Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Oncedeceived]

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.)

I don't see where you have highlighted?

I am saying that intelligence is weaved within the universe and we who live in the universe due to the intelligence of the Creator.

What I mean by using the factor of assumption one does not use empirical evidence to do so, ultimately defeating the claim that only empirical evidence can be used to find truth.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I don't see where you have highlighted?

For lack of a better word. I just wanted to make some indication that I wasnt trying to quotemine you, just show the bits I thought were relevant to the question.

I am saying that intelligence is weaved within the universe and we who live in the universe due to the intelligence of the Creator.

What I mean by using the factor of assumption one does not use empirical evidence to do so, ultimately defeating the claim that only empirical evidence can be used to find truth.

What other way is there to find truth?
I mean obviously you could make wild guesses and stumble upon a truth, but you wouldnt have anyway to know that it was one.
For instance, I could guess the word apartheid has its roots in dutch. It is true, but how would I know it is?

 

[Oncedeceived]

For lack of a better word. I just wanted to make some indication that I wasnt trying to quotemine you, just show the bits I thought were relevant to the question.

What other way is there to find truth?
I mean obviously you could make wild guesses and stumble upon a truth, but you wouldnt have anyway to know that it was one.
For instance, I could guess the word apartheid has its roots in dutch. It is true, but how would I know it is?

You are under the wrong impression here. I'm not saying that it doesn't work, the fact is that it does work due to the supernatural aspects behind it.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

You are under the wrong impression here. I'm not saying that it doesn't work, the fact is that it does work due to the supernatural aspects behind it.

But what are these supernatural aspects? And how can you tell they even exist?
And suppose they do not exist, how would that effect empirical evidence in anyway?
In what way is making a assumption not simply natural? And how can we know that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But what are these supernatural aspects? And how can you tell they even exist?
And suppose they do not exist, how would that effect empirical evidence in anyway?
In what way is making a assumption not simply natural? And how can we know that?

If your claim is the same as the other people in the discussion, then you believe that the only way to "know" anything is through empirical investigation and validation. Empirical investigation depends on the uniformity of the universe and rests only on assumption (we don't know empirically that the universe will be the same in the future as it is today). We know that the universe is orderly but we don't attribute tat order to anything...just assume that it is and it doesn't matter why.

The fact that in the Christian worldview there is a reason and it is cohesive with what we find in the universe concerning ourselves as well as the universe itself.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

If your claim is the same as the other people in the discussion, then you believe that the only way to "know" anything is through empirical investigation and validation. Empirical investigation depends on the uniformity of the universe and rests only on assumption (we don't know empirically that the universe will be the same in the future as it is today). We know that the universe is orderly but we don't attribute tat order to anything...just assume that it is and it doesn't matter why.

Once you made the assumption though you get to test it and see if it holds up, It has as we both agree.

Why would you have to attribute the consistancy of the universe to anything, let alone anything supernatural? There is no reason to suppose it can even be any other way.

The fact that in the Christian worldview there is a reason and it is cohesive with what we find in the universe concerning ourselves as well as the universe itself.

This is merely an arguement from ignorance, You do not know why uniformity is part of the universe. That does not mean the first guy with a wild untestable idea who's truth value cannot be assertained got it right.

Thats like saying expectations are responsible for the uniformity of the universe, sure its a 'reason' but it does not actually tell you anything nor give you any way to see if its true.

So you cannot say the uniformity of the universe is super natural in nature, just because you cannot disproof it(being untestable and all) and cannot think of anything better.

Thats how lightning got to be super natural, And I am of the opinion that if all we have are untestable claims its better to admit we don't know untill we do find out.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

Very nicely said. Millions of Christians all over the world through thousands of years reached to the same faith via many ways in many environment. Would you say this faith is an extremely extremely extremely scientific conclusion?

Think about it, a father can not even make his son to become a Christian. How could his distant relatives become Christian if the process is not independently verified?

 

[juvenissun]

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

I do care, in particular, on some fundamental questions.

Please tell me an example that a method is not scientific.

 

[Chalnoth]

First let me say that no matter how many people you chose to do the experiments they are never identical.

This is why science is such a powerful tool! You don't want the experiments to be identical. If they were, and the first experimenter made some mistake, then the next one would just be repeating the same mistake, and we would learn nothing! No, the reason why independent verification is valuable is precisely because different people do the science differently. And the more differently they do it the better! It is only by tackling various problems from as many different angles as possible that we can really become confident of our underlying explanations (theories).

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.

