|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is everything natural testable?" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intelligently designed Inactive Member |
here I am.
now what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Welcome to EvC. Here's some suggestions for getting started.
Read over the guidelines:http:///WebPages/ForumRules.html Have a look at:
Suggestions for the Evolutionists Suggestions for Creationists You may propose a new topic in the Propose New Topics thread if you like but I would suggest reading over some of the currently acitve topics first. If you are very knowledgable in an area you can jump into an argument. However, unless you really know what you are talking about I suggest that you ask more questions than you make assertions. The reasons for this are that you will look less arrogant that way, that you won't look foolish if you are shown to be wrong and that it is easier since you aren't going to be asked to support your assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Welcome ID,
There are quite a few topics concerning your username (ie, intelligently designed). As AdminNosy mentioned, you might want to take the time to look through a few threads before starting your own topic. We gladly welcome all viewpoints here, but you had better be able to back them up with something other than personal beliefs. Quite a few of us really enjoy this debate forum, and I hope that you will enjoy it as well. Happy posting!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intelligently designed Inactive Member |
hi!
thanks for the warm welcome! while I await paisano, maybe you can clarify something for me. I am intrigued by one of the statements in your previous post, the one where you said, "We gladly welcome all viewpoints here, but you had better be able to back them up with something other than personal beliefs." so, are you saying that any assertions that I make here must be confirmed by physical evidence to be considered valid?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: Evcforum.net is primarily (but not exclusively) one of science. If you are going to argue a scientific point, then yes, physical evidence is most important. Moose (the non-admin mode of Adminnemooseus) This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 06-09-2004 02:30 PM Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: For theories pertaining to the natural world, yes. If you want to make a scientific argument you must use objective evidence. That is, observations that can be repeated by everyone regardless of world view. Just for an example, most of us can agree on when the Empire State building was made and how tall it is. Not everyone can agree if it is a beautiful building or not. Just going by your username, but the Intelligent Design movement hasn't quite figured this out yet (objective vs subjective evidence in science). They use the subjective statement "It looks designed." Or in Behe's case "I don't see how that could have evolved step by step." These are subjective statement lacking any and all objective evidence. These are personal beliefs. However, philisophical positions are open to personal interpretation. "What is the meaning of life?" does not need objective evidence for support, personal beliefs will do just fine. But if you want to say something about the physical world, a world accessible to all of us through our 5 senses, then you must be objective. Hope this clears things up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intelligently designed Inactive Member |
thanks.
I agree with most of that. but, do you agree that there are things that exist in this natural world (sic) that cannot be confirmed by physcial, tangible evidence (i.e. a petri dish)? if so, wouldn't that render your position (that for something to exist it must first be physically validated) irrational?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
If something exists that can't be confirmed by physical means, then its existence has no effect on us, and while it may be there, trying to discuss it is some what of a moot point.
"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: First of all, let me define "natural world". The natural world is the realm that can be sensed by our 5 senses, or through instrumentation that relates back to our 5 senses. It could also be defined as the physical world. What I am trying to say is that if something affects the natural world, then that something can be detected. Whether or not it is able to be detected now is not important. What is important is that theories based on natural mechanisms can be tested by referrence to a physical phenomena that can be measured. Theories based on supernatural mechanisms are inherently untestable because there is no way to verify their existence. Supernatural mechanisms are steeped in faith and personal belief because they must be believed in before they can be evidenced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intelligently designed Inactive Member |
thanks for the clarification.
but, you still didn't answer my question. let me ask you again, in more concise language: do you agree that there are things that exist in this physical world that cannot be quantified (i.e. tested in a lab, swished around in a test tube, examined under a microscope, etc.)? if you DO agree, then isn't your assertion (that everything that exists in this physical world can be physically tested) not only an irrational position to hold, but an illogical one also? This message has been edited by intelligently designed, 06-10-2004 08:40 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
With everyone's permission I would like to move this thread to "Is it Science" and change the title to something like:
"The Line between Natural and Not" or "Is everything natural testable?" Please advise suggesting preferred title. This thread no longer belongs in welcome visitors. If we don't move it, we close it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: If you switch "quantified" with "observed", then I would say no. ("Quantified" means being able to give something a numbered value, while "observed" just means that it is detected physically). If it is part of the physical world, then it is detectable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What would be an example of something which exists but that which cannot be tested or observed?
I believe in GOD which cannot be tested or observed. But that is a personal belief and not a fact. Is that the kind of thing you are thinking about? If so, then I would say belief is fine but untestable. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intelligently designed Inactive Member |
so, let me see if I understand you clearly now:
you are holding the position that everything that exists in this physical world can be observed, or otherwise physically tested? is that basically what you're saying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Welcome, Visitors! forum.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024