same standard that you allow for your [side] you won't allow for ours.

The rest of your post is a long A Fortiori and Non Sequitur way to say "because I don't want to". Unless you want me to address something in there, let me know.


dangerdan,
love the name.

I disagree that the introduction of an itelligent designer raises more problem than it solves. It no more presents additional material to prove/solve than naturalism does. I don't see the character of God being a bigger issue to solve. We would already know many basic truths about Him, such as He cannot lie, He is logical, He is a fatherly type, He can get angry, He can exude love to those we think don't deserve love... The character part would be much easier.

1) So science can account for everything then? -Icarus


Everything that can be verified, quantified, tested repeatedly, etc, etc. So long as you can falsify it with empirical evidence.

2) Is science the only source for objective truth? -Icarus


I would say it’s the most reliable type of knowledge humans can possess.

Science cannot prove:
1) Mathmatics and logic. Because science presupposes them.
2) Metaphysical truths. Such as there are minds that exist other than my own.
3) Ethical Judgements. Morality is not subject to scientific methods.
4) Aesthetic Judgements. Beauty cannot be scientifically proven.
5) Science itself. Belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by scientific methods)

What I am getting at is that in essence you are answering that science is the only source of objective truth. But science is not the ONLY source to verify/discover truth. We use Philosophical laws as well. To which science uses, actually presupposes them anyway... such as the Law of Noncontradiction, the Law of The Excluded Middle and the Law of Cause and Effect (which is partly an answer to your asking who came up with that law. It wasn't a big name scientist, it was philosophy. The big names presupposed [them]).

Your statements themselve are likely derived from Hume or A.J. Ayer's Principles of Empirical Verifiability which states that there are two kinds of meaningful propositions: 1) Those that are true by definition and 2) Those that are emprically verifiable. BUT NEITHER of those propositions are true by definition nor empirically verifiable!

Also, scientists assume ...by faith I might add... that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand the world. And again THAT cannot be proven by scientific method itself either.

The problem with naturalistic science is that it uses bad philosophy in its pressupositions that ONLY natural causes are possible. So before it even gets to its "objective" investigations it has removed a possible and logical answer. It has sealed itself into its own box (and claims "this is all there is, our little box). Likewise as a Theist I cannot (or rather should not) rule out the possibility of natural causes befoere hand in investigations either.

And a last point on this, science does not really say anything. Scientists do. When scientists let their ideology dictate the interpretation of the data, they do EXACTLY what they are accusing religious people of doing!

I like your critical thinking. Though you could just say “what books were they?”

Thanks I am learning. Yeah, I could have said "what books" but the point wouldn't have been made that mrmufin was still asking me to go on a lot of faith. Besides , he said "texts". Who knew if he only had print outs from websites.

Perhaps muffin was merely saying that we currently think nothing “causes” (as in the traditional concepts of causality) the random movements that are observed in quantum mechanics. It is…well…random!

As of this writing I haven't seen mrmufin's answer but yeah, it is reasonable to assume he does not think of the causes of movement in the traditional sense. My argument to that would be the whole "pressumed" laws that you don't think about. Kind of like riding a bike, you really don't think about the whole balancing issue after you've mastered it pretty well to begin with. Also, yes the randomness of the movements is why I suggested that the Successionist Theory has a strong inclination there, since it states that things are more independent. But I subscribe more to the connectedness of causes and effects.


I'll be out for TG, for a day or so. I'll check back.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

[potwalloper.]

The rest of your post is a long A Fortiori and Non Sequitur way to say "because I don't want to". Unless you want me to address something in there, let me know.

As I said - blind faith

[mrmufin]

Icarus,

I'm sorry for the delay in my response. I've been pretty busy for the past few days and have only gotten to stop by here a few times, for a few minutes each time.

Okay, then. How could intelligent design be falsified, quantified, or predicted?

One would be the previous invisible person inside a body effect. And there are some other examples. Which we can get into later if you choose, for now I think I have a lengthy post to other points in your post.

Yeah; maybe we could get into this later...

The words "theory" and "theoretical" have very different connotations in scientific venues than they often have in non-scientific conversation. Theories (not laws) are the backbone of modern science, and a scientific theory is pretty much anything but a "guess."

You'll have to explain how the connotations are used. Does one have to travel in scientific inner circles to know how they are being used inside of scientific venues? How are they different than what a layman knows them to be?

I don't think that one needs to travel into inner scientific circles in order to understand that scientific theories are more rigorously established than non-scientific "theories." In casual conversation, "theory" is often interchangeable with guess or hypothesis. Laws are generalized, descriptive statements about physical events or processes. Theories describe how and why things happen the way they do. Hypothesis is the educated guess.

