Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Exiledoomsayer]

You mean, the problem is that science doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions? Because it is only by throwing out supernatural explanations that science actually started to make progress.

Well thats not fair, who knows what great things we could have accomplished if our explaination of lightning had remained "God is angry"

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Well thats not fair, who knows what great things we could have accomplished if our explaination of lightning had remained "God is angry"

Perhaps we should 'teach the controversy'?

 

[Greg1234]

You mean, the problem is that science doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions?

Oh science agrees with it, just not methodological naturalism.

Because it is only by throwing out supernatural explanations that science actually started to make progress.

Think of the progress science made by ruling out cosmic explanations, the number of earthly causes found for phenomena. Yet we are going to the moon, scanning galaxies, and it's not because of methodological earthism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But how do we justify empiricism? It may work, but the evidence that it works is all empirical, so we have to assume empiricism in order to accept this evidence.

Not only that, but to imply that only empirical evidence can be proven is a meta-physical statement and so to justify empiricism one must prove meta-physical, thus self-refuting the claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You mean, the problem is that science doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions? Because it is only by throwing out supernatural explanations that science actually started to make progress.

Your pre-conceived notion is that nothing exists that is not natural or has a natural explanation. You make the claim that science didn't actually start to make progress until the supernatural was thrown out, yet without the supernatural you would have no science at all.

 

[Chalnoth]

Your pre-conceived notion is that nothing exists that is not natural or has a natural explanation. You make the claim that science didn't actually start to make progress until the supernatural was thrown out, yet without the supernatural you would have no science at all.

Um, no. It is just impossible to actually go through and test any supernatural explanations. The only way to "find evidence" for a supernatural explanation would be to conclusively rule out any possible natural explanations. But even then, it wouldn't tell you which supernatural explanation was the correct one (that is a fundamental impossibility).

And I might add that it is a practical impossibility to rule out all possible natural explanations, because there always remains the possibility that we simply weren't creative enough. In fact, when we learn new things, we often find that this is exactly the reason why we didn't have explanations for things in the past: we weren't creative enough.

Oh, and your claim that we can't have science without the supernatural is patently ludicrous. You might as well be claiming that we can't have pancakes without cows.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Your pre-conceived notion is that nothing exists that is not natural or has a natural explanation. You make the claim that science didn't actually start to make progress until the supernatural was thrown out, yet without the supernatural you would have no science at all.

According to whom? You?

There'd be no "supernatural" discussion here if the Church hadn't failed in its duties centuries ago.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Um, no. It is just impossible to actually go through and test any supernatural explanations. The only way to "find evidence" for a supernatural explanation would be to conclusively rule out any possible natural explanations. But even then, it wouldn't tell you which supernatural explanation was the correct one (that is a fundamental impossibility).

So if I am understanding your position, you feel that the only way to find evidence is thru empirical evidence, or lack there of. However, not only do we need to rule out a natural explanation, we must rule out all other possible natural explanations to even possibly test supernatural explanations.

The problem is, that in saying that it is impossible to test any supernatural explanations, you are using non-empirical meta-physical tools to do so. So your statement is self-refuting.

And I might add that it is a practical impossibility to rule out all possible natural explanations, because there always remains the possibility that we simply weren't creative enough. In fact, when we learn new things, we often find that this is exactly the reason why we didn't have explanations for things in the past: we weren't creative enough.

Possibilities, probabilities, creativity are suffer from the same deficiency as does the one above. All are non-empirical meta-physic explanations which not only self-refutes your claims, but proves that you use the very meta-physical premises you claim are impossible.

Oh, and your claim that we can't have science without the supernatural is patently ludicrous. You might as well be claiming that we can't have pancakes without cows.

If all knowledge must be empirical in nature, then the foundation upon which science rests falls. The uniformity of nature cannot be known to be true. Without the knowledge and certainty that the future will be like the past, we could not make generalizations, projections or predictions and the whole scientific methodology would be curtailed. In turn, scientists could not arrive at dependable conclusions about future chemical reactions, even the rotation of the earth or really anything else. Every premise that was produced by their own reasoning about any thing at any time or place would need to be validated by empirical evidence. Nothing past, present or future would or could be used to predict how things must or could be. The whole enterprise of Science would be impossible.

So your statement that my claim is ludicrous is shown to be based on nothing but that which you claim is impossible.

 

[Chalnoth]

So if I am understanding your position, you feel that the only way to find evidence is thru empirical evidence, or lack there of. However, not only do we need to rule out a natural explanation, we must rule out all other possible natural explanations to even possibly test supernatural explanations.

Actually, what I am saying is that the only way to find evidence for something is to find verifiable evidence, that is evidence that anybody can, with enough dedication, come back and check. This is of paramount importance because people make mistakes, all the time. If you don't rely upon verifiable evidence, then you end up guaranteeing you are wrong.

Verifiable evidence for the supernatural is not possible.

