Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:We gone over this before and while many people love to point out the science doesn't prove anything or isn't in the business of proofs, the reality is that YES it is and people that say it isn't are simply using a disclaimer.
The simple reality is that IF science can't prove anything and is not in the business of "proving" then of what use is it ??????
What is it's point?

One can prove beyond reasonable doubt that, for example, at STP pure water will boil at 100C. Its fine to say it is true, or maybe even Truth, for those who like to talk that way.

No theory or law can ever be proven to be correct. Are you somehow disputing that?
If not, there is no need to belabour this topic.

When a person speaks of 'unproven theories" or "just a theory" it is very suggestive of a serious laack of scientific literacy. May not, uh, prove it, but, it sure makes a person look silly.

Audie, the simple realistic fact is this:
IF science can't prove anything, it serves no purpose (besides entertainment value of course).
When people say that science doesn't prove things what they are basically saying is that nothing that can be observed and repeated can be proven to be what is observed and repeated.
IF that is the case then science is a exercise in pointlessness.

The reality is that science is approached with the understanding that it can prove certain things and that the scientific process is a valid on in proving that things are a certain way.
No one sets out in science to NOT prove something.

The evidence we have for evolution is what we use to try and prove that evolution happens, the degree of success is not the issue in regards to WHY science collects data and evidence for evolution because what is the issue is the POINT of collecting data and doing experiments and establishing evidence and that is to PROVE that evolution happens.

So do you think that science is in the biz of proving laws and theories are true?

Or is it a matter of probabilities?

Are you suggesting that Newton and Einstein set off to discover and establish JUST probablities ??

If science is only about what is possible then it is just as good as placebo's in medicine since it is POSSIBLE that placebos work too !

Now now paul answering a question with a question?

Could you just say if you think that science is out to prove laws and theories are true?

And if its possible?

I don't think that Audie appreciates the difference in deductive and inductive certainty. Her whole argument is a semantic game and boils down to little more than a four term fallacy.

Jac3510 wrote:I don't think that Audie appreciates the difference in deductive and inductive certainty. Her whole argument is a semantic game and boils down to little more than a four term fallacy.

Arent you the feller with his kite down the sewer?

Hardly. You'd have to look up to see how high it flies, but it's hard to do that when you're too busy looking down at other people. (But I commend you on yet ANOTHER well placed ad hominem. I'm starting to think it's something of a second language for you. )

Audie, be careful with Jac, he only LOOKS one dimensional!

Audie should enjoy this article - the limits of the scientific method are discussed here by the recently deceased Nobel Prize winner Dr. Charles Townes (best known for his invention of the maser and the development of the laser): http://www.templetonprize.org/pdfs/THINK.pdf (start reading on the last paragraph of page five, continues next page)

Jac3510 wrote:I don't think that Audie appreciates the difference in deductive and inductive certainty. Her whole argument is a semantic game and boils down to little more than a four term fallacy.

If you think that proof and proof beyond reasonable doubt, are the same go for it.

If you believe that any theory in science can be proved to be true, go ahead and discredit
yourself.

As you believe in yec, about as absurd for an adult with access to even 19th century knowledge
as one can get, all while spurting this wise sounding "philosophy" then yes, your kite is down the sewer.

As for ducking behind "ad hom", that calls for one of my marvellously apt sports analogies:

Team owner to player: "You talk a better game than you play."

Player, in pompous indignation: "That is an ad hom!!"

And, like you, try to turn the topic back on the other person.

Philip wrote:Audie, be careful with Jac, he only LOOKS one dimensional!

Audie should enjoy this article - the limits of the scientific method are discussed here by the recently deceased Nobel Prize winner Dr. Charles Townes (best known for his invention of the maser and the development of the laser): http://www.templetonprize.org/pdfs/THINK.pdf (start reading on the last paragraph of page five, continues next page)

I'm sure you are right, if he's poked something besides hot air might come out.

Thanks for the link. Of course there are limits to what
science can do.
You do seem to have odd ideas unrelated
to those limits, and about me.

Might be as well to drop it, tho.

Audie wrote: Now now paul answering a question with a question?

Could you just say if you think that science is out to prove laws and theories are true?

And if its possible?

Science is about discovering what laws and theories are true, what can be proven to the best of our ability.
Science is about the observation of nature.

Look at how science is defined:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.

And so forth.

Science, if not based on the pursuit of proving things, is based on what?

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I don't think that Audie appreciates the difference in deductive and inductive certainty. Her whole argument is a semantic game and boils down to little more than a four term fallacy.

If you think that proof and proof beyond reasonable doubt, go for it.

If you believe that any theory in science can be proved to be true, go ahead and discredit
yourself.

As you believe in yec, about as absurd for an adult with access to even 19th century knowledge
as one can get, all while spurting this wise sounding "philosophy" then yes, your kite is down the sewer.