Well, it's clear as mud right now. Because you have simply asserted, without any reasoning whatsoever, that somehow the uniformity of nature implies something supernatural.

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, all the time. It varies somewhat between the various fields, but completely open research papers have been available for some time. Within physics and mathematics, for example, arxiv.org has become the standard place to put papers when they are first sent to a journal for publication, meaning that nearly every physics or mathematics publication released in the last ten years or so is freely available. It is also standard practice, at least among physicists, to send anybody who asks a copy of their scientific papers.

For some other sciences, you need to be situated at a university to read many papers. But open access is becoming more and more common nonetheless.

If you want some of the underlying work, well, two things about that:
1. A well-written scientific paper will be written so that anybody can, in principle, replicate what they have done.
2. If you are congenial and not obviously nuts, most researchers will freely provide you with any part of the research that can't be replicated.

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.

Wait, wait, wait. You're saying that the assumption itself is supernatural? That's crazy! Within science, any and all assumptions are only provisional assumptions anyway: we make them in order to get stuff done, and gladly throw them out if they fail to work.

 

[Chalnoth]

Very nicely said. Millions of Christians all over the world through thousands of years reached to the same faith via many ways in many environment. Would you say this faith is an extremely extremely extremely scientific conclusion?

That's just false, though. Christian faith, like other faiths, has just splintered over time. And these people who have come to similar conclusions have absolutely not done so independently: they have been told the same things from people that learned the same things from others.

Think about it, a father can not even make his son to become a Christian. How could his distant relatives become Christian if the process is not independently verified?

Have you somehow missed the fact that there are churches? Priests? Pastors? And the Bible itself?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Very nicely said. Millions of Christians all over the world through thousands of years reached to the same faith via many ways in many environment. Would you say this faith is an extremely extremely extremely scientific conclusion?

Would you say that the way you need faith to be an "extremely extremely scientific conclusion" is a sad commentary on faith?

 

[sandwiches]

If your claim is the same as the other people in the discussion, then you believe that the only way to "know" anything is through empirical investigation and validation.

Are you saying there's another way of acquiring knowledge of the universe than through the senses?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you saying there's another way of acquiring knowledge of the universe than through the senses?

Ask around.

Some of you guys believe it was in the fruit that Adam & Eve ate.

Oh, wait ... that would be TASTE, wouldn't it?

Bromas aparte, you do know what 'educate' means, don't you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ask around.

Some of you guys believe it was in the fruit that Adam & Eve ate.

Some of you guys, too.

It rally is sad to see how certain religious and anti-religious types need to make everything concrete -- and for the same reason! Neither side thinks religious experience has any meaning if it's not literal fact.

People in religious discussions (on both sides) have lost the ability to understand metaphor -- and metaphor is every religion's native tongue.

 

[Chalnoth]

Some of you guys, too.

It rally is sad to see how certain religious and anti-religious types need to make everything concrete -- and for the same reason! Neither side thinks religious experience has any meaning if it's not literal fact.

People in religious discussions (on both sides) have lost the ability to understand metaphor -- and metaphor is every religion's native tongue.

The problem is precisely that religions make truth claims about reality that, well, simply aren't true. There is no difficulty in recognizing that certain forms of experience can feel good and that it is reasonable to pursue those feelings. But it is when the "religious experience" butts up against truth claims that there is a problem. And that happens with alarming accuracy.

And my experience about people who claim that atheists "need to make everything concrete" is that this is just an excuse to believe whatever illusion of meaning they prefer.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The problem is precisely that religions make truth claims about reality that, well, simply aren't true. There is no difficulty in recognizing that certain forms of experience can feel good and that it is reasonable to pursue those feelings. But it is when the "religious experience" butts up against truth claims that there is a problem. And that happens with alarming accuracy.

And that is the fault of religious thinking that has lost its purpose.

And my experience about people who claim that atheists "need to make everything concrete" is that this is just an excuse to believe whatever illusion of meaning they prefer.

It's the sad result of trying to deal with the religiously misguided on their own level.

 

[Davian]

If your claim is the same as the other people in the discussion, then you believe that the only way to "know" anything is through empirical investigation and validation. Empirical investigation depends on the uniformity of the universe and rests only on assumption (we don't know empirically that the universe will be the same in the future as it is today). We know that the universe is orderly but we don't attribute tat order to anything...just assume that it is and it doesn't matter why.

Is 'why' a valid question? Because some animals on a backwater planet demand to know?