Possibilities, probabilities, creativity are suffer from the same deficiency as does the one above. All are non-empirical meta-physic explanations which not only self-refutes your claims, but proves that you use the very meta-physical premises you claim are impossible.

Huh? That doesn't even make sense.

If all knowledge must be empirical in nature, then the foundation upon which science rests falls. The uniformity of nature cannot be known to be true. Without the knowledge and certainty that the future will be like the past, we could not make generalizations, projections or predictions and the whole scientific methodology would be curtailed. In turn, scientists could not arrive at dependable conclusions about future chemical reactions, even the rotation of the earth or really anything else. Every premise that was produced by their own reasoning about any thing at any time or place would need to be validated by empirical evidence. Nothing past, present or future would or could be used to predict how things must or could be. The whole enterprise of Science would be impossible.

I'm pretty sure your own argument here is quite self-refuting on its own. Yes, it is absolutely true that if the uniformity of nature were not true, then scientists could not arrive at dependable conclusions about anything. And yet they do. All the time.

The fact that a lack of uniformity would make science impossible proves the uniformity beyond any reasonable doubt.

I'm still not getting why you think this somehow implies something supernatural.

 

[sandwiches]

But how do we justify empiricism? It may work, but the evidence that it works is all empirical, so we have to assume empiricism in order to accept this evidence.

We verify it simply by seeing that it works. You don't have to accept that gravity exists or need to see evidence of gravity for it to work. You don't have to merely assume that aerodynamics of plane wings allow them to work. They observably do.

Now, I hope you're not retreating into solipsism or I'll respectfully be done with this conversation. We only have our body and senses therein to experience the universe and our brain to make sense of it all. So again, we accept empiricism because it works according to the senses and reasoning we use for every single thing in our lives, verifying reality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

chalnoth, I'm going to bed and I'll respond in the morning. Have a good night.

 

[juvenissun]

Science is a method. Your statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the method of science.

What is a method? Is it just a function? Do you have a method to drink your milk? If you do, then what is the thing which is not scientific?

 

[Chalnoth]

What is a method? Is it just a function? Do you have a method to drink your milk? If you do, then what is the thing which is not scientific?

Science is a method for discovering the truth about reality. At its core, it is about recognizing that people make mistakes with alarming regularity, and in order to discover the truth we have to accept and deal with that fact. The primary way that science deals with it is by noting that if independent people make mistakes, they are unlikely to make the same mistakes. So we can gain confidence in a particular scientific conclusion by checking it in as many different ways as possible and with as many independent persons doing the checking as possible.

Something is not scientific when this sort of verification isn't even attempted and yet a conclusion is claimed, or when it ignores evidence which has undergone scientific verification.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, what I am saying is that the only way to find evidence for something is to find verifiable evidence, that is evidence that anybody can, with enough dedication, come back and check. This is of paramount importance because people make mistakes, all the time. If you don't rely upon verifiable evidence, then you end up guaranteeing you are wrong.

So according to your premise, one must always find evidence via verifiable evidence. To find verifiable evidence one must be able to provide this evidence so that anybody can, with enough dedication come back and check it. Sounds reasonable, but tell me, are you able to verify every piece of evidence yourself? Does every belief that you hold come from evidence that you verified?

Verifiable evidence for the supernatural is not possible.

Have you verifiable evidence that the supernatural is not possible. Please provide it.

Huh? That doesn't even make sense.

You are using the very process in which you are claiming doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure your own argument here is quite self-refuting on its own. Yes, it is absolutely true that if the uniformity of nature were not true, then scientists could not arrive at dependable conclusions about anything. And yet they do. All the time.

You are pretty sure my argument is quite self-refuting? How?

This is begging the question. You claim that uniformity of nature is true, that scientists could not arrive at dependable conclusions about anything and then declare "yet they do, all the time". Begging the question.

The fact that a lack of uniformity would make science impossible proves the uniformity beyond any reasonable doubt.

Yes, which is what I am saying. It proves my point, not yours.

I'm still not getting why you think this somehow implies something supernatural.

Think about it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What is a method? Is it just a function? Do you have a method to drink your milk? If you do, then what is the thing which is not scientific?

Not every method is "the scientific method." Kinda figured you'd know that -- didn't expect you to care.

 

[Chalnoth]

So according to your premise, one must always find evidence via verifiable evidence. To find verifiable evidence one must be able to provide this evidence so that anybody can, with enough dedication come back and check it. Sounds reasonable, but tell me, are you able to verify every piece of evidence yourself? Does every belief that you hold come from evidence that you verified?

This is why science is carried out by large numbers of people. Any one person can only ever check one relatively small area in sufficient detail. We need very large numbers of people to validate the whole of science. And we also need systems in place to ensure that the people in any one field are doing their jobs and independently checking one another's work, and not grouping together around one or a small group of ideas without sufficient evidence to do so.