As for ducking behind "ad hom" that calls for one of my marvellously apt sports analogies:

Team owner to player: "You talk a better game than you play."

Player, in pompous indignation: "That is an ad hom!!"

And, like you, try to turn the topic back on the other person.

So much wrong in that post.

Hey, I appreciate that you think I'm "discredited." I hope that you can appreciate the fact that I don't take that terribly seriously. You don't know what you're talking about. I wish you did, because then I could take you more seriously. It would be interesting to be able to learn something from you, but I can't, because your insistence on being irrational. To justify your constant use of fallacies by attacking me actually discredits you.

It's just sad to see somebody who is clearly as intelligent as you make such plainly uneducated claims as you do. What takes it from sad to being a real shame is the authority with which you presume to speak on matters you don't understand. But, to steal a line from Maimonides, I have to wonder "what can be expected from those who do not regard the nature of things?"

Still, I am hopeful for you. The hope here is merely that you'll invest more time into not being irrational. I don't imagine that even you can use my interpretation of a three and half thousand year old document to justify your employment of four term fallacies and personal attacks for that long!

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I don't think that Audie appreciates the difference in deductive and inductive certainty. Her whole argument is a semantic game and boils down to little more than a four term fallacy.

If you think that proof and proof beyond reasonable doubt, go for it.

If you believe that any theory in science can be proved to be true, go ahead and discredit
yourself.

As you believe in yec, about as absurd for an adult with access to even 19th century knowledge
as one can get, all while spurting this wise sounding "philosophy" then yes, your kite is down the sewer.

As for ducking behind "ad hom" that calls for one of my marvellously apt sports analogies:

Team owner to player: "You talk a better game than you play."

Player, in pompous indignation: "That is an ad hom!!"

And, like you, try to turn the topic back on the other person.

So much wrong in that post.

Hey, I appreciate that you think I'm "discredited." I hope that you can appreciate the fact that I don't take that terribly seriously. You don't know what you're talking about. I wish you did, because then I could take you more seriously. It would be interesting to be able to learn something from you, but I can't, because your insistence on being irrational. To justify your constant use of fallacies by attacking me actually discredits you.

It's just sad to see somebody who is clearly as intelligent as you make such plainly uneducated claims as you do. What takes it from sad to being a real shame is the authority with which you presume to speak on matters you don't understand. But, to steal a line from Maimonides, I have to wonder "what can be expected from those who do not regard the nature of things?"

Still, I am hopeful for you. The hope here is merely that you'll invest more time into not being irrational. I don't imagine that even you can use my interpretation of a three and half thousand year old document to justify your employment of four term fallacies and personal attacks for that long!

When, if you ever do, recover from the Vice of Yec, you will see all this in a very different light. But I suspect you have too much invested for that epiphany to ever bust thru.

Still, I will hold out hope for you.

"attacks' Honestly, some people. Whip out your mirror, already.

Pssst! Audie?

I`m still waiting for you to have your epiphany about God

You don't understand my position well enough to say whether or not I would or even should abandon it. As for you, your insistence on relying on a genetic fallacy says much about your own emotional investments in your position. My interest isn't in you adopting YEC or even theism. I'd be content if you'd just start with some intellectual honesty, and that would start with not making fallacious straw man arguments and pretending like semantic games are substitutes for real critiques of positions, which you have provided in abundance in this very thread.

Jac3510 wrote:You don't understand my position well enough to say whether or not I would or even should abandon it. As for you, your insistence on relying on a genetic fallacy says much about your own emotional investments in your position. My interest isn't in you adopting YEC or even theism. I'd be content if you'd just start with some intellectual honesty, and that would start with not making fallacious straw man arguments and pretending like semantic games are substitutes for real critiques of positions, which you have provided in abundance in this very thread.

A person who claims intellectual honesty for himself, while holding that "new earth creationism" has some sort of merit as real history, is a person with his kite down the sewer.

If you are not a "yec" you'd surely have denied it. Do you deny it?

If you are a yec, I dont need to know what "philosophical" or "theistic" contortions it took to get you there. It is what it is. It certainly took some maneuvers to avoid noticing what came clear well over a hundred years ago.

Now, it may be that the truth or falsity of "yec' is of absolutely no concern to you.

Does it make no difference at all to you if YEC has not one particle of historic accuracy to it?

If it is of any sort of central importance, AND you hold to that belief despite all opportunity for recovery then you have deliberately avoided facing facts.

Prease exprain the intellectual honesty in that.

Guys...

Come on guys, I love you both.

Rob wrote:Guys...

Come on guys, I love you both.

Ok you are right. Blessed be the peacemakers and all.

i wont do this anymore.

Unless he, you know, provokes me.