Apperent vs Imagined reality

[Delphiki]

It seems that some people are having a hard time with understanding what science is, and at the same time, claiming the things that they know are science.

I just wanted to clear this up:

AVET, and dad have all kinds of work-arounds for the apparent evidence in the universe. Even though we can date our own planet by seeing what amount of radioactive decay has happened in the stuff it's made of, and even though we can see an object in the night sky that is millions of light years away, the response these kinds of users usually come up with is typically along the lines of "That's only the way God made it appear."

Well, the scientific method relies on evidence. If this is merely how God made the universe appear, then that's what it studies. Saying that the bible is a source of scientific evidence is a fallacy. The only evidence that the bible actually provides, in the scientific sense, is that some folks once wrote a book long ago, which has been translated and revised a hilarious number of times -- but never to actually adjust to anything empirical.

The bible is only evidence that someone or a number of someones once wrote a bible.

The goal in science is to arrive at conclusions, starting with some kind of observation. These conclusions must be testable in order to maintain a theory. Something has to be repeatable, demonstrable, and reliable.
When soil samples are dated, for example, they always coincide with a particular layer of strata. When we used scientific techniques to measure the distance and trajectory of the Shoemaker-Levy comet, we knew it would collide with Jupiter in 1994, and on what days. The point is, science (especially in conjunction with mathematics) helps with our understanding and calculations regarding things in our universe as we know it based on evidence.

Creationists, and the like, start with conclusions. These conclusions come from the bible. Creationists might say the earth is 6000 years old, but they didn't get this from working out in the field, looking at geological formations, fossils, or really anything outside of the bible. It says it in the bible, so that's the answer. This means that anything we see, even if God made it that way, that's in direct contradiction to what the bible says, is merely an illusion created by God. There is no way to test and confirm the claims of the bible regarding the nature of our universe -- only that we can't prove that everything isn't an elaborate illusion. This is not science at all. It is religion.

Religion is not reliable or practical. You can pray all day and night for your sick grandmother, but it will, in no way determine whether she pulls through or kicks the bucket. If she dies, you say "It was her time", if she lives, you praise Jesus.

Well, nobody can prove that I didn't create the universe this morning. I set the planet in motion, light already in transit, and even implanted all the memories everyone has of everything beyond this morning into everyone's head. I created all books everyone knows, including the bible and quran. Because you can't prove this, does it make it true? Does it make my claim scientific?

In short -- if you insist there is a God, and he created the entire universe with the illusion that it is billions of years older than it actually is, this is NOT what science studies. It studies the alleged "illusion". However, keep in mind that this would mean God made the universe appear (with illusion) far more grand and far older, more beautiful and more intricate than it actually is. This would mean that the universe, in actuality, is a tiny place where we all live in bondage to some supernatural being bent on sending us all to our choice of eternal burning or eternal bondage. It means our universe is just a small arena where everything is centered around the earth, and that the only life that exists is that which we've ever seen. Nothing more.

This supposed illusion is reliable, testable, and infinitely beautiful.

I think like the illusion better, so I'll stick to science.

My only question then, is: Why would God make the universe with the illusion of appearing far greater than himself?

 

[Nabobalis]

 

[Upisoft]

My only question then, is: Why would God make the universe with the illusion of appearing far greater than himself?

It must be some kind of test to select people who are able to deny reality.

 

[lucaspa]

I just wanted to clear this up:

AVET, and dad have all kinds of work-arounds for the apparent evidence in the universe. Even though we can date our own planet by seeing what amount of radioactive decay has happened in the stuff it's made of, and even though we can see an object in the night sky that is millions of light years away, the response these kinds of users usually come up with is typically along the lines of "That's only the way God made it appear."

This is called making "ad-hoc hypotheses". It is done in science all the time. However, to be valid, an ad hoc hypothesis has to be able to be tested independently of the theory it is trying to save. AV and dad are trying to save the theory that the universe is young. So they have invented the ad hoc hypothesis that "God made it appear young." That is untestable outside the theory that the universe is young.

Well, the scientific method relies on evidence.

Sorry, but science cannot disprove the statement "God created the universe in the recent past but made it appear to be young."

The falsification for this hypothesis lies in Christianity, not science. This is one area where creationism shows itself to be even worse theology than it is science.

