cDK Theory

[Nostromo]

Ok. But then I'm raising the question of how rigidly naturalistic methodologies effect our view/interpretation of the facts and the possibilities/probabilities.

Naturalistic methodologies obviously yield naturalistic explanations.

If you're asking "why don't people use supernatural methodologies", the simple answer is that nobody has ever found one that can be shown to work.

What evidence

The world around you.

and what parts of the Biblical creation account?

All of it, near enough.

 

[Loudmouth]

The idea of a Creator, and faith in the Creator, allows for the possibility of creation in mid-state, . . .

It also allows for the creation of the universe Last Thursday, complete with false memories and a false history, wouldn't you agree?

It also allows for men to create a book that inaccurately describes the history of the universe, wouldn't you agree?

and also the possibility that refusal to consider the existence of the Creator, or to seek the Creator's ways, would be allowed to result in confusion.

There is also the possibility that you are worshipping a made up creator which would also create confusion.

My point was to shift the question, along the lines of, why should we expect to trust our interpretation of God's creation if we methodologically exclude God to the point of personally insisting that everything fit a naturalistic non-miraculous framework that is understood by us and meets our requirements.

I am not the one excluding the creation because of a book written by men.

I don't put my absolute faith in scientists complicated theories and methods dealing with such an overwhelming amount of facts to deal with matters that span many thousands of years.

It doesn't require any faith. You can access the evidence yourself without going through any man or woman. That you are unwilling to learn new things does not mean that science is wrong. It only shows that you are stubborn.

And how many people really understand any of the physical theories about light nowadays, even?

I do. There are plenty of books out there written for the scientific layperson. "The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics" by Gary Zukav is a decent book that you would find entertaining. It should be available in any public library.

Also, you might want to read my signature below.

To create a human as an adult and light in mid-stream rather than to start a process and have it develop is the Creator's perogative.

It is also the creator's perogative to create a universe that produces what the creator wants through simple physical laws. All the evidence for these processes is out there. Why are you ignoring it? Because it's too hard to understand?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok. But then I'm raising the question of how rigidly naturalistic methodologies effect our view/interpretation of the facts and the possibilities/probabilities.

If the supernatural were regularly changing things in nature then naturalistic methodologies would not work, and yet they do. The reason that we look to naturalistic methodologies is because THEY WORK. You use the same principles almost every minute of your life. You don't tie yourself to the ground in case your body density changes overnight, do you? Do you run bioassays on your toothpaste every morning to make sure that the laws of chemistry have not changed overnight? When you step on the brake pedal in your car do you expect the tensile strength of steel to change suddenly? Or do you think that these naturally occuring phenomena are under the providence of a whimsical God who changes things arbitrarily?

Every minute of your life you use naturalistic methodologies to get through life. So why ignore them when it comes to the age of the universe?

What evidence,

We could start with galaxies 10's of millions of light years away, or as you like to call them, figments of our imagination.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Naturalistic methodologies obviously yield naturalistic explanations.

Some people are so rigidly naturalistic in their approach, however, that things get skewed and the door slams shut on other interpretations. Just as some are so rigidly ideological or idealistic or supernaturalistic or metaphysical that things are skewed and the door slams shut.

It also allows for the creation of the universe Last Thursday, complete with false memories and a false history, wouldn't you agree?

It also allows for men to create a book that inaccurately describes the history of the universe, wouldn't you agree?

Yes.

It is also the creator's perogative to create a universe that produces what the creator wants through simple physical laws.

Agreed. And if we weren't dealing with a time so long ago, with raw data that was so overwhelming in scope, scientists might get a better handle on it. As it is they do the best they can with the methods they choose.

If the supernatural were regularly changing things in nature then naturalistic methodologies would not work, and yet they do. The reason that we look to naturalistic methodologies is because THEY WORK.

Would you say that the first moment in time was a singularity? What about the first instance of life? Of intelligent life?

Again, the nature of the subject matter is a bit out of the norm, we aren't talking about 'business as usual' in the universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some people are so rigidly naturalistic in their approach, however, that things get skewed and the door slams shut on other interpretations.

I would hazard a guess that you are just as rigid as anyone else.

