Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Whether to leave this forum or not
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


(1)
Message 64 of 307 (655483)
03-10-2012 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Granny Magda
03-10-2012 4:25 PM


granny magda writes:
But that's the whole point; science does not require faith. In point of fact, the scientific method exists for the very purpose of eliminating the need to take matters on faith
I would not ask you to take anything on faith. Taking an evolutionary example, I would not ask you to believe that we share common ancestry with apes merely on faith. I don't need to. There exists evidence that can empirically demonstrate that common ancestry to an extremely high degree of confidence.
It appears to me that metaphysical naturalists do require faith. The faith that everything is and comes from natural explanations and that anyone who believes otherwise is not really competent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Granny Magda, posted 03-10-2012 4:25 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2012 7:33 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 67 by jar, posted 03-10-2012 7:35 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 70 by Jon, posted 03-10-2012 11:51 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 03-11-2012 6:19 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 03-11-2012 7:15 AM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 65 of 307 (655487)
03-10-2012 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Granny Magda
03-10-2012 4:25 PM


Granny Magda writes:
The problem with this, from a science point of view is that scientists do have evidence for their beliefs. If you don't have counter-evidence, then you are effectively trumped. This is a debate format board. that means that the person who can provide evidence for their position is always going to win out over the person who does not. The same applies in the realm of real science; evidence is king. No evidence, no dice.
Do Scientists have evidence that everthing has arisen by natual means?
That the origin of life came about by natural means?
That the Universe came about by natural means?
That all benefical mutations are random?
That the CRISPR systems are not dedicated nonrandom beneficial change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Granny Magda, posted 03-10-2012 4:25 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Admin, posted 03-10-2012 9:08 PM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 76 of 307 (655530)
03-11-2012 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Admin
03-10-2012 9:08 PM


Percy writes:
topic or propose one yourself.
My concerns that you will drive threads off-topic are undiminished. The only reason I'm not suspending you for a week is because this is a Coffee House thread. But the next off-topic post from you I see, no matter in what forum, will gain you a 1 week suspension.
I apologize Percy. I thought my post was on topic, since it was in coffeehouse, and I was anwering Granny Magda who asserted scientitsts have evidence for issues. I was merely pointing out areas where the evidence is lacking, in my opinion, yet posters are denegrinated for posting such things.
As per the complaint of the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Admin, posted 03-10-2012 9:08 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 77 of 307 (655534)
03-11-2012 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by RAZD
03-10-2012 7:33 PM


Re: faith vs assumptions and knowledge by natural means
RAZD writes:
Assumptions aren't faith, they are tentative positions that can be demonstrated to be false, while faith is not based on an assumption that god/s exist.
My point is that the metaphysical naturalists do not allow for anything but natural. Therefore a faith in nature.
The Methodological naturalists doe allow for faith while learning what nature is and studying and learning from nature.
RAZD writes:
Science is only able to test natural means (unless you have a source for employing supernatural means), so (until there is evidence otherwise) it is rational to proceed with explaining objective evidence with natural means up until those means fail
I agree science is only able to test natural means, but it does not have to rule out supernatural means when it cannot explain such issues as I posted, such as the origin of life etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2012 7:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 03-11-2012 12:49 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2012 1:29 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 79 of 307 (655536)
03-11-2012 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Granny Magda
03-11-2012 6:19 AM


Granny Magda writes:
But we're not talking about metaphysical naturalists you strange person. We are talking about scientists. Scientists are not required to be metaphysical naturalists. Most are not metaphysical naturalists, as ought to be perfectly obvious given that most of them are religious. That's kind of a big clue. Science requires methodological naturalism, which is a rather different thing. Your objection is completely irrelevant and only serves to underline your lack of understanding of the scientific method.
My point is that metaphysical naturalists, such as Dawkins, do rule out the possibility of supernatural, and therefore must have faith in the natural.
Granny Magda writes:
Also, why on Earth did you respond twice to the same message? It's unnecessary and it prematurely bumps up the message count for the thread. If you think of something else to say, just edit the original message.
You are correct. Sorry about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 03-11-2012 6:19 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2012 2:09 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 131 by Granny Magda, posted 03-11-2012 7:26 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 81 of 307 (655538)
03-11-2012 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by PaulK
03-11-2012 7:15 AM


Paulk writes:
Thirdly, I fail to see how you can claim that anyone who accepts naturalism must presume incompetence in the case of anyone who concludes otherwise. I suppose that this is just a foolish and dishonest attempt to mirror the fact that Young Earth Creationists must presume incompetence on the part of any scientists who conclude that the Earth or the Universe are very old. Which means virtualy every scientist active in the relevant fields.
I didn't say anything about naturalism, but was talking about "Metaphysical naturalism" which by definition rules out all but natural causes for such issues as the origin of life and the origin of the universe. People like Dawkilns who ridicules anyone believing in a supernatural being. Allthough he does it for the money, there is still no excuse for such arrogrance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 03-11-2012 7:15 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 03-11-2012 1:41 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


(1)
Message 129 of 307 (655603)
03-11-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Modulous
03-11-2012 2:09 PM


Modulous writes:
Those are not the words of someone who rules out the possibility of the supernatural.
Below is a excerpt from Wilkipedia in re Dawkins.
In Re Richard Dawkins:
In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."[4]
Shadow71 writes:
As usual he is playing to his public and book buying followers, hoping for more converts.
He is a phony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2012 2:09 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2012 7:36 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 134 by DrJones*, posted 03-11-2012 9:28 PM shadow71 has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 137 of 307 (655633)
03-12-2012 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Modulous
03-11-2012 7:36 PM


Modulous writes:
Even if that was the case, what has this to do with my refutation of your claim?
Ok. You have convinced me. Dawkins is not an atheist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2012 7:36 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Panda, posted 03-12-2012 8:56 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 141 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2012 9:41 AM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 139 of 307 (655635)
03-12-2012 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by DrJones*
03-11-2012 9:28 PM


Dawkins is not an atheist. See post 138.
Anthony Flew would be thrilled.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by DrJones*, posted 03-11-2012 9:28 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Drosophilla, posted 03-12-2012 9:31 AM shadow71 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024