For God to make the universe appear young when it is not is to make God tell a lie. Christianity cannot tolerate this. God cannot lie, because we Christians rely on God to tell us the truth of things we cannot corroborate otherwise: salvation, forgiveness of sins, life after death, etc. If God lies about the age of the universe (when God does not have to), then God can easily lie about these far more important matters.

So, as Christians, we reject the Oomphalos hypothesis (which is what it was called back in 1857 when first proposes).

Saying that the bible is a source of scientific evidence is a fallacy.

True. And Christians have been saying that since almost when Christianity began. See the first quote in my signature for only one example. The oldest example I have goes back to St. Augustine in the 400s.

The only evidence that the bible actually provides, in the scientific sense, is that some folks once wrote a book long ago, which has been translated and revised a hilarious number of times -- but never to actually adjust to anything empirical.

This is not exactly true. First, the Bible is a collection of books. The books that belong in the collection as scripture was decided over a period of about 500 years. Second, the individual books have never been "revised". They have been translated, but not revised.

The bible is only evidence that someone or a number of someones once wrote a bible.

The books in the Bible provide evidence of the existence of Yahweh. This is not "in the scientific sense" because the evidence presented is not intersubjective. (If you don't know what intersubjective is, ask.)

The goal in science is to arrive at conclusions, starting with some kind of observation.

Actually, you usually start off with the theory and then do the observations. The observations are undertaken specifically to test the theory.

These conclusions must be testable in order to maintain a theory.

Sorry, but no. Many scientific theories are not testable. Examples are No Boundary by Hawking and multiverse in its many forms. So this idea of what it takes to be a scientific theory doesn't work.

Also, some theories that we will never include in science are testable by repeatable and reliable observations. An example is the theory "onside kicks are not usually fumbled." Testable and has repeatedly been tested, but no one is ever going to include football among the sciences.

You might also consider that many creationist theories are testable by "repeatable, demonstrable, and reliable" observations. World-wide Flood, for instance. "Irreducibly Complex structures cannot be formed by natural selection" for another. (In those cases the observations have falsified the theories.)

Something has to be repeatable, demonstrable, and reliable.

Here you get into "intersubjective". Science restricts itself to observations that are the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances.

But, most observations in our lives are not like that. Yet even if the observations are not the same for everyone, they are still accurate.

Creationists, and the like, start with conclusions. These conclusions come from the bible.

You are speaking of modern-day creationists. You need to look back in history. Creationism as a theory was inspired by the Bible. That'sw OK. We don't care what inspires scientific theories. Punctuated equilibrium, according to Gould, was inspired by Marxism. What matters is the testing after the theory is proposed.

In the case of creationism, the testing by observation falsified creationism. In the case of a young universe, this falsification happend by 1820. What we have today are people who refuse to accept the falsification. As you say, "working out in the field" and looking at geology, falsified a young earth. But modern-day creationists cling to the theory despite that. Why? Because they have an emotional need for this part of scripture to be literally correct. This is what makes it look like creationists are like you say, but the reality is a bit different.

It says it in the bible, so that's the answer. This means that anything we see, even if God made it that way, that's in direct contradiction to what the bible says, is merely an illusion created by God.

To be fair, we are dealing with an interpretation of parts of the Bible.

Religion is not reliable or practical. You can pray all day and night for your sick grandmother, but it will, in no way determine whether she pulls through or kicks the bucket.

That's not true. First, belonging to a religion has health benefits. This may be due to a social support group and not the direct effect of deity, but it has been shown by several scientific studies to be real. Second, all scientific studies on intercessory prayer shows that it does have a detectable effect. I can give you a list of over 10 papers in the peer-reviewed literature that show this. Third, the answer to many prayers is "no". Fourth, yes, God created a complete universe where our lives have meaning. So yes material medicine will have an effect and yes, a complete universe means diseases and those diseases do cause death. And yes, a complete universe means that humans have a finite lifespan.

Well, nobody can prove that I didn't create the universe this morning. I set the planet in motion, light already in transit, and even implanted all the memories everyone has of everything beyond this morning into everyone's head.

Actually, we can prove that you didn't. However, we can't prove that a deity did not. As I said above, the refutation of that argument does not lie in science, but in Christianity.

 

[lucaspa]

It must be some kind of test to select people who are able to deny reality.

If you are into the theology of creationists, you would say it is a plot by Satan to lead people away from God.

 

[Delphiki]

FINALLY, a level headed Christian on the science board.

