Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 12:40 PM
40 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,175 Year: 5,212/19,786 Month: 1,334/873 Week: 230/460 Day: 46/29 Hour: 18/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 297 (417454)
08-21-2007 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Doddy
08-20-2007 7:31 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Doddy

Likewise, I could say: 'Faith is not demonstrated to be valid - it is faithfully believed to be valid.

This is not at all the same. In this instance not demonstrated and believed are both taken on faith, whereas in my statement to Rob

Testing is not supposed to be valid,it is demonstrated to be valid and that is the difference.

Rob stated that testing is supposed{assumed} to be valid whereas in science the test is done on the phenomena and demonstrated{ shown} to be valid{ or invalid as the case may be}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Doddy, posted 08-20-2007 7:31 PM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Doddy, posted 08-21-2007 8:06 AM sidelined has responded

Doddy
Member (Idle past 4019 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 122 of 297 (417456)
08-21-2007 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by sidelined
08-21-2007 7:20 AM


Chain of reasoning
Ok, I will write this out nice and simple.

1. Testing is valid.
2. Tests demonstrate testing to be valid.
3. Therefore, testing is valid.

You're assuming the very thing you're supposed to be proving. It's akin to the question begging that Bible-thumpers do:

1. The Bible is true.
2. The Bible states that the Bible is true.
3. Therefore, the Bible is true.

Edited by Doddy, : sdelling

Edited by Doddy, : clarify first example

Edited by Doddy, : I bad at grammar

Edited by Doddy, : informative subtitles


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by sidelined, posted 08-21-2007 7:20 AM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by sidelined, posted 08-23-2007 7:42 PM Doddy has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3958 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 123 of 297 (417481)
08-21-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by mark24
08-21-2007 3:55 AM


mark24:
No evidence & wrong philosophy = incoherence in creationisms case.

We're all using the same evidence mark. It is being interpreted differently.

mark24:

Please define coherence. Specifically internal & external coherence.

Rob:

Lot's of evidence + wrong philosophy = incoherence.

You can answer that for yourself...

In the sciences, how is one theory chosen over another?

I'll simply defer to my previous answer now that you have the benefit of understanding the 'full definitio of emperical:

Rob:

The natural world is assumed to be coherent, but it is external to our biases. Our philosophical constructs are assumed to be neither unless... when we add the external world, to our perceptions of reality, and they agree... then we have the emperical.

Anything less is subjective. We are looking for 'objective' validation and evidence. Science is supposed to be objective right?

As far as we know, our logical inferences are valid when the two, internal coherence (our philosophical construct) + external coherence (the actual construct) + their 'total coherence' and agreement = emperical fact.

So my question to you is relevant, and relates to how we decide which theories are best, when we only have partial coherence between our construct, and the actual construct.

In the sciences, how is one theory chosen over another?

It's not intuitively difficult to follow mark. I have laid it out step by step. You either cannot follow the mathematical formula (which would be idiocy), or you refuse to accept where logic is leading you. I don't think it is the former.

[Evolution is] universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

Life is incredible...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by mark24, posted 08-21-2007 3:55 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 08-21-2007 10:54 AM Rob has responded
 Message 125 by mark24, posted 08-21-2007 11:41 AM Rob has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 124 of 297 (417498)
08-21-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Rob
08-21-2007 10:14 AM


You just misrepresnting things again Rob.
You provided a quote:

[Evolution is] universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

and then tacked on

Rob writes:

Life is incredible...

which is not just irrelevant to the topic but also a misrepresentation of the quote you were using. You seem to do this alot, stick something out there then draw some unwarranted conclusion out of your ass.

The quote is saying nothing about life being incredible, it says that Special Creation is incredible, using the definition of incredible to be unsupportable, incorrect, false, wrong.

Is there some reason you continue to try to palm the pea, con the readers, misdirect attention?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Rob, posted 08-21-2007 10:14 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Rob, posted 08-23-2007 10:17 AM jar has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 125 of 297 (417505)
08-21-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Rob
08-21-2007 10:14 AM


Rob,

For clarification, internal coherence/construct is the theory, external coherence is the reality we try to make the internal coherence match to?

It is being interpreted differently.

No, creationists ignore it when it doesn't suit them.

Mark

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Rob, posted 08-21-2007 10:14 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Rob, posted 08-21-2007 9:03 PM mark24 has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 587 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 126 of 297 (417518)
08-21-2007 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Rob
08-21-2007 2:12 AM


Undesigned Reality
Rob writes:

I have a friend. His name is reality. And He loves His Son logic. And logic never lies...

Reality, in Rob's system is his undesigned, uncreated God. Logically, reality in his belief system is undesigned. Real things are, of course, all born of undesigned reality, and a part of that reality. There's no logical reason that we should see design in any aspect of nature, as it is all a part and a product of undesigned reality. And sure enough, we don't see design in nature.