Theories have to rest on something, even if they are assumed, in order for the theory to have a chance at validity in reality. Isn't that why some wild theories are laughed at when they are proposed? While I would agree with you if you meant to say that theories are the backbone of investigative science. But not science itself.

I think you're confusing theory with hypothesis. It's not like theories are someday graduated to laws. Theories and laws are different. I'm not sure exactly what "wild theories" you're refering to, but the term may be getting confused with guess or hypothesis.

Frankly, I'd prefer to reserve any judgement as to the accuracy of the theories presented in modern particle physics.

Why is that? Elaborate for me a bit.

The best reason I can come up with is the fact that I'm not a physicist. I defer to those with greater education and experience in that field. Is that a good enough reason?

My position is that the gods are concepts which elude any practical means of testability and falsifiability. In simplest terms, faith plays a much greater role in religion than it does in science.

1) So science can account for everything then?

I'm not really sure what you mean by the question, but I'll throw out my best response. I think there are many things that are unkown; mankind's understanding of the mechanical aspects of the Universe is getting better.

2) Is science the only source for objective truth?

I'd say mathematics is an even better source for objective truth. Truth, in my opinion, seems to have an "either-or" connatation, which might not make it the best word. Perhaps understanding is more appropriate? I think of science as more of a fine-tuning process; our overall picture of the Universe has gotten clearer.

However, a quick scouring of the many and varied physics texts here at the mufin residence returns no such physical law. The context in which you presented the assertion suggested that it is a scientific principle, but the study of quantum mechanics strongly suggests no such law is in effect. 

Are you not asking me to have a whole lot of faith that you actually do have "many and varied physics texts" (or that you actually did go look in them)? More faith than necessary?

I'm not asking you to have faith in anything. I'll start with a list of the books that I checked:

Feynman, Richard P. Six Not So Easy Pieces. 1997. Perseus.
Gribbin, John R. In Search of Schrödinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality. 1984. Bantam.
Lehrman, Robert L. Physics the Easy Way. 3rd Ed. 1998. Barron's.
Lightman, Alan P. Great Ideas In Physics. 2000. McGraw-Hill.
Tippens, Paul E. Applied Physics. 2nd Ed. 1978. McGraw-Hill.
Wolfson, Richard. Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified. 1st Ed. 2003. WW Norton.

My "quick scouring" methodolgy included index searches for the words cause, acausal, determinism. I also went over the table of contents of each text looking for something about a Law of Cause and Effect / Causality. While the Tippens and Lehrman texts are the broadest in scope, the topics that are covered are given fairly terse treatment. Both were ripe with the laws of physics: Ohm's Law, Kirchoff's Law, Boyle's Gas Laws, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, etc., as well as some theory. The Lehrman text is newer (and, IMO, not quite as cheezy as the title might suggest) and might make a nice companion text for someone in high school AP physics, or perhaps as a refresher and study guide for college physics. The Tippens text was one of the physics textbooks used at NJIT back in the late 70's for some of their 100-level physics courses.

It had been almost two years since I read the Gribbin book, but I recalled that it went into quite a bit of detail and background of quantum mechanics. One succinct statement in that text which supports my skepticism of any alleged scientific Law of Causality is found on page 175. (Bold face added):

Coordinates in space-time represent position; causality depends on knowing precisely where things are going. Classical theories assume that you can know both at once; quantum mechanics shows us that precision in space-time coordination has to be paid for in terms of uncertainty of momentum, and therefore of causality.

The Lightman text was the one that I'd read most recently, and rather than give cursory coverage to many topics, he takes four basic ideas and offers foundational theory, equations, diagrams, and histories of the concepts. One of the four topics that he covered was quantum mechanics, with a strong focus on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. To quote from Lightman:

According to this [19th century Laplacian] view, the future position of a planet or a speck of dust could be completely predicted once its present conditions were known.

By even presenting it into the argument, I either have to accept that you really do have texts in your home about physics and about the subjects related to the thread and that you really did scour them quickly. That you are not bluffing or lying. Or I'll have to travel to your home and observe that you have them.

Next time you're in the neighborhood, stop by.

I'll show you every book that I listed above, and a few more. Spend an afternoon browsing the many titles at the mufin residence. And apparently, I scoured 'em well enough to present my position with citations from folks with doctorate degrees in physics.

Not only that, but that you had them before you posted.