Let's say that you are on a jury in a murder trial. The prosecution presents DNA analyses, fingerprints, shoe print analysis, fiber analysis, etc. that all firmly establish that the defendant was responsible for the murder. The defense argues that all of this evidence should be ignored. Why? It's simple, really. A Leprechaun created the universe just a few hours ago and embedded processes mid stream, including the DNA, fingerprints, shoe prints, and other things at the crime scene. The only reason that you think that the defendant is guilty is that you are confused about the embedded processes.

So would you be convinced by this defense, or would you accept the naturalistic evidence as indications of guilt?

Agreed. And if we weren't dealing with a time so long ago, with raw data that was so overwhelming in scope, scientists might get a better handle on it. As it is they do the best they can with the methods they choose.

This is no excuse to ignore the evidence, nor to invent Omphalos-like arguments.

Would you say that the first moment in time was a singularity? What about the first instance of life? Of intelligent life?

Again, the nature of the subject matter is a bit out of the norm, we aren't talking about 'business as usual' in the universe.

We are talking about business as usual. Geology is about normal processes producing geologic formations. Astronomy is about regular physical laws producing stars, planets, and galaxies. Evolution is about processes we can see and observe right now producing biodiversity. "Business as usual" is exactly what we are talking about. "Business as usual" is exactly what the scientific method uses.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

I would hazard a guess that you are just as rigid as anyone else.

Sometimes maybe, but I want to be aware of it and take precautions against.

I also have been a loudmouth at times, yes, that too

Let's say that you are on a jury in a murder trial. The prosecution presents DNA analyses, fingerprints, shoe print analysis, fiber analysis, etc. that all firmly establish that the defendant was responsible for the murder. The defense argues that all of this evidence should be ignored. Why? It's simple, really. A Leprechaun

How long ago did the murder happen? And what type of shoes is the Leprechaun wearing?

For recent events we have trouble mastering many details and complexities, but we can do well enough to convict a man for murder sometimes.

For things that happened a very long time ago or for things that happened across the entire planet, our brains can easily misinterpret or overgeneralize or get stuck on the wrong details, and I'd tread much more cautiously.

We are talking about business as usual. Geology is about normal processes producing geologic formations. Astronomy is about regular physical laws producing stars, planets, and galaxies. Evolution is about processes we can see and observe right now producing biodiversity. "Business as usual" is exactly what we are talking about. "Business as usual" is exactly what the scientific method uses.

Business as usual -- right now -- may not be the best guide for what was going on when human life first appeared or when the universe began -- that's why scientists speak of singularities, right?

And macroevolution, the first living thing, or the existence of matter from a big bang -- all of that sounds quite singular. So what if 'business as usual' wasn't the case in those extremely crucial events.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sometimes maybe, but I want to be aware of it and take precautions against.

Why would you need to take precautions against it?

How long ago did the murder happen? And what type of shoes is the Leprechaun wearing?

The murder scene was part of the embedded processes that the Leprechaun included when he created the universe a few hours before the murder trial.

For recent events we have trouble mastering many details and complexities, . . .

How do you even know that these events occurred? How did you determine that these events were not part of the embedded processes that were included when the Universe was created just a few hours ago?

For things that happened a very long time ago or for things that happened across the entire planet, our brains can easily misinterpret or overgeneralize or get stuck on the wrong details, and I'd tread much more cautiously.

How do time distances make our conclusions any weaker?

Business as usual -- right now -- may not be the best guide for what was going on when human life first appeared or when the universe began -- that's why scientists speak of singularities, right?

What about star formation in distant galaxies? What about dating a rock using radioactive decay? Is it appropriate then? If not, then why not?

And macroevolution, the first living thing, or the existence of matter from a big bang -- all of that sounds quite singular.

So does a murder.

So what if 'business as usual' wasn't the case in those extremely crucial events.

Why can't we observe how geologic formations form in the here and now and apply that knowledge to how geologic formations were created in the past? Why can't we translate our knowledge of physics on Earth and apply it to the physics we see in stars? Why can't we apply the mechanisms that we observe creating biodiversity in the species we see today to the creation of biodiversity in the past?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Why would you need to take precautions against it?

Against being a loudmouth, or against being rigid with some methodology? In either case I could miss the point, whatever it is, I'm sure.

The murder scene was part of the embedded processes that the Leprechaun included when he created the universe a few hours before the murder trial.

But what color are his shoes?

How do time distances make our conclusions any weaker?

We have enough difficulty mastering all the details associated with the span of a few short years in relation to an event that is local.