Welcome to the evolutionist camp in this debate, Rob. It's rare to see people change sides.;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Rob, posted 08-21-2007 2:12 AM Rob has not yet responded

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 127 of 297 (417519)
08-21-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Rob
08-21-2007 2:12 AM


Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
I have a friend. His name is reality. And He loves His Son logic. And logic never lies...

:laugh:. Nice one. :) I'll have to start calling you; God's lawyer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Rob, posted 08-21-2007 2:12 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Rob, posted 08-21-2007 9:08 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3958 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 128 of 297 (417560)
08-21-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by mark24
08-21-2007 11:41 AM


mark24:
For clarification, internal coherence/construct is the theory, external coherence is the reality we try to make the internal coherence match to?

That would be sound science yes!

But that is not what you are doing within the 'emperical' definition you are using. It seems to you that you do... but only because very sophisticated philosophers have pulled the wool over your eyes.

The ultimate test is whether our internal bias coheres with the external. Our internal bias will always allign with the evidence by default.

We have to test it...

If they do not cohere, then what do we have?

mrk24:

...creationists ignore it when it doesn't suit them.

See? You understand...

That is the 'philosophical coherence' test that IDer's like myself are talking about. Not so much the internal coherence of the theory, but the philosophical coherence of the philosophy (applied logic), to philosophy (self existent logic) of the entity.

But as it turns out, the shoe is on the other foot. It's not the creationists who ignore what the evidence says. It's the evolutionists who ignore whether or not their philosophical bias matches the philosophy of the evidence.

For example, an evolutionist sees a pattern in the fossil record, the enormous diversity of life from simple to complex, but that is not the pattern, that is only the evidence. How do we account for their unity, in spite of their diversity?

The answers to those questions are the constructs that must be made to cohere.

The IDer's have a more coherent philosophy in terms of a matching pattern.

You've been led to believe that philosophical coherence is a one sided equation. It's not! We interact with evidence by way of logic. We seek consistency, and coherence, by testing.

Their is a 'combined philosophy' (or system) of the logical order of the evidence, paired with the logical order of the philosophical assumption.

Let me explain further, because at this point, it still probably sound to you like I am saying the very same thing. I'm not!

You've been seeing the evidence through a one-sided glass. You've been seeing the evidence through the prism of your own philosophy. Well, even I can do that. But that's not science.

And the establishment has been calling it science since about the 16th and 17th centuries.

Science is by definition philosophical. It is an assumption. It is a dependant and desperate reliance on the credibility of consistency and logic. I believe it is valid so do not misunderstand. I say desperate, only because we cannot directly interact with any entity.

We must rely upon logic.

Our senses are not logical. There is nothing logical about a tree as far as the eyes are concerned. They do not tell us anything about logic. They are tools with which the mind can observe. All of the logical faculties are in the mind. Same with the ears, nose mouth and ears. They are only receptors.

If that was not the case, there would be no need for tests (for logical coherence). You would just look at a thing and say, 'I see'.

And science often does when it confuses 'theory', with fact.

We say, 'What is that'? And then we test and examine. We philosophize (theorize) about possible explainations.

When our philosophy matches the philosophy of the entity, we then have 'total philosophical coherence'.

And this is where the problem lies...

No doubt your first reaction to putting it in this way (which I have been waiting a long time to do) is that physicality isn't philosophy.

Well, I ask you, 'Then what is it?'

Is law philosophical or physical? You can't have the latter without the former. The universe is made of law. Without it, the whole thing would come apart. The only thing that coheres two entities is law. And none of them are physical. We see their effects on the physical, but we cannot see them. We can measure them, and thereby see their logical and mathematical structure relative to other entities and laws. But the are not material.

One thing they are, is logical. The law of non-contradiction appears to be (emperically) a universal language of being itself.

It depends upon some things not changing. Like the physical laws.

And at the quantum level, matter itself disintigrates into nothing but energy and laws that are so incredible, that we cannot be sure of much of anything other than relying upon logic.

But what is energy?

“ There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law — it is exact so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. ”
(—The Feynman Lectures on Physics)

So we fall back on our desperate dependance upon scientific (logical)assumptions taht originate in a worldview that there actually is order to be observed. That it is ultimately orderly and logical. If we didn't, we couldn't know anything as fact.

Fortunately some things do not change. If they did, we would without a reference point, be entirely lost and none of our reasoning would ammount to anything but a puff of air.

So what is it that holds the physical universe together?

Logic / logos / the Word.

God spoke it into existence with the language of logic.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by mark24, posted 08-21-2007 11:41 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by mark24, posted 08-23-2007 3:20 PM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3958 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 129 of 297 (417561)
08-21-2007 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by mike the wiz
08-21-2007 2:12 PM


Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
mike the wiz:
Nice one.

