Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Tomk80]

Actually, you had referred to two different sets of rules. Firstly the rules of logic, and secondly some additional rules of science. Hence, the rules of logic more correctly constrain you, whereas your additional rules of science instead constrain the universe. Lotsa constraint going on.

Science has constraints based on logic and constraints based on available evidence. Both are valid constraints, because with both, if we do not apply those constraints, every position (no matter how absurd) becomes equally valid.

It seems to me that you're into a lot of constraints. Perhaps more than practically necessary. These constraints may serve you well in your personal endeavors, but it's best to be slow when projecting these requirements on the minds of others.

What kind of restraint would you want to lift from science? Why?

Even on a personal level, what would be a good reason to remove the constraint of testable evidence?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Luckily, I have no need to justify it to anyone. Unless of course, you feel such a need.

Some may perhaps prefer 'non-radical' skepticism after a conformist fashion. However, even 'radical' skepticism is quite commonly accepted as 'non-radical' in the circles from whence it originates. What's 'radical' to you may be commonplace to another. It's all about perception and what we're pre-accustomed to. What is strange to us is 'radical', but what we're pre-accustomed to is not.

I would have thought that, if you are so intent on dismantling science, you would have some method of doing so at least as rigorous and accessible as science. What you propose, however, seems to be simply naysaying anything anyone else tells you, while failing to similarly scrutinize your own philosophy.

 

[razzelflabben]

What logic? What evidence? I have not seen any attempt at a logical argument for a god that wasn't circular, and no evidence that wasn't invalid.

The problem with most of the arguements and evidence for God is that if you don't want to believe or see it you won't. I would love to talk to you more about it, but this thread isn't the place for this discussion I am afraid, let me give you a bit of a hint at some discussion on this topic. The evidence I have seen for the existance of God is not "Scientific" in nature but evidnce none the less and at least for me, conclusive. Throughout my life, I have tested this conclusion and find it to be consistant with the belief in God. Now you might look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion because your premis, your premis might be other than mine. When I first came to a belief in God, my premis was that I didn't know if there was a God or not. Your premis might be that there is no evidence of God since "science cannot test for God", someone else might bring with them the premis that God does not exist. Each will look at the evidence and embrace or dismiss it accordingly. That does not mean that the evidence is lacking, but rather it is a matter of what evidnce is accepted and viewed and how it is weighed.

How about a full discussion on a thread we wouldn't be hijacking?

 

[Aron-Ra]

How rigid are you in your creation or evolution perspective? Is your stance infallible? Why or why not?

The only way to improve understand is to find the flaws in your perspective and correct them. If you won't admit there even are any flaws in that, then however wrong you already are is how wrong you will forever be.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The problem with most of the arguements and evidence for God is that if you don't want to believe or see it you won't.

When I first came to a belief in God, my premis was that I didn't know if there was a God or not.

Que?

 

[Chalnoth]

The evidence I have seen for the existance of God is not "Scientific" in nature but evidnce none the less and at least for me, conclusive.

Then it's not evidence at all. The only requirement for evidence to be scientific is that it must be repeatable and observable my independent observers. If your 'evidence' can't hold up to this very simple requirement, then there is no reason whatsoever to believe that that evidence is actually there.

Humans are, after all, fantastic at deceiving themselves.

 

[VinceBlaze]

No, they don't. They only constrain what scientists look at.

Namely, the universe.

And what, pray tell, are scientists missing?

That which is not scientifically measurable.

 

[VinceBlaze]

every position (no matter how absurd) becomes equally valid.

Why is this dangerous to scientists? Why is there fear of non-scientific perspectives?

What kind of restraint would you want to lift from science?

I have no desire to lift any constraints from science. Rather, it is my preference that science lift it's constraints from non-scientific realms, because it lacks credible authority there in the first place. Science is unqualified to measure non-scientific realms.

Even on a personal level, what would be a good reason to remove the constraint of testable evidence?

Not all evidence is scientifically testable.

 

[Chalnoth]

If it's not testable, then one position is as good as any other. What is the point in holding strongy to positions which are every bit as supported as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

 

[VinceBlaze]

What you propose, however, seems to be simply naysaying anything anyone else tells you,

I had presented some assertions in post #272 which you had failed to address. I had also asked you to advance your perspectives. Instead, you merely respond with naysaying yourself.

while failing to similarly scrutinize your own philosophy.