Would the eyewitness testimony of the very lovely msmufin be adequate? At least a few of the titles are also cited in documents on my PC with timestamps well before my post. Might that help to convince you? There may be some photographic evidence dated well before this post which shows photos of the books on the shelf in thebackground. Would that help or harm my case?

all that to say, a good amount of faith seems to be ok to ask of when it is on [your] side of the argument.

Tell me what it takes to convince you. I might just be willing to accomodate.

But (and just for this faith asking arguments sake) you asked me to
verify the Law of Causality with what it states. Which could assume that my assertion of the law was not taken with faith.

Yeah. And I told you why: your claim that there was a law of causality and implied that it was a scientific law. I was not familiar with it, but I am familiar with a scientific principle which might not be consistent with the law. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, no such law of causality is described in the physics books that I've listed above. Perhpas the law of causality is a philosophical principle?

"...18th and 19th century..." What kind of statement is that? Are you trying to put your view into a "superior" modern era and mine into a rudementary past? Wow. Please tell me your not trying to be so subliminally base in argumentation. I certainly hope your intent was not so base.

Not at all. Physics changed dramatically toward the end of the nineteenth century, starting (roughly) with the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887, continuing with the work of Curie, Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, Shcrödinger, etc., into the early part of the twentieth century. Ether theory was out, atomic and quantum physics was in.

And when did popularity affect an actual scientific law to become passe? Is it like so totally last century for the hip scientists at the science mall?

Yeah, passe... Kinda like witch trials and crusades got stale once human rights and justice started to become fashionable.

"...quantum mechanics strongly suggests no such law is in effect." Are you trying to trying to tell me that there is NO movement what-so-ever at the quantum level?

Nope. I'm not trying to tell you anything other than I have not encountered any such scientific law of causality. Perhaps this is a philosophical law?

If you are a Quantum Physicist let me know, I'd love to pick your brain on some issues.

Sorry. I'm a painter.

But... if you ever need to pick someone's brain about industrial chemical coatings application techniques, fire away.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Icarus]

mrmufin,
Read your latest post. I addressed alot of these from you latest post -from me to dangerdan (above yours).

If you'll look at that last one from me, let me know what you want addressed, and we'll go from there.


But the whole "faith asking about you having texts in the mufin home", while I am certain mrsmufin is quite lovely and would give up the ghost if you were not stating the truth, if not just to punish you for not picking up bread on the way home. Appealing to authority and posting quotes and book names from authority does not address the issue of the faith asking. Sorry, I did enjoy the reading though. The cause effect law is out there, for instance here http://home.scarlet.be/~pin02936/QMAris ... erpre.html is a paper proposing the law is in use.

But I'll wait to post any more on any of the topics in the debate after you check my post to dangerdan.

thanks.

[mrmufin]

Appealing to authority and posting quotes and book names from authority does not address the issue of the faith asking. Sorry, I did enjoy the reading though. The cause effect law is out there, for instance here http://home.scarlet.be/~pin02936/QMAris ... erpre.html is a paper proposing the law is in use.

Lemme see if I'm getting this straight... I cite from physics texts and I'm called on "appealing to authority," but it's okay for you to point me to a website and avoid the same call? Do you think that this article is driven by Verhulst's scientific or philosophical interests?

Read your latest post. I addressed alot of these from you latest post -from me to dangerdan (above yours).

Okay. I'll respond to some of your statements in that post, too.

I disagree that the introduction of an itelligent designer raises more problem than it solves. It no more presents additional material to prove/solve than naturalism does. I don't see the character of God being a bigger issue to solve.

See what you just did? Let's back up and go real slowly through the replay: "I disagree that the introduction of an intelligent designer raises more problems it solves." Stop right there. Why is a single designer implied? Why not a team or heirarchy of designers? Moving on... "I don't see the character of God being a bigger issue to solve." See how you just slipped from a designer to a very specific designer, one which you refer to as God? Which of the many thousands of gods are you refering to and why? Even if the concept was marginally scientific, would a scientist with a different worldview reach similar conclusions about the designer? How would we rule out the possibility that the designer (or team or heirarchy) has not been injured or destroyed since the last design revision?

We would already know many basic truths about Him, such as He cannot lie, He is logical, He is a fatherly type, He can get angry, He can exude love to those we think don't deserve love... The character part would be much easier.

How is the nature of anything determined, scientifically? What impartial observational evidences of the gods are available for peer and public review? What methodology could be used by a skeptic to verify the properties and character traits that you allege?

Science cannot prove:
1) Mathmatics and logic. Because science presupposes them.

Accountants, judges, car wash attendants, painters, veternarians, and housewives also presuppose mathematics and logic. So what? In situations where quantification is beneficial, I can't think of a better tool than mathematics. Can you?