Ultimately, if you're skeptical that the experts in one particular field have gotten it wrong, then it makes good sense to learn about the work these people are doing and what arguments they have developed to support their conclusions. This leads to the other important aspect of science: scientists lay their arguments bare, for all to read. Anybody can, with sufficient dedication, enter into any field and learn enough about said field to critique it. Keeping science open in this manner helps to keep it honest.

Have you verifiable evidence that the supernatural is not possible. Please provide it.

Um, that's not what I said. What I said was that verifiable evidence is not possible when it comes to the supernatural. This is a fundamental limitation, because the supernatural is defined as being outside of nature, and you can't ever investigate something that is outside of nature.

You are pretty sure my argument is quite self-refuting? How?

This is begging the question. You claim that uniformity of nature is true, that scientists could not arrive at dependable conclusions about anything and then declare "yet they do, all the time". Begging the question.

I don't think you know what that means. Nor does it seem that you understood my argument. I'll try to break it down:
1. If there was no uniformity to nature, then nature would be unintelligible: it would not be possible to predict how nature would behave.
2. Scientists, working under the assumption of uniformity, are able to, time and again, come up with predictions that turn out to be true.
3. Point 1 demonstrates that point 2 is impossible unless the assumption of uniformity is, indeed, true. But point 2 is true, therefore the assumption of uniformity is true.

But you still haven't supported your claim that uniformity requires a god. And no, "think about it," isn't support.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is why science is carried out by large numbers of people. Any one person can only ever check one relatively small area in sufficient detail. We need very large numbers of people to validate the whole of science. And we also need systems in place to ensure that the people in any one field are doing their jobs and independently checking one another's work, and not grouping together around one or a small group of ideas without sufficient evidence to do so.

First let me say that no matter how many people you chose to do the experiments they are never identical. However, science is not in question. Science works and although presuppositions and assumptions can be used to twist findings and conclusions just as with any human endeavor, science is not the issue. What lies behind, under, thru science that is the issue. I don't know how I can make this clearer to you.

Ultimately, if you're skeptical that the experts in one particular field have gotten it wrong, then it makes good sense to learn about the work these people are doing and what arguments they have developed to support their conclusions. This leads to the other important aspect of science: scientists lay their arguments bare, for all to read. Anybody can, with sufficient dedication, enter into any field and learn enough about said field to critique it. Keeping science open in this manner helps to keep it honest.

This is good in theory, but how ofter do you think that research papers are given out to just anyone? Do you really think that if you are in doubt of some finding that you can just walk up to the scientist and ask for his research documentation? Not hardly. How many times have you researched on your own a significant finding in the science realm?

Um, that's not what I said. What I said was that verifiable evidence is not possible when it comes to the supernatural.

I said, you cannot find anything verifiable without the supernatural. I don't know how I can make this clearer. You have to assume, a meta-physical activity, to begin to do science or validate evidence.

This is a fundamental limitation, because the supernatural is defined as being outside of nature, and you can't ever investigate something that is outside of nature.

Then nothing can be investigated. It is absolutely necessary to use the supernatural (meta-physical) out side of nature tools to investigate anything. Understand?

I don't think you know what that means. Nor does it seem that you understood my argument. I'll try to break it down:
1. If there was no uniformity to nature, then nature would be unintelligible: it would not be possible to predict how nature would behave.
2. Scientists, working under the assumption of uniformity, are able to, time and again, come up with predictions that turn out to be true.
3. Point 1 demonstrates that point 2 is impossible unless the assumption of uniformity is, indeed, true. But point 2 is true, therefore the assumption of uniformity is true.

I want you to consider what you have just written. The assumption of uniformity is the issue here. Yes, we agree that there is uniformity. The point is that without that assumption which is supernatural in nature, that could not be demonstrated at all.

But you still haven't supported your claim that uniformity requires a god. And no, "think about it," isn't support.

I have you just don't get it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You left out of your response something that I wish not to ignore.

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

You are pretty sure my argument is quite self-refuting? How?

This is begging the question. You claim that uniformity of nature is true, that scientists could not arrive at dependable conclusions about anything and then declare "yet they do, all the time". Begging the question.
​

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

...
You have to assume, a meta-physical activity, to begin to do science or validate evidence.

...

It is absolutely necessary to use the supernatural (meta-physical) out side of nature tools to investigate anything. Understand?

.... The point is that without that assumption which is supernatural in nature, that could not be demonstrated at all.


I have you just don't get it.

I just wanted to clarify.
Based on the highlighted parts, Is it correct to say you consider the act of thinking super-natural?
Thus considering thinking un-natural and saying we cannot use purely natural reasoning because reasoning itself isnt natural but super-natural?

(Assuming that you consider assuming part of thinking.)

 

[selfinflikted]

I trust you're treating this as more than just a standard facepalm?

You do know what 'maya' is, don't you?

Yep.