Your spreading propaganda now, and merely getting accusatory without providing substantial basis for your assertions. At this point, you're just providing multiple quick quips, versus substantiating your assertions.

 

[VinceBlaze]

The only way to improve understand is to find the flaws in your perspective and correct them. If you won't admit there even are any flaws in that, then however wrong you already are is how wrong you will forever be.

I fully agree.

Yet I see both creationists and evolutionists who insist that there evaluative methods are without weakness or error. They can't be wrong and are afraid of scrutiny.

 

[Chalnoth]

They can't be wrong and are afraid of scrutiny.

Then clearly you have no understanding of science. Science is all about scrutiny.

 

[VinceBlaze]

The only requirement for evidence to be scientific is that it must be repeatable and observable my independent observers.

Not all evidence is repeatable and observable by independent observers. We've already gone over this in this thread.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not all evidence is repeatable and observable by independent observers. We've already gone over this in this thread.

Of course. But the point still remains: if the evidence is not repeatable and observable by independent observers, then we can never be certain it was ever there in the first place.

 

[VinceBlaze]

If it's not testable, then one position is as good as any other.

Why is this a problem? Why do you fear this?

What is the point in holding strongy to positions which are every bit as supported as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

How precisely do you become personally endangered if one believes in flying spaghetti monsters or invisible pink unicorns? Are you insecure in your own beliefs?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Then clearly you have no understanding of science.

It is because of this narrow-sighted belief of yours that we cannot have a constructive discussion. You immediately judge the other person incompetent without even listening to their argument itself, because such argument does not fit into your preconcieved ruleset on how to measure self and reality. On this basis, it becomes useless to present and/or substantiate assertions with you.

Science is all about scrutiny.

Self-scrutiny, or scrutinizing other realms where it's methods are ineffectual in the first place?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Of course.

Of course what? Of course you're wrong?

But the point still remains: if the evidence is not repeatable and observable by independent observers, then we can never be certain it was ever there in the first place.

Who's 'we'? Perhaps you're referring to yourself?

 

[BelindaP]

My guess is that they fear it because then they cannot "win". Their view is that if one position is as good as any other, what is the point of debating it? That's what happens when scientists debate. It is all about what is testable.

That's also why they end up in a frenzy against non-scientists, who are more used to the liberal arts-style debate, where hard numbers are not required, just fast wits and good debating style.

 

[BelindaP]

My creation/evolution views are not infallible. My puny human brain cannot wrap itself around the mysteries of the universe or of God. Thus, I very likely have it all wrong. It is fun to debate, however. I learn a lot.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ugh. I had a long reply that was deleted due to forum issues. Oh, well, here goes again...

It is because of this narrow-sighted belief of yours that we cannot have a constructive discussion. You immediately judge the other person incompetent without even listening to their argument itself, because such argument does not fit into your preconcieved ruleset on how to measure self and reality. On this basis, it becomes useless to present and/or substantiate assertions with you.

Narrow-sighted? How is that? And it's the argument itself that is the only thing that I care about! Now, you said:

Yet I see both creationists and evolutionists who insist that there evaluative methods are without weakness or error. They can't be wrong and are afraid of scrutiny.

Since I am a graduate student studying in cosmology, and have now been published twice, I have an intimate understanding as to the culture of science. Here you seem to be claiming that we don't question our methods. Nothing could be further from the truth: scientists are always questioning their methods. They are always scrutinizing the work of other scientists. And they invite other scientists to scrutinize their own work.

What you said, as it regards to 'evolutionists,' at least those who are also scientists, is completely and utterly wrong.

You are merely claiming that I and people like myself are closed-minded because we require evidence and logic, and you are providing neither. Just because I and others like myself disagree with you does not mean that we aren't listening to you. It means that we think that your arguments are weak, and your evidence insufficient.

Now, I have no problem with people believing in something with insufficient evidence. What I do have a problem is people believing in something with total and absolute certainty in the utter absence of any solid evidence. Such beliefs are irrational by their very nature, and irrational beliefs promote irrational thinking. I am affronted by such beliefs because I see those holding similar beliefs attacking science all the time. The worst offenders in the US today are the fundamentalist Christians, but they are not the only offender. You yourself refused to accept evidence that showed the fallibility of human memory.