2) Metaphysical truths. Such as there are minds that exist other than my own.

In what form does a mind exist?

3) Ethical Judgements. Morality is not subject to scientific methods.

Okay. Then again, I never consulted a scientific text to try to determine whether or not I should be kind to my neighbors.

4) Aesthetic Judgements. Beauty cannot be scientifically proven.

Neither can tasty or friendly or savory or sultry. So what?

5) Science itself. Belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by scientific methods)

Scientific methodologies are not tools to prove or find truths, but to explain and understand. Science deals with impartial evaluation of evidences, and constructing theories which are consistent with those evidences.

What I am getting at is that in essence you are answering that science is the only source of objective truth. But science is not the ONLY source to verify/discover truth.

Again, science is not as much about truths as it is about understanding. What nonscientific methodologies do you propose to better and more accurately understand nature? What is the opposite of chocolate?

We use Philosophical laws as well.

Where is the test laboratory for philosophical laws? How could a philosophical law be falsified?

To which science uses, actually presupposes them anyway... such as the Law of Noncontradiction, the Law of The Excluded Middle and the Law of Cause and Effect (which is partly an answer to your asking who came up with that law. It wasn't a big name scientist, it was philosophy. The big names presupposed [them]).

How do philosophers escape the same (allegedly faulty) presupposition? Which "big name" scientists presupposed what philosophical laws and how did the alleged philosophical filter impact the data? If you suspect the methodologies and/or the interpretation of the data from a specific test are skewed, feel free to present your case. Personally, I think that you're making a sweeping and unwarranted generalization about scientists.

Also, scientists assume ...by faith I might add... that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand the world. And again THAT cannot be proven by scientific method itself either.

Feel free to describe a more useful and accurate means of understanding nature than scientific methodologies. Expect questions from me.

The problem with naturalistic science is that it uses bad philosophy in its pressupositions that ONLY natural causes are possible.

Again, where is the test lab for philosophical laws, so that scientists can weed out the bad philosophy ahead of time? Has a reliable philosophometer been developed recently?

Likewise as a Theist I cannot (or rather should not) rule out the possibility of natural causes befoere hand in investigations either.

Which is precisely the leap that we can't agree upon where to make. How, exactly, does one get from the plain vanilla, "I don't know" to "It must be an act of the gods?" If investigation is both honest and inconclusive, it is presumptuous, in my opinion, to posit anything other than, "I don't know."

And a last point on this, science does not really say anything. Scientists do.

Right. And philosophy doesn't really say anything, either. Philosophers do. And guns don't really kill people, bullets do. There really aren't any red objects, either. Just objects which reflect photons over a range of wavelengths, which when interpreted by human vision, often registers as "red."

When scientists let their ideology dictate the interpretation of the data, they do EXACTLY what they are accusing religious people of doing!

Your statement seems to imply that there is either a consistent worldview shared by scientists or some confusion between ideology and methodology. What about religious scientists? Why or why not would they interpret data differently? Which scientists are letting their ideology dictate the interpretation of the data? It seems to me that the scientific community consists of individuals from a wide variety of worldviews. Wouldn't that fact of diversity be beneficial toward assuring that ideologies do not dictate interpretations?

Yeah, I could have said "what books" but the point wouldn't have been made that mrmufin was still asking me to go on a lot of faith. Besides , he said "texts". Who knew if he only had print outs from websites.

"Only had printouts from websites"? Is that better or worse than providing a link to a website? As I stated in my last post, I'm not asking you to take anything on faith. Stop by, I'll show you the texts. Maybe you would be able to find a scientific law of cause and effect within those texts that I glossed right over.

As of this writing I haven't seen mrmufin's answer but yeah, it is reasonable to assume he does not think of the causes of movement in the traditional sense.

Not neccessarily. I just don't consider philosophy as useful as science when it comes to understanding the mechanical aspects of the Universe. The philosophical filter argument rings unconvincing due to a lack of specific supporting incidences.

My argument to that would be the whole "pressumed" laws that you don't think about.

Do you mean like presuming that everything in the universe is not synchronously expanding and contracting at random intervals? That might be tough to rule out, ya know. Or presuming that the words I'm reading off of my computer monitor aren't getting skewed into other words with different meanings by some prank of the gods? Or perhaps by presuming that the neighbor's dog does not have a basic understanding of integral calculus?

Regards,
mrmufin

[dangerdan]

Sorry about the late response Icarus, I’ve been flat chat at work. I hope my response doesn’t drag down the pace of the thread (just ignore this post if it does guys).

