Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ok you win. See the last comment. (ETA Sorry maybe I am defending theiistic evolution, rather than ID itself. Not used to these debates on the topic of C and E).
Well there's natural selection as the cause, the scientific view. But what if I ask please give a null hypothesis that what we call "natural" is in fact natural (i.e. there is no providential guidance).
Question. Why is naturalism the "default position" - as if its "given" without further thought or logic?
Ok, thats not what the OP asks for, but its relevant.
For the scientist can be accused of circular reasoning. (i.e. if it exists its in x, y, z a form its therefore natural, and its natural because it exists in x, y or z a form).
"Loopy" metaphysics.
Ok, methodological naturalism is the scientific way, but that doesnt mean science is therefore without its "dogmas" or "church dogmatics".
I personally believe in scientific reasoning, but I am open to faith and all sorts of wierd scenarios as possible alternatives to the official scientific story. Known philosophically as "skeptical alternatives". Thats not actually that "unscientific", rather its based on a fact relating to the human epistemnological finitude we all share. Do deny that is to get your anthropology wrong.
So biology, physics etc, are all grounded in, well, limited mankind.
I think that Sam Harris, the king of atheists would agree. He calls for the label scientific thinking to be expanded to include all rigorous and logically disciplined thinking.
So, theres no null hypotheses for ID at one level anyway, and theres no null hypothesis for naturalism either. They are both based in interpretations, groundwork rather than up-building, and our limits are well known.
Theres an infinite set of interpretations of science itself. None of these can be varified or falsified. All consistent with the data available. An angel caused it. Two angels, three angels etc. A billion and thirty two, thee, four etc...
Instead, I'll ask you this question: why is this posted on youtube and not front page news in every life science journal?
I think that Sam Harris, the king of atheists would agree. He calls for the label scientific thinking to be expanded to include all rigorous and logically disciplined thinking.
Ok you win. See the last comment. (ETA Sorry maybe I am defending theiistic evolution, rather than ID itself. Not used to these debates on the topic of C and E).
Well there's natural selection as the cause, the scientific view. But what if I ask please give a null hypothesis that what we call "natural" is in fact natural (i.e. there is no providential guidance).
Question. Why is naturalism the "default position" - as if its "given" without further thought or logic?
Ok, thats not what the OP asks for, but its relevant.
For the scientist can be accused of circular reasoning. (i.e. if it exists its in x, y, z a form its therefore natural, and its natural because it exists in x, y or z a form).
"Loopy" metaphysics.
Ok, methodological naturalism is the scientific way, but that doesnt mean science is therefore without its "dogmas" or "church dogmatics".
I personally believe in scientific reasoning, but I am open to faith and all sorts of wierd scenarios as possible alternatives to the official scientific story. Known philosophically as "skeptical alternatives". Thats not actually that "unscientific", rather its based on a fact relating to the human epistemnological finitude we all share. Do deny that is to get your anthropology wrong.
So biology, physics etc, are all grounded in, well, limited mankind.
I think that Sam Harris, the king of atheists would agree. He calls for the label scientific thinking to be expanded to include all rigorous and logically disciplined thinking.
So, theres no null hypotheses for ID at one level anyway, and theres no null hypothesis for naturalism either. They are both based in interpretations, groundwork rather than up-building, and our limits are well known.
Theres an infinite set of interpretations of science itself. None of these can be varified or falsified. All consistent with the data available. An angel caused it. Two angels, three angels etc. A billion and thirty two, thee, four etc...
If you are going to insist on turning the topic around and rambling about off topic stuff, I'm kindly going to ask you to do it elsewhere.
Sorry, but it's getting a bit frustrating.
I created this thread with only one purpose: for ID'ers to tell me how they differentiate design from non-design.
No one has come forward yet.
Question. Why is naturalism the "default position" - as if its "given" without further thought or logic?
For the scientist can be accused of circular reasoning. (i.e. if it exists its in x, y, z a form its therefore natural, and its natural because it exists in x, y or z a form).
I personally believe in scientific reasoning, but I am open to faith and all sorts of wierd scenarios as possible alternatives to the official scientific story. Known philosophically as "skeptical alternatives". Thats not actually that "unscientific", rather its based on a fact relating to the human epistemnological finitude we all share. Do deny that is to get your anthropology wrong.
So, theres no null hypotheses for ID at one level anyway, and theres no null hypothesis for naturalism either.
Because if we try to apply the rules of science to religion, we get gobblygook. And both militant anti-theists, and creationists have a common interest in making faith and science at odds with each other.
I always thought that atheists were kinda anarchistic; who knew they had a king? He rules by "absent right?"
Another evidence, more pertinent to this thread, is that something's design can be inferred when it contains interdependencies that I don't believe could arise without purposeful construction. I include everything living among those things, even individual cells.
Since the sun doesn't depend on the earth I don't think this example applies to what I said. I see dependence, but not interdependence."I don't believe that the Earth could orbit the Sun".
Have I just disproven the laws of gravity?
Since the sun doesn't depend on the earth I don't think this example applies to what I said. I see dependence, but not interdependence.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any relevance between this and my first post.Reality doesn't depend on what you can or can not believe. That's the point.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any relevance between this and my first post.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?