|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I.D. proponents: Make up your mind! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Intelligent design seems to be just one of those Theories of Everything.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1621 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/objective_reality.html
Here is your link. You make some good points. And i can't disagree with them all. But i do disagree that all science is tentative. some things are objectively true. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1621 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
right. Other than the obvios. So I'm trying to point it out. Then maybe we will. Depends on what true analysis confirms.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1621 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: Sure they are. You think no scientists are creationists? Just because i believe the universe was created doesn't mean i cant be good at science. It is worse when a scientist is so closed minded they take the position of "there is no God" instead of " i don't know if there is a God." Because science has zero proof that God does not exist other than God wont obey THEM. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: Sure they are. You think no scientists are creationists? Just because i believe the universe was created doesn't mean i cant be good at science. They have to, by definition, ignore, deny, or misrepresent any evidence that contradicts their a priori religious beliefs. You can't do that and be a scientist. Every word you publish and every result you claim will have to be independently verified before it can be trusted. You might be a technician (a doctor, engineer, or mathematician, for example), but when you accept scripture and "divine" revelation as the ultimate forms of knowledge, you have turned your back on science and the scientific method and you are no longer doing science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks tesla,
http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/objective_reality.html Here is your link. Curiously, that is only one person's logical argument for the existence of objective reality -- "whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not" -- rather than a general rule of science as you asserted. As I pointed out, this is rather just an example of how the assumption of objective reality is part of the foundation of many worldviews, not just science. Note that, as a logical argument, it is only true if the premises are true. At some point we assume the truth, and that makes all conclusions based on that assumption necessarily tentative.
But i do disagree that all science is tentative. Amusingly, you can also disagree that the earth orbits the sun, but this does not change reality.
some things are objectively true. We can agree, for the sake of argument, that evidence is objectively true. We can agree, for the sake of argument, that multiple consilient experiences of many people of certain evidence/s can be indicative of a high degree of confidence that the experiences involved reality. This, however, does not mean that science - the branch of knowledge that tries to explain the evidence - is not tentative. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : this not the we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
tesla writes: Just because i believe the universe was created doesn't mean i cant be good at science. People who believe that the creator of the universe takes an active interest in them personally, to the extent that they believe/expect particular real-world outcomes in their lives to result from God's actions in response to their prayers, must either maintain a "wall of separation" between their religious faith and their objective/science-like activities, or else fail pretty badly at science. Maybe you're not one of those people who believe in "the efficacy of prayer", and you don't consider your creator to be an entity that actively intervenes in your life according to your expressed desires. If so, then you've passed one of the major obstructions that religion puts in the way of both scientific and personal progress. But the ability to do good science requires more than that. An essential skill that you seem to have trouble with is the ability to consistently use terminology in accordance with accepted or specified definitions -- that is, to maintain accuracy in your usage of terms, avoiding ambiguity and equivocation.
It is worse when a scientist is so closed minded they take the position of "there is no God" instead of " i don't know if there is a God." If you're talking about individual personalities who are commenting on their personal atheism or agnosticism, you're entitled to your own opinion that one notion is worse than the other. But if you're talking about the practice of scientific inquiry and research, it's a moot distinction. Whether or not there is a God, science is concerned with understanding natural processes and explaining them in natural terms that can be confirmed by independent observation, without reference to any religious doctrine. This is not a matter of "anti-religious bias", as the ID-proponentists claim; it's just a very simple and effective set of ground rules for answering questions and resolving disputes: let the evidence be the guide. {AbE: And when the evidence is insufficient to guide you, get more and better evidence.} When an explanation appeals to divine/supernatural agency, it ceases to be a scientific explanation, by definition, because it has failed to provide a fully observational basis for its assertions. You can't be good at science if you don't understand this. Edited by Otto Tellick, : (addition as noted in next-to-last paragraph) Edited by Otto Tellick, : (fixed incorrect position of added text) autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
It is worse when a scientist is so closed minded they take the position of "there is no God" instead of " i don't know if there is a God." Because science has zero proof that God does not exist other than God wont obey THEM. The point is that a scientist must be objective to the existence or not of deities. Their belief or lack of belief must in no way affect the scientific inquiry. One must draw a line between religion and science.If there is no separation, there is no science. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You think no scientists are creationists? How many of these creationist scientists are doing original creationist research and testing creationist hypotheses? How many of these studies are getting published in peer reviewed journals? Scientist is not a title. It describes an activity.
Just because i believe the universe was created doesn't mean i cant be good at science. But you can't do science by inserting unevidenced and untestable variables into your hypotheses.
Because science has zero proof that God does not exist other than God wont obey THEM. Negative argument fallacy. Science has zero proof that Leprechauns do not exist, and yet I don't see why scientists should make them a part of science. Can you explain why Leprechauns should not be a part of science since no one can prove that they don't exist?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1621 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: Exactly. Because a scientist believes in God does not mean he is not good at science.
quote: The point is God is a REAL possibility. Look. If you thought a neutron had the capability of turning into an electron within the proper environment, yet had no proof accept the theory based on the disappearance of a neutron and emergence of an electron, Then you would consider it a variable in the equation of the dynamic you witnessed. Even without proof. you would consider the possibility. Life IS. Existing IS. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the most accepted theory of man for this dynamic to be possible? If God IS, He probably isn't what you want him to be. But it isn't going to matter what you think in the end. You can die. But God will live. and i believe what God says IS; WILL be. like it or not. Now with that a really great possibility, Isn't it worth the time since you EXIST to try to understand and answer the question of God and reality? If you choose to accept God and your wrong in the end. fine your dead. If you decide there is no God and there is; your screwed. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1621 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: Neither does it mean that it isn't definite. as i always say, i AM. definitely. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1621 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: Yeah I'd like to think that..So why are so many proclaiming that God is as much a variable as a leprechaun? They choose the belief he's an impossibility. What kind of scientist would ignore such a huge possibility with massive repercussions if they are wrong? based on what evidence for no God? Lack of proof he is? We exist don't we? isn't "how can we exist" a question that God would be the best explanation for? what more proof do they need to even entertain the idea? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1621 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
I do believe in prayer.
quote: And scientist are ignorant because they fail to understand that supernatural means it is beyond your current ability to understand, but that all things are natural once understood. There are plenty of "supernatural things to boggle the mind. Edgar Cayce or like psychics and such are real anomalies without much explanation. But its real. How can a scientist be good at explaining the world around them if they ignore some of the greatest mysteries that we'd like explained? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1621 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Again you infer religion anytime you see "God" in an argument. God can be discussed without inserting religion.
That's how the creation argument should be discussed within science. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Tesla's Quote mine writes: The point is that a scientist must be objective to the existence or not of deities my entire statement writes: The point is that a scientist must be objective to the existence or not of deities. Their belief or lack of belief must in no way affect the scientific inquiry. One must draw a line between religion and science.If there is no separation, there is no science. Tesla's response writes: Yeah I'd like to think that..So why are so many proclaiming that God is as much a variable as a leprechaun? They choose the belief he's an impossibility. What kind of scientist would ignore such a huge possibility with massive repercussions if they are wrong? based on what evidence for no God? Lack of proof he is? We exist don't we? isn't "how can we exist" a question that God would be the best explanation for? what more proof do they need to even entertain the idea? Tesla, you miss the point I was trying to convey. Science & Religion must be separated from inquiry so as not to taint the results. It also must be that whether gods exist or not, cannot affect the way the results are perceived. That is the objectivity I was stating. A person's religious views have to be separated from the inquiry. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024