I disagree that the introduction of an itelligent designer raises more problem than it solves. It no more presents additional material to prove/solve than naturalism does.

But surely it does. I, as an atheist, may have a complex world to try and explain, and a Christian may have an astoundingly simple explanation for this (“No problem - God made it”), but then when you think about it - you have to try and explain a certain intelligent being capable of all manner of things, and are really in a worse state of affairs than before (when it comes to understanding origins).

I don't see the character of God being a bigger issue to solve. We would already know many basic truths about Him, such as He cannot lie, He is logical, He is a fatherly type, He can get angry, He can exude love to those we think don't deserve love... The character part would be much easier.

With all these character traits derived unscientifically…

Side note - God can’t get angry?!?

Science cannot prove:
1) Mathmatics and logic. Because science presupposes them.
2) Metaphysical truths. Such as there are minds that exist other than my own.
3) Ethical Judgements. Morality is not subject to scientific methods.
4) Aesthetic Judgements. Beauty cannot be scientifically proven.
5) Science itself. Belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by scientific methods)

Well actually, strictly speaking, science can not prove - with total certainty - anything! A scientific theory can only be disproved. No matter how many times the experiment is repeated, we do not know if the next experiment will yield bizarre new results. However, the theory will be strengthened with each experimental result that falls in line with its predictions.

What I am getting at is that in essence you are answering that science is the only source of objective truth. But science is not the ONLY source to verify/discover truth. We use Philosophical laws as well.

That is true enough. I too share your interest in philosophy, but surely you must say that the scientific method, by and large, has done a rather spectacular job at helping us understand the world. Surely this is not in question, is it?

Your statements themselve are likely derived from Hume or A.J. Ayer's ...

Actually they are probably more in line with Karl Popper…

...which states that there are two kinds of meaningful propositions: 1) Those that are true by definition and 2) Those that are emprically verifiable. BUT NEITHER of those propositions are true by definition nor empirically verifiable!

Ummm, it’s pretty easy to analyze how useful (and thus I suppose meaningful) certain simple statements are, by crosschecking them with the real world. I wonder if this would classify as empirical analysis. Perhaps statements made in the past (that have been neither of these two types) have evidently shown themselves to be rather useless.

Also, scientists assume ...by faith I might add... that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand the world.

Err…just out of curiosity, would you disagree with that statement? Do you think that reason and scientific method has done a “bad job” when it comes to the quality and reliability of knowledge it’s put forward?

The problem with naturalistic science is that it uses bad philosophy in its pressupositions that ONLY natural causes are possible.

That is because “supernatural” arguments go beyond logic, do not deal with empirical evidence, are totally unverifiable, and as such, unscientific…by definition! For example I can put forward a “supernatural” theory that God made the universe yesterday to make it look like it was 15 billion years old, and you can not disprove or verify my theory.

So before it even gets to its "objective" investigations it has removed a possible and logical answer. It has sealed itself into its own box (and claims "this is all there is, our little box).

I think it is more sealing itself in its box and saying “this is all we are concerning ourselves with”.

And a last point on this, science does not really say anything. Scientists do. When scientists let their ideology dictate the interpretation of the data, they do EXACTLY what they are accusing religious people of doing!

I agree that rationalization is very unhealthy. Perhaps a specific example would help me understand what scientist you feel are rationalizing what?

[Icarus]

hey guys, I am here. Buried with work. Won't be able to post for a bit. Unless I don't want to sleep. But I DO need my beauty sleep. May be a while before I can address anything. Thanks.

[Icarus]

Lemme see if I'm getting this straight... I cite from physics texts and I'm called on "appealing to authority," but it's okay for you...

Not at all. The fallacy I pointed out was that appealling to authority is not always the best way to prove your point. As you point to some authority, I too can point to some authority that equally or subsantially can counter yours. That is what I had meant to say. I left some words out. My bad for not editing better. I also was pointing out that there are science papers, texts, books, what-have-you that does get into cause and effect at Quantum levels.

raises more problems it solves." Stop right there. Why is a single designer implied? Why not a team or heirarchy of designers?

I guess there could be a Trinity of designers.
When was the last time you saw a committee design with such balance?
Asking all sorts of "why's" doesn't discount my statement. I could do the same tactic to evolution and the Big Bang. Why does there have to be only one point at which this univers started? Why not many? ...For each galaxy? Wouldn't that explain a lot of differences as well as things that look like they are headed in the same direction for other galaxy/planet/star making? .... it could go on. I can guess your answers probably. But again, you don't bring up anything that can't be or hasn't been answered. We could ask questions till the cows come home, doesn't mean the statement made is negated. It just means you can ask a lot of questions.