I didn't invent it. I just changed the terms into modern secular usage. Not that they care.

But Percy did ask me in another thread do it that way. The Biblical language is so passe' you know?

You know to whom the credit belongs my British brother. But thanks...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2007 2:12 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3958 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 130 of 297 (417579)
08-23-2007 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
08-21-2007 10:54 AM


Re: You just misrepresnting things again Rob.
jar:
The quote is saying nothing about life being incredible, it says that Special Creation is incredible, using the definition of incredible to be unsupportable, incorrect, false, wrong.

As is evolution...

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything.
(Richard Lewontin “Testing the Theory of Natural Selection” Nature March 24, 1972 p.181)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 08-21-2007 10:54 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 08-23-2007 10:44 AM Rob has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 131 of 297 (417581)
08-23-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rob
08-23-2007 10:17 AM


Yet more misrepresentation.
I'm not sure where you get your information, likely from Biblical Creationist sites, but that is simply yet another misrepresentation of the truth and another attempt to con the audience by misdirecting their attention while you palm the pea.

It is the classic tactic of Biblical Christians to take things out of context and use them to misrepresent truth.

Richard Lewontin fully supports the TOE and you can find one of his responses to the many attempts by the Biblical Christians to misrepresent his position here.

But there is an even bigger issue.

The topic is "God caused or uncaused?"

Evolution is totally irrelevant to that question.

In Message 124 I pointed out where you were misrepresenting the meaning of one of your own quotes.

Here you respond not to the issue of your misrepresentation but instead compound the offense by bringing in yet another unrelated and irrelevant example by once again misrepresenting someone's position.

Even if the Theory of Evolution or the FACT that evolution happened were to be proven false, it would add no support or legitimacy to either Biblical Creationism or the existence or non-existence of some God.

It would also provide no information on the topic of this thread.

You can of course, continue to use misrepresentation, diversion and misdirection in your posts in the hope that the audience will not see you palm the pea. However, do not be surprised when some sharp eyed youngster notices and points out the attempted con.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rob, posted 08-23-2007 10:17 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Rob, posted 08-23-2007 9:35 PM jar has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 132 of 297 (417639)
08-23-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Rob
08-21-2007 9:03 PM


Rob,

Please answer the questions.

1/ For clarification, internal coherence/construct is the theory, external coherence is the reality we try to make the internal coherence match to?

If not, please state exactly why not, I'm not interested in statements like "very sophisticated philosophers have pulled the wool over your eyes".

2/ Please define coherence. Specifically internal & external coherence.

I don't want to "answer that for myself", I want you to define your terms.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Rob, posted 08-21-2007 9:03 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Rob, posted 08-25-2007 10:54 AM mark24 has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 297 (417674)
08-23-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Doddy
08-21-2007 8:06 AM


Re: Chain of reasoning
Doddy

Ok, I will write this out nice and simple.

1. Testing is valid.
2. Tests demonstrate testing to be valid.
3. Therefore, testing is valid.

Ah.I see where you have erred.
You thought I was speaking strictly of testing itself. However, if you recall from my post # 105 I said.

The phenomena are the doctrine since they are what we use to test our models of the world. Philosophers suppose while scientists test and that is an enormous distinction.

The bold print shows that I was referring all along to phenomena which I argued philosophers "supposed" about while scientist "tested" them.
This is a critical difference because in testing the phenomena we learn to understand what can be said about them rather that saying something about them and not checking upon the validity of the statement made.

Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Doddy, posted 08-21-2007 8:06 AM Doddy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Rob, posted 08-23-2007 9:10 PM sidelined has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3958 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 134 of 297 (417699)
08-23-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by sidelined
08-23-2007 7:42 PM


Re: Chain of reasoning
Sidelined:
This is a critical difference because in testing the phenomena we learn to understand what can be said about them rather that saying something about them and not checking upon the validity of the statement made.

Can you provide an example of an evolutionary fact, that falls into this catagory of testable?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by sidelined, posted 08-23-2007 7:42 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Omnivorous, posted 08-23-2007 9:34 PM Rob has responded
 Message 169 by sidelined, posted 08-25-2007 12:08 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1077 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 135 of 297 (417705)
08-23-2007 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Rob
08-23-2007 9:10 PM


Re: Chain of reasoning
Rob writes:

Can you provide an example of an evolutionary fact, that falls into this catagory of testable?

How about the inheritance of characteristics?

Or the occurrence of mutations?

Abe: Oh, and fewer faster rabbits get caught.

Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.


Real things always push back.
-William James

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Rob, posted 08-23-2007 9:10 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Rob, posted 08-23-2007 9:50 PM Omnivorous has responded
 Message 147 by Rob, posted 08-23-2007 10:11 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019