The Cadet
SO COOL
- Apr 29, 2010
- 6,290
- 4,743
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I agree and havnt been proposing any answers. My main point has been that we dont really know and that some of the ideas we see from scientists are out there as much as what some may claim about God or in metaphysics. Part of the issue is that we are now having to include the effects of the quantum world and most of the ideas are theoretical ones trying to unite quantum physics with relativity. But I have only said that why cant we include a God or ID as a hypothesis because it can answer some of the issues just as good as anything.
Simple question. What would hypothetically prove the non-existence of God? What would show that the world is not designed? You offered some answers to that second one, but they fell flat, as it would be trivial to intelligently design a world without such qualities.
If there is no way the hypothesis could in theory be falsified, then there is functionally no difference between a universe where the hypothesis is true and one where the hypothesis is false. It is a useless hypothesis. Fundamentally, every supernatural explanation falls prey to these problems. There's no way to tell whether it's true or false; there's no way to distinguish a natural cause from a supernatural cause (did the aspirin cure my headache, or was it just a coincidence and the headache fairy actually did it?); there's no way to distinguish which supernatural cause is responsible... These problems are yet to be resolved, and until they can be resolved, there's simply no way to fit the supernatural into scientific inquiry, or rational inquiry in general.
It may not be verified completely and is based on indirect evidence but to an extent neither is some of the ideas that science has been coming up with lately.
And yet, if I were to ask for the falsification criteria for those theories, they could explain quite clearly what those are why they would falsify the theory. Otherwise, they wouldn't be real scientific theories and could safely be discarded.
I havnt tried to say that anyway. I am suggesting that God and/or ID or design in nature can be another idea that has some merit in describing what we see. As far as proving this well that can be a work in progress. Some predictions have been made which stand up and there are many papers out there to support design in nature beyond chance. But because its not completely verified doesn't mean it should be thrown out.
See, here's the problem. Sure, ID has made some predictions that have panned out. However, if the hypothesis is unfalsifiable, it is impossible to make a prediction that doesn't. Which makes it fairly trivial to make successful predictions based on it.
Like I said there are some papers out there and other supports that can show that there is design in life and existence.
Right, and these papers have found exactly no purchase within the scientific community. They are typically treated not as real scientific treatises, but rather as jokes, to the point where the discovery institute had to start its own journals, because they couldn't get into real peer-reviewed journals any more. The evidence is unimpressive and amounts, really, to just so much sophistry. It's ironic that you hold these papers up, and then later complain about bad science in peer review.
This idea that science is just after the truth is a bit out of date now. There are a lot of other things influencing it like funding and personal recognition ect.
"It's a conspiracy!"
Unfortunately, this doesn't help your case.
Upvote
0