Moving on... "I don't see the character of God being a bigger issue to solve." See how you just slipped from a designer to a very specific designer, one which you refer to as God?

I did not "slip", I responded to your posted statement. YOU went from a single designer to asking about percieved problems with finding the answers to character questions. I followed your statement.

Which of the many thousands of gods are you refering to and why? Even if the concept was marginally scientific, would a scientist with a different worldview reach similar conclusions about the designer? How would we rule out the possibility that the designer (or team or heirarchy) has not been injured or destroyed since the last design revision?

In regards to evolution, you already have different conclusions about how it all happened. So how does your question hurt only my argument? Here is where the enclosed box of naturalistic only science loops back on itself. What you are ultimately asking for "who created that God/gods" and "who created that God or gods" ad infinitum. Which you already know it has to start somewhere. All your are really really doing is putting off the beginning.

How is the nature of anything determined, scientifically? What impartial observational evidences of the gods are available for peer and public review? What methodology could be used by a skeptic to verify the properties and character traits that you allege?

Did we just "slip" to the character issue again? Assuming we have answered the question "where did we come from, how did we get here, how did it happen..." and now we have accepted that God did it, now we are looking to test his character et al. One possibility is that God could reveal himself to us all and we can simiply observe His traits just like we do day to day with other humans. Another way, if he decides not to reveal Himself quite so quickley is that we observe through his creation. Since we have accepted a single supernatural source, we can safely assume we have certain traits from Him as well. I know many artists/engineers/builders who put their character or "parts" of themselves into the creation. Albeit by the overall thinking, forsight, humor, what-have-you. Not a far stretch to accomplish, (in short) the real big issue would be to see a perfect inductive study of how that character trait is displayed actually by Him. And quite a few more options are out there.

Accountants, judges, car wash attendants, painters, veternarians, and housewives also presuppose mathematics and logic. So what? In situations where quantification is beneficial, I can't think of a better tool than mathematics. Can you?

What I was saying was to the ultimate answer was that science is the only answer (the rest in this series applies too). Maybe you did not hold the thought long enough. Maybe I did not write it clearly enough. Anyway, what are we trying to quantify? That'd be my answer to math as the best tool to quantify things.

What is the opposite of chocolate?

Choco-early.
(attempt at humor)

Where is the test laboratory for philosophical laws? How could a philosophical law be falsified?

Law of the Excluded Middle: Can you be sitting and standing at the same time? Easy to test for that don't you think?
Law of Causality: Did the ball roll to the other side by itself? Or did someone push it? Is the floor slanted? Did gravity do it? Did the ground move? Is there a mechanism in the ball ...

Scientific methodologies are not tools to prove or find truths, but to explain and understand. Science deals with impartial evaluation of evidences, and constructing theories which are consistent with those evidences.

So what you are saying in the first sentence is that science is not out to prove true anything only to explain and understand (how does that help your argument?). Which don't you think in order to explain something you would have to have "proof" that what you are explaining is true? Otherwise you are no better than the myth telling of old. The second sentence accordingly could construct anything consistent with the evidence. So it doesn't matter if it is true, only if it is consistent?. Heck, in that case Bill Clinton is a great scientist.

Your statement seems to imply that there is either a consistent worldview shared by scientists or some confusion between ideology and methodology. What about religious scientists?

Yes, I do imply there is a consistent or common world view. And that is that ONLY natural explanations can be.

I just don't consider philosophy as useful as science...

You might want to check the history of science then. It was philosophy and philosophers that started science as we know it.


dangerdan,

That is true enough. I too share your interest in philosophy, but surely you must say that the scientific method, by and large, has done a rather spectacular job at helping us understand the world.

Yes, science has done a rather spectacular job at not only understanding, but also utilizing, and advancing the world and us.

Do you think that reason and scientific method has done a “bad job” when it comes to the quality and reliability of knowledge it’s put forward?

For the most part no, reason and scientific method have done a great job. Actually, I love it. I love debating, talking, figuring out stuff, et al. The bad parts are the ones that dogmatically assert that only they can be right about what they are talking about or trying to prove that their view is the the answer and if you don't accept the answer then you are of the stone ages or just willingly ignorant. Even though they only have but 1% of the subject and they try to spin some yarn about how they extrapolated out from there using some math equation or what-have-you... and that they don't need the other 99% or even half to really have enough subject matter to see if it really holds true. (I'm rambling off here. I'll stop)

For example I can put forward a “supernatural” theory that God made the universe yesterday to make it look like it was 15 billion years old, and you can not disprove or verify my theory.