The fact that in the Christian worldview there is a reason and it is cohesive with what we find in the universe concerning ourselves as well as the universe itself.

Where would I find a demonstration of this Christian cohesiveness?

 

[Chalnoth]

And that is the fault of religious thinking that has lost its purpose.

I think this is assuming that religious thinking has a purpose completely divorced from making any sort of truth claims. This has overwhelmingly not been the purpose of religion through the eons. The idea of religion as being solely about morality or purpose is a rather new idea that just hasn't ever been represented anywhere beyond a few academics.

But perhaps more importantly, it isn't up to a few stuffy academics to determine what religious purpose should be and what it shouldn't be. The religious usually like these academics because they add a veneer of respectability to their own beliefs, even while they disregard 90% of what the academics say.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once you made the assumption though you get to test it and see if it holds up, It has as we both agree.

Yes, indeed we agree. The base of the argument is that science or really any other epistemology for that matter has untestable, unverifiable assumptions behind it. It is that untestability that science for instance is dependent on to even begin to use the scientific methodology. So it is first of all contradictory to ask that the believer to give empirical evidence for God, when they can't even do so for their own system.

Why would you have to attribute the consistancy of the universe to anything, let alone anything supernatural? There is no reason to suppose it can even be any other way.

Why do you think that? What brings you to that conclusion. You have no verified evidence to claim that. You have no empirical evidence that you can provide to demonstrate your claim.

This is merely an arguement from ignorance, You do not know why uniformity is part of the universe. That does not mean the first guy with a wild untestable idea who's truth value cannot be assertained got it right.

We are talking about worldviews, we are talking creation vs. naturalism. You look at my worldview which is Christianity, and claim I can't "prove" what I claim; yet you can't "prove" yours.

Thats like saying expectations are responsible for the uniformity of the universe, sure its a 'reason' but it does not actually tell you anything nor give you any way to see if its true.

Give me this instance, just this instance and pretend to accept that God exists. That He in fact created the universe as He claims. That the Bible gives clear information on the creation of the universe and that universe is just as God says it should be. That is evidence. It is due to your presuppositions that you will not allow that.

So you cannot say the uniformity of the universe is super natural in nature, just because you cannot disproof it(being untestable and all) and cannot think of anything better.

It is consistent with my worldview. It is consistent with Christianity. Its not that I can't think of anything better. It is that God who did create the universe has told us that it will be uniform and understandable.

Thats how lightning got to be super natural, And I am of the opinion that if all we have are untestable claims its better to admit we don't know untill we do find out.

That is where your presupposition comes in.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is why science is such a powerful tool! You don't want the experiments to be identical. If they were, and the first experimenter made some mistake, then the next one would just be repeating the same mistake, and we would learn nothing! No, the reason why independent verification is valuable is precisely because different people do the science differently. And the more differently they do it the better! It is only by tackling various problems from as many different angles as possible that we can really become confident of our underlying explanations (theories).

Fine, that is not the point anyway.

Well, it's clear as mud right now. Because you have simply asserted, without any reasoning whatsoever, that somehow the uniformity of nature implies something supernatural.

The reasoning is that in the Christian worldview God created the universe to be uniform and orderly. God gave us the intelligence to understand the universe. That is what the reasoning is. That implies supernatural.

Um, all the time. It varies somewhat between the various fields, but completely open research papers have been available for some time. Within physics and mathematics, for example, arxiv.org has become the standard place to put papers when they are first sent to a journal for publication, meaning that nearly every physics or mathematics publication released in the last ten years or so is freely available. It is also standard practice, at least among physicists, to send anybody who asks a copy of their scientific papers.

Is the um before everything meant to be like duh or what? Just wondering. Its a little like talking to a high school student, you aren't are you?

So are you trying to tell me that you have verified every single thing that you believe?

For some other sciences, you need to be situated at a university to read many papers. But open access is becoming more and more common nonetheless.

That is good.

If you want some of the underlying work, well, two things about that:
1. A well-written scientific paper will be written so that anybody can, in principle, replicate what they have done.
2. If you are congenial and not obviously nuts, most researchers will freely provide you with any part of the research that can't be replicated.

That is good too, but again, are you trying to tell me that you verify everything you believe?

Wait, wait, wait. You're saying that the assumption itself is supernatural? That's crazy! Within science, any and all assumptions are only provisional assumptions anyway: we make them in order to get stuff done, and gladly throw them out if they fail to work.

No. What I am saying is that science works on the assumption that the universe is uniform, has always been that way and will always be that way. It is a presumption that is not in evidence.