This is called making "ad-hoc hypotheses". It is done in science all the time. However, to be valid, an ad hoc hypothesis has to be able to be tested independently of the theory it is trying to save. AV and dad are trying to save the theory that the universe is young. So they have invented the ad hoc hypothesis that "God made it appear young." That is untestable outside the theory that the universe is young.

As I see it, there is no "theory" that the universe is young, because a theory is greatly an explanation of facts -- facts which have been gathered through observations and testing. It's more an idea or hypothesis than an actual theory. Maybe a theory in the casual sense of the word at best.

Sorry, but science cannot disprove the statement "God created the universe in the recent past but made it appear to be young."

I know this, and I agree. In fact, there is never any such thing as evidence for a negative. Only lack of evidence for a positive claim. (I'm actually mulling over this with dad in another thread). The positive claim holds the burden of proof. The evidence shows that the universe is old. If there is a claim contradictory to this, then such a claim would require evidence as well -- not a denial of evidence of the default.

The falsification for this hypothesis lies in Christianity, not science. This is one area where creationism shows itself to be even worse theology than it is science.

I also agree with this as well. This is because creationism is simply not science. It should remain only debated among Christians as it is a Christian matter. Putting it in a secular environment, especially in my country, shows favor of one religion over another, and goes against it's founding principles.

For God to make the universe appear young when it is not is to make God tell a lie.

I will assume you meant the opposite, since I don't think anyone is saying the universe appears young, but God made it billions of years ago.

Christianity cannot tolerate this. God cannot lie, because we Christians rely on God to tell us the truth of things we cannot corroborate otherwise: salvation, forgiveness of sins, life after death, etc. If God lies about the age of the universe (when God does not have to), then God can easily lie about these far more important matters.

Which might be the very reason why they deny the existence of the evidence, even though it is plainly and obviously there. Our nearest galaxy is 2.5 million light years away -- at least it appears so. So do Christians pretend like nobody's ever really seen this galaxy? How is this actually handled in the Christian psyche? Why is evidence neglected and denied. And since Andromeda certainly appears to be 2.5 million light years away, how does one resolve the contradiction with the bible so that God isn't lying or decieving them?

So, as Christians, we reject the Oomphalos hypothesis (which is what it was called back in 1857 when first proposes).

This is just a name put on the idea that God made the universe appear much older than it is. How is this conflict be resolved if God isn't being deceptive?

True. And Christians have been saying that since almost when Christianity began. See the first quote in my signature for only one example. The oldest example I have goes back to St. Augustine in the 400s.

So why the political and social movement to have biblical ideologies taught in a science class? Christians already have church, bible study, and Sunday school, after all. Why encroach on completely unrelated subjects taught in a secular environment. Why impose on everyone's rights who is NOT a Christian?

This is not exactly true. First, the Bible is a collection of books. The books that belong in the collection as scripture was decided over a period of about 500 years. Second, the individual books have never been "revised". They have been translated, but not revised.

Albeit, I don't know how reliable the sources are, but I've heard there are complete books missing from the bible, including a gospel of Mary Magdalene, which has been completely omitted form the "official" bible.

Also, the King James bible, when it was translated varies greatly from the versions that preceded it. One only has to compare it's OT to the Torah to find the glaring differences. The prior illustrates a vengeful and jealous deity, while the latter exhibits a more passive one.

The books in the Bible provide evidence of the existence of Yahweh. This is not "in the scientific sense" because the evidence presented is not intersubjective. (If you don't know what intersubjective is, ask.)

I think you might mean "objective". If the bible were actually evidence of Yahweh, then I'd believe in him too. I used to be Lutheran, after all.

Actually, you usually start off with the theory and then do the observations. The observations are undertaken specifically to test the theory.

No, you actually start off with a hypothesis. The terms "theory" and "hypothesis" are often confused. A hypothesis is your educated guess on how something might work. Once it's tested and observed, and you collect evidence, you have data, which goes into building your theory. Theory is basically the collection of everything that was done, and an explanation of the facts. Which brings me back to why creationism isn't a theory - it's a hypothesis.

There's nothing demonstrable or testable about the Christian creation story that supports it (other than the bible, which also wasn't written from physical observations), so it simply doesn't have enough structure to be considered a theory. Not to mention, creation as you understand it is probably completely different than a Penecostal's understanding -- which is what actually makes it subjective.