You could. Someone has. And it was disproven. Or at least not having enough meat to the theory to be held as a viable option.



Can I ask you two if this thread seems to be headed in directions that are already being debated in the other threads? If so, should we let this thread die a bit? Unless of course you just like me and want to keep me a while.

[Jose]

I guess there could be a Trinity of designers.
Choco-early.

These are good. Very clever! I especially like the Trinity of designers.

In regards to evolution, you already have different conclusions about how it all happened. So how does your question hurt only my argument? Here is where the enclosed box of naturalistic only science loops back on itself.

Hmmm. As I understand it, the definition of science is currently this "natural" viewpoint. We might even make it a philosophical viewpoint, and say that science is an investigation into how fully we can account for natural events by basing explanations on natural events.

But, that's the current definition, as things stand now. In Darwin's time, it wasn't that way. The big push was Natural Theology--demonstrating the Glory of God by describing all of His Creation. It was in this description that we found the evidence that the earth is much older than the Bishop of Usher calculated from the Bible (Oct. 26, 4004 BC). It was in this description that we found the evidence of evolution (not all of it, by any means, but enough to enable Darwin to formulate the first viable theory for how it might work). For a long time, investigation of the natural world was predicated on the expectation that it matched the bible (well, at least in Christian societies; others didn't have that assumption). It turns out that a significant number of things that have been learned actually don't match the bible, or are so far outside of it as to be wholly unconnected.

Because of the lack of connection in so many areas, and because of the contradictions in other areas, and because of the fact that other religions don't have the identical conflicts that fundamentalist Christianity has, the tradition of science has become to determine how far naturalistic explanations can get us. Even ID accepts this--the basic premise is that we invoke God only when we find things that cannot be explained by science. (It's a little silly, though--the idea seems to be that if we don't have a perfect understanding as of Dec. 2004, then the only possible alternative is that God did it. They don't allow the possibility that we might learn more next year.)

Even with this definition of science, it is still true that science does not attempt to exclude God. It is actually incorrect to claim that science accepts only naturalistic explanations. More correctly, science accepts those explanations that fit the data, and that provide avenues of approach for learning more about the world. If I say "God did it," then I'm done. This gives me no further avenues of exploration. However, if I say "mutations and natural selection led to this suite of characteristics in this organism," then I can probe my own understanding (am I right?) by identifying the mutations and investigating the ecological and environmental conditions that applied the selection pressure.

As it turns out, a great many interpretations that have been suggested have been supported by further investigation. (A much greater number have been shown to be wrong, but that's always how it is.) So far, there just hasn't been any reason (ie, no data) that indicate that the explanation has to be God. No one is trying to exclude God from the explanations. God just hasn't given us any data that suggest he's there. The result is that the explanations are "naturalistic only."

The way to get around this is for God to give us a sign--and I don't mean the one on Indiana Route 37, which says, "Looking for a sign from God? This is it." So far, he's only given us data that make it look like he's not home.

Scientific methodologies are not tools to prove or find truths, but to explain and understand. Science deals with impartial evaluation of evidences, and constructing theories which are consistent with those evidences.

So what you are saying in the first sentence is that science is not out to prove true anything only to explain and understand (how does that help your argument?). Which don't you think in order to explain something you would have to have "proof" that what you are explaining is true? Otherwise you are no better than the myth telling of old. The second sentence accordingly could construct anything consistent with the evidence. So it doesn't matter if it is true, only if it is consistent?. Heck, in that case Bill Clinton is a great scientist.

I think this is one of the big problems in the creation/evolution debate. There seems to be an assumption that the purpose of science is to Prove Things. Mrmufin has pointed out that it can't do that. Why? Because science is a human endeavor. The best we can do is interpret the available evidence. Sure, we are attempting to figure out how the world works. Probably, it works in a specific way. If we really knew what that way is, then maybe we could call our investigations "proof." The trouble is, since we don't know beforehand how it works, we don't have a benchmark for determining when we've gotten to The Final Answer.

So, what can we do? We develop criteria. Among those are that an explanation must fit all of the available data. [This is also true of the myth telling of old, but we have more data now. It was true for the people who wrote the bible, but we have more data now. It was true for Darwin, but we have more data now.] As we accumulate more data, the explanations often change. They usually become more accurate, but not always.