Now, I don't want to be postmodern or extremely agnostic/relativistic, but I don't want to just jump on the bandwagon about theories that involve such huge overwhelming spans of time/space, etc., either.

What about star formation in distant galaxies? What about dating a rock using radioactive decay? Is it appropriate then? If not, then why not?

Well scientists do their best and they have these conjectures. Ok. So question them, test them. Some conjectures are better founded than others, among scientific conjectures.

But some conjectures are more philosophical or more historical than scientific. Science may be applied somewhat sometimes, less so in others.

So if we admit that there are different types of conjectures, some better founded than others, seems more accurate than to go about talking about 'facts' of what happened many many thousands of years ago as if it were more than conjecture.

There's things that we observe, there's things we deduce. Among what we deduce, some of it is quite far removed from observed events or is heavily abstracted in some way -- there's a huge distance between the raw observations and the interpretation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Against being a loudmouth, or against being rigid with some methodology? In either case I could miss the point, whatever it is, I'm sure.

Avoiding questions seems to be your forte. Why do you need to take precautions against being rigidly naturalistic?

But what color are his shoes?

Red herring. The color of the Leperchauns shoes has nothing to do with the scenario. I am simply showing you how ridiculous this "creation in mid-state" really is and using the murder trial as an example.

Would you really accept the claims of "creation in mid-state" as a way of making evidence in a murder trial go away? Would you?

We have enough difficulty mastering all the details associated with the span of a few short years in relation to an event that is local.

Now, I don't want to be postmodern or extremely agnostic/relativistic, but I don't want to just jump on the bandwagon about theories that involve such huge overwhelming spans of time/space, etc., either.

I'm not asking you to jump on the bandwagon on blind faith. What I am asking is to not ignore the evidence because you think it is part of some Omphalos-like universe that was created with a fake history.

So if we admit that there are different types of conjectures, some better founded than others, seems more accurate than to go about talking about 'facts' of what happened many many thousands of years ago as if it were more than conjecture.

I wouldn't call a scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence to be a conjecture, but that's just me. It would seem that short of absolute, omniscient knowledge you would call anything "conjecture". I just don't see how that is helpful. With your "creation in mid-state" idea, our memories of eating breakfast are only conjectures since the universe could have been created at noon with false histories and false memories.

There's things that we observe, there's things we deduce.

There are also hypotheses that we test. That is what makes science different from conjecture. A hypothesis makes risky predictions. You then run experiments to see if those predictions are accurate. That is how we determine if a hypothesis is accurate or not. This isn't so with conjectures.

However, you want to make things even worse. You want to throw out observations because they are "confusing" and can be interpretted as a "creation in mid-state". I really, really do not see the use in this other than to make you feel better about your religious beliefs.

 

[Phred]

But some conjectures are more philosophical or more historical than scientific. Science may be applied somewhat sometimes, less so in others.

So if we admit that there are different types of conjectures, some better founded than others, seems more accurate than to go about talking about 'facts' of what happened many many thousands of years ago as if it were more than conjecture.

There's things that we observe, there's things we deduce. Among what we deduce, some of it is quite far removed from observed events or is heavily abstracted in some way -- there's a huge distance between the raw observations and the interpretation.

Not so huge. But if you want God included in the discussion then we need evidence that God exists. Science is a method that we use to study the world around us. It is applied all the time, everywhere. What it finds is what it finds. You don't abandon the method because it doesn't find what you'd like it to find. Or because it won't accept the concept of a god for which there is no evidence.

And isn't that really the point? There's no evidence. Anywhere. Which is why you resort to theology and philosophy. To try and wedge your god in somehow.

Isn't that right?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Avoiding questions seems to be your forte. Why do you need to take precautions against being rigidly naturalistic?

Generally the same reason I'd take precautions against being rigidly psychologistic or metaphysical or theological or politically ideological, etc.

Would you really accept the claims of "creation in mid-state" as a way of making evidence in a murder trial go away? Would you?

Did the alleged murder case happen thousands of years ago? In that case I might claim inconclusive unless there was a really really good document I trusted as an ancient source.

I'm not asking you to jump on the bandwagon on blind faith. What I am asking is to not ignore the evidence because you think it is part of some Omphalos-like universe that was created with a fake history.

Ok.

I wouldn't call a scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence to be a conjecture, but that's just me.