Sorry, but no. Many scientific theories are not testable. Examples are No Boundary by Hawking and multiverse in its many forms. So this idea of what it takes to be a scientific theory doesn't work.

I'm not terribly familiar with M-theory, but as I understand it, it's something that's based mostly on mathematics. Then Hawking simple expanded on this and made his own speculations. If this is the case, then I would actually call it a hypothesis. Regardless, it's a positive claim, so it ought to be realistically provable or falsifiable, but we currently lack any technology to attempt to falsify it. It is, after all, a positive claim, and would require evidence -- yes.. even if you're Stephen Hawking.

Also, some theories that we will never include in science are testable by repeatable and reliable observations. An example is the theory "onside kicks are not usually fumbled." Testable and has repeatedly been tested, but no one is ever going to include football among the sciences.

Actually, that would be science. It just might not be one of tremendous popularity in the scientific field, as looking for medical cures or making a more energy efficient automobile. But doing a study to determine how often onside kicks are fumbled would definitely still be science.

However, if the study was done, and done by a scientist, you can bet the anti-intellects out there would leap all over it as an example of "the pointless things scientists do".

You might also consider that many creationist theories are testable by "repeatable, demonstrable, and reliable" observations. World-wide Flood, for instance. "Irreducibly Complex structures cannot be formed by natural selection" for another. (In those cases the observations have falsified the theories.)

Only among creationists circles are such claims made, when in fact, there is no evidence for a global flood and no evidence that life is actually irreducible.

There's a an example where Michael Behe used a mousetrap to illustrate irreducible complexity. He said that if you remove any of it's parts, it would cease to function. However, using Behe's own mousetrap (so to speak), someone by the name of John McDonald showed that the mouse trap can be reduced and still function -- thus proving that just becauseyou don't understand something, doesn't mean there is a divine cause.

A reducibly complex mousetrap

Here you get into "intersubjective". Science restricts itself to observations that are the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances.

This is far less restrictive than being limited only to the perception of one particular religious group.

But

, most observations in our lives are not like that. Yet even if the observations are not the same for everyone, they are still accurate.

The point is to make observations that aren't derived with any kind of agenda or opinion -- like creationism does, for example. The point in creationism, really, is to get people to believe in a religion.

You are speaking of modern-day creationists. You need to look back in history. Creationism as a theory was inspired by the Bible. That'sw OK. We don't care what inspires scientific theories. Punctuated equilibrium, according to Gould, was inspired by Marxism. What matters is the testing after the theory is proposed.

Except that nothing in the bible regarding creation, God, prayer, angels, etc, has ever been tested sucessfully.

In the case of creationism, the testing by observation falsified creationism. In the case of a young universe, this falsification happend by 1820. What we have today are people who refuse to accept the falsification. As you say, "working out in the field" and looking at geology, falsified a young earth. But modern-day creationists cling to the theory despite that. Why? Because they have an emotional need for this part of scripture to be literally correct. This is what makes it look like creationists are like you say, but the reality is a bit different.

Well, science doesn't change due to emotional needs. The sun will ultimately run out of fuel and fizzle out, which may upset some people, including scientists, but that doesn't change the fact that it will happen. Remember, it's objective.

To be fair, we are dealing with an interpretation of parts of the Bible.

Ok.

That's not true. First, belonging to a religion has health benefits. This may be due to a social support group and not the direct effect of deity, but it has been shown by several scientific studies to be real. Second, all scientific studies on intercessory prayer shows that it does have a detectable effect. I can give you a list of over 10 papers in the peer-reviewed literature that show this. Third, the answer to many prayers is "no". Fourth, yes, God created a complete universe where our lives have meaning. So yes material medicine will have an effect and yes, a complete universe means diseases and those diseases do cause death. And yes, a complete universe means that humans have a finite lifespan.

I'll give you that religion and prayer can be helpful. I've even defended the position myself many times. I won't deny that the religion may provide a placebo effect, but this is no different than being given an actual placebo. It works better because having faith in it improves some people's emotional state, but there's nothing to show that holy magics are actually exorcising the cancer from grandma's colon.

Actually, we can prove that you didn't.

Then by all means, do so.

However, we can't prove that a deity did not. As I said above, the refutation of that argument does not lie in science, but in Christianity.

In other words, it says in the book that I put there on earth to trick you, that nobody but the God it speaks of in that book is God. Remember, I made the bible too. It's part of the universe.