But do we ever know that we've got it right? There's always the possibility that more data will reveal that we don't. There's always the possibility that someone will prove (I don't know how) that God really did create everything, and that he did so in such a way as to put all of the radioactive isotopes in the right places and the right amounts to make it look like the earth is really old. He did so to put all of the fossils in just the right places as to match the inferences from DNA sequence comparisons (which, of course, God designed to have just the right degrees of similarity to make it look like there was genetic inheritance from a common ancestor). I dunno...it's possible, if that's how it really works. In the meantime, we'll stick with what we are able to do: present our understanding as the current best explanation of the data.

Many people don't like that, especially if they really want The Truth. If people have been raised to believe that the bible gives them Truth, then science, by its very nature, will seem wishy-washy. At the same time, they may assume that science is supposed to give The Truth, and they will be confused, at best, when science conflicts with what they already believe. It's not an easy situation to be in.

With any luck, it helps to recognize what science can do, what its methods are, and what its limitations are.

[Icarus]

These are good. Very clever! I especially like the Trinity of designers.

Thank you.

the basic premise is that we invoke God only when we find things that cannot be explained by science

"mutations and natural selection led to this suite of characteristics in this organism,..."

So it is not ok for an "I don't know" answer from a creationist viewpoint, but it is ok to say "evolution did it" for an I don't know answer?

...identifying the mutations and investigating the ecological and environmental conditions that applied the selection pressure.

Which is fine, if you have all the mutations. Or even most of them.

(ie, no data)

What would be acceptable data? Prime numbers sent via radio waves from space?

So far, he's only given us data that make it look like he's not home.

I thought there wasn't any data?

There seems to be an assumption that the purpose of science is to Prove Things. Mrmufin has pointed out that it can't do that. Why? Because science is a human endeavor.

Again, if science does not attempt to prove things then why the need for empirical evidence and testability and repeatability? Why does it test things at all? Why do scientists tell us that evolution is all but fact. Why does it not stop at "educated guesses"? Why the need to tout scientific Laws?? Is science simply better myth tellers than the ancients?

The trouble is, since we don't know beforehand how it works, we don't have a benchmark for determining when we've gotten to The Final Answer.

Ah, but if you look around science (ie scientists) ARE telling us they have The Final Answer to our Origins.

There's always the possibility that someone will prove (I don't know how) that God really did create everything

Isn't the "(I don't know how)" insert, a tell tale clue that you've already started to exclude something mentally? Given the rest of you post, why throw in the tinge of skepticism so early? After all according to your own words "As we accumulate more data, the explanations often change.".

...(which, of course, God designed to have just the right degrees of similarity to make it look like there was genetic inheritance from a common ancestor).

Ever think maybe our measuring devices are wrong? Ever think maybe things have not always changed at the same pace in the past? And besides we have as much DNA in common with mice as an ape. Having similar DNA is not equivelant to ancestry. 99% of the biology of any organism is in the soft anatomy which is not accessible via the fossil record. So [you've] taken that 1% of info and extrapolated out? Lining up fossils and claiming lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested but is rather an assertion based on some similarities and 1% of the data.

Saying that because we share 90% of the same DNA as other animals does not constitute a legitimate link. (besides the protien molecules are much much different. but since I am on the DNA comparisons...)

Jose is a debating god.
Jose is a debating dog.

Those two lines share all the same letters and structure, and share roughly 90% of the same order, yet have polarizing differences in outcome.

present our understanding as the current best explanation of the data.

Who is to say science has the best explanation of the data?

Many people don't like that, especially if they really want The Truth.

But you just agreed earlier in your post that science doesn't find "truth". So now you know the truth? And why would it be that only science has the truth? And why would it be that only people who don't believe this unproving science thing are the ones who aren't accepting of the truth?

If people have been raised to believe that the bible gives them Truth, then science, by its very nature, will seem wishy-washy.

And what about people who have not been "raised" in religion? Is science wishy-washy too? Cannot the same be said in reverse about those "raised" in science? And yes for the rest of that paragraph, science is supposed to give truthful answers, it is objective correct? Or is it here to make up stuff and not have to prove what it is telling us?

and they will be confused, at best, when science conflicts with what they already believe.

Again, you are assuming science has truth. Why is it the religious person is the one confused? Have you never been sent back to the drawing board by a boss or client by "that's not right, go back and look at the data again" and you say in your heart "what does he know! I am the one who poured over the numbers and came up with the answer..." only to find that the boss/client was right? If you haven't then you are a better person than any on the planet.

With any luck, it helps to recognize what science can do, what its methods are, and what its limitations are.

See, I do understand its limits and all. Which is what I am saying. Science is trying to give us some answers for certain subjects that it shouldn't.