I'm using 'conjecture' thinking of Karl Popper's 'conjectures and refutations'

However, you want to make things even worse. You want to throw out observations because they are "confusing" and can be interpretted as a "creation in mid-state". I really, really do not see the use in this other than to make you feel better about your religious beliefs.

Are you claiming to have:

A) a time machine
B) a lab that can fit the whole universe inside of it
C) a brain the size of a planet
or at least,
D) some species you derived from some other species
?

 

[Loudmouth]

Generally the same reason I'd take precautions against being rigidly psychologistic or metaphysical or theological or politically ideological, etc.

To me, this doesn't make sense. You take precautions against subjective philosophies because they are subjective, but still feel the need to take precautions against being objective.

Did the alleged murder case happen thousands of years ago?

It didn't happen at all. The creation of the universe occurred mid-state which included the murder scene. Is this an argument you would accept for ignoring the evidence in a murder case?

Are you claiming to have:

A) a time machine
B) a lab that can fit the whole universe inside of it
C) a brain the size of a planet
or at least,
D) some species you derived from some other species
?

We definitely have D) :

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Observed Instances of Speciation

The rest is no different than running a DNA analysis on blood left at a crime scene or a DNA analysis used for determining paternity. Or we can throw all of this evidence out because it is part of some embedded history in a mid-state creation, right?

 

[Phred]

I am not guilty of murder your honor. You see, the world was created last Thursday with all of these memories intact. I didn't murder the victim. In fact, the victim never actually existed. It is only within our memories that she exists. Why the world was created with all these things in place I cannot say. But I can say I did not do this thing even though I remember doing it.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Can you blame me for being more cautious about abstractions/interpretations that concern the entire universe, the origins of life, or the very distant pre-historic past?

I'm comfortable depending quite a bit on abstractions/interpretations that are a bit closer to the raw data, to more recent events, to smaller time/space spans, less complex data.

I'm also comfortable making due when dealing with subject-matter that can't easily be turned into exact equations.

But I prefer to express the level of trust or distance from the facts somehow, to indicate what sort of conjecture we're dealing with.

 

[Tiberius]

If you have a problem with some aspect of science, perhaps you could tell us where in that aspect the science is flawed?

 

[Doveaman]

If you have a problem with some aspect of science, perhaps you could tell us where in that aspect the science is flawed?

The aspect where a theory is said to be confirmed by evidence only for that same theory to be falsified a few years later.

Is it possible for a wrong theory to be supported by evidence that confirms it being right?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you blame me for being more cautious about abstractions/interpretations that concern the entire universe, the origins of life, or the very distant pre-historic past?

You seem to be dismissive, not cautious.

I'm comfortable depending quite a bit on abstractions/interpretations that are a bit closer to the raw data, to more recent events, to smaller time/space spans, less complex data.

Reality is not forced to meet your standards of comfort. In order to understand how the universe works you may need to go outside of your comfort zone.

 

[Loudmouth]

The aspect where a theory is said to be confirmed by evidence only for that same theory to be falsified a few years later.

Is it possible for a wrong theory to be supported by evidence that confirms it being right?

Is it possible that the Germ Theory of Disease is wrong? Do you reject the scientific theory that microorganisms cause infectious diseases because it is a tentative scientific theory? Do you not take antibiotics when the doctor gives them to you?

 

[Doveaman]

The aspect where a theory is said to be confirmed by evidence only for that same theory to be falsified a few years later.

Is it possible for a wrong theory to be supported by evidence that confirms it being right?

Is it possible that the Germ Theory of Disease is wrong? Do you reject the scientific theory that microorganisms cause infectious diseases because it is a tentative scientific theory? Do you not take antibiotics when the doctor gives them to you?

That was a "yes or no" question I asked. Do you have an answer?

 

[Tiberius]

The aspect where a theory is said to be confirmed by evidence only for that same theory to be falsified a few years later.

Is it possible for a wrong theory to be supported by evidence that confirms it being right?

If the evidence supports a theory, then the theory is accepted. Newtonian physics is wrong, because it doesn't take into account the finite speed of light. However, it is so very nearly right that the difference can only be detected with the most sensitive instruments, so it serves us well enough for day to day use.

It is possible that evidence may suggest that a theory is right when later evidence suggests that it is wrong. This is what happened with newtonian physics. But that doesn't mean that it is as wrong as say, "Fairies did it".