 

[Upisoft]

If you are into the theology of creationists, you would say it is a plot by Satan to lead people away from God.

You almost made me to believe that Satan is more powerful than God. Let me think again. God is all powerful, Satan is not... calculating... (Satan's will) divided by (God's will) = zero.

The best chance for Satan is that he is in a bubble limiting his access to outside world. Looks like a creationist bubble to me.

 

[juvenissun]

1. Without using any evidence, there is still scientific method.
2. A study starts from conclusion IS using a scientific method.

Grown up. Young scientist.

 

[juvenissun]

If you are into the theology of creationists, you would say it is a plot by Satan to lead people away from God.

What then is your idea as a TE? (Assume you are a TE). Are some people evolved away from God?

 

[Naraoia]

This is not exactly true. First, the Bible is a collection of books. The books that belong in the collection as scripture was decided over a period of about 500 years. Second, the individual books have never been "revised".

Hmm, is that actually true? I seem to recall Nathan mentioning just such revisions to New Testament stuff fairly recently.

Actually, you usually start off with the theory and then do the observations. The observations are undertaken specifically to test the theory.

Theories aren't created in a vacuum, though. They are born in the context of previous observations.

<snarky>Unless you are a theoretical physicist, in which case any crazy idea you can translate into equations can be a theory </snarky>

Also, some theories that we will never include in science are testable by repeatable and reliable observations. An example is the theory "onside kicks are not usually fumbled." Testable and has repeatedly been tested, but no one is ever going to include football among the sciences.

Football is not gonna be a science, but an investigation of a theory about football can be science. You are equivocating two meanings of "science" here - science as a way of knowing, and a science as an area of knowledge collected through science the WoK. I believe Delphiki was talking about the former.

Second, all scientific studies on intercessory prayer shows that it does have a detectable effect.

All? Really?

Actually, we can prove that you didn't.

How?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But modern-day creationists cling to the theory despite that. Why? Because they have an emotional need for this part of scripture to be literally correct.

This is the core of the problem. The KJV translators 'needed' to translate 'pascha' into 'Easter' in Acts 12:4. Genesis has several misleading word translations that have hidden or changed the meaning of very important events.

 

[Delphiki]

1. Without using any evidence, there is still scientific method.
2. A study starts from conclusion IS using a scientific method.

Grown up. Young scientist.

Here's a visual aid of the scientific method.

You'll note that "conclusion" is not the first step.

 

[juvenissun]

Here's a visual aid of the scientific method.

You'll note that "conclusion" is not the first step.

That is what I said. What you know is only ONE method in science. You have learned that one. So, start to learn the second one.

 

[Delphiki]

That is what I said. What you know is only ONE method in science. You have learned that one. So, start to learn the second one.

Why don't you tell me what that might be?

Can I guess?

Is it:

1 - Read bible.
2 - Claim a scientific study to be false.
3 - Use bible quote to try to confuse scientists and claim it is evidence.
4 - Act like you've accomplished something while not having invented, discovered, nor benefited man kind in any way whatsoever.

I'm not a big fan of that method.

 

[Naraoia]

That is what I said. What you know is only ONE method in science. You have learned that one. So, start to learn the second one.

Words have meanings. "Scientific method" means the stuff in the chart. I'm afraid you've got to invent a new one for yours.

 

[juvenissun]

Why don't you tell me what that might be?

Can I guess?

Is it:

1 - Read bible.
2 - Claim a scientific study to be false.
3 - Use bible quote to try to confuse scientists and claim it is evidence.
4 - Act like you've accomplished something while not having invented, discovered, nor benefited man kind in any way whatsoever.

I'm not a big fan of that method.

I have told you two.
You don't want to learn them, that is your decision.

 

[juvenissun]

Words have meanings. "Scientific method" means the stuff in the chart. I'm afraid you've got to invent a new one for yours.

Some are on the chart. And there are more.
Items in the chart could also be rearranged.

 

[Delphiki]

I have told you two.
You don't want to learn them, that is your decision.

Can you give me a link or are you just going to say you already told me something you didn't?

 

[Delphiki]

Some are on the chart. And there are more.
Items in the chart could also be rearranged.

Give me an example.

 

[juvenissun]

Can you give me a link or are you just going to say you already told me something you didn't?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7513823/#post56129177post #8