baseless attempt to disprove Reality

[shunyadragon]

What is your point ?

You have trotted out the atheist excuse of, given time science will answer all questions. That is not a statement of fact, it is purely a faith statement.

For the natural narrative to be true, abiogenesis must be true. There is little evidence for it, it isn´t happening now, no one knows how it worked, yet this bizarre idea is the lynchpin for your world view.

So, you have your faith in science, and believe the impossible will be shown to be likely.

You have your faith, I have mine.

Your accrid sarcam is noted.

False, with time science does not claim it will answer all questions, and science is not atheist. There are no such lynchpins in science, and nothing must be true in science.The science of abiogenesis is based on sound evidence and basic sciences. It is unethical to base your argument on the fallacy of arguing from ignorance, ie because science does not 'know' therefore . . .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My reasoning is that science has progressed. My reasoning is that science will continue to progress.

...

Your reasoning can't cause science to progress. What you have done is inductive reasoning, but that is not evidence. Evidence requires some form of observation but you can't observe the future. You can only predict, but that won't mean that your prediction is correct. It might be that there are limits to science.
There are today the following limits:
Science can don't morality/ethics, aesthetics, tell you what to use science for or decide metaphysics/supernatural claims.

Here is an example: One human kills another. How do we use science to observe/test if it is right or wrong? Currently we can't, because we can't observe in the scientific sense moral right or wrong nor is there an international scientific measurement standard for the calibration of an instrument to measure right or wrong.
So you know, that will change?
You can assert that it will change, but that won't make it so. You can think it will change, but that won't make it so.
So how do you know that science will progress to be able to do morality?

 

[David T]

Thank you for posting the incoherent ramble of the day.

> I finding dealing with creationists hilarious.

 

[ecco]

My reasoning is that science has progressed. My reasoning is that science will continue to progress.

If you were around at the time that Copernicus explained that the sun was the center of our solar system, you would have made the same silly anti-science comments that you make now regarding evolution.

Your reasoning can't cause science to progress.

Perhaps we have a language barrier problem. I did not say nor did I imply that my reasoning would cause science to progress. Science has progressed over the centuries without the help of my reasoning.

What you have done is inductive reasoning, but that is not evidence.
Evidence requires some form of observation but you can't observe the future. You can only predict, but that won't mean that your prediction is correct. It might be that there are limits to science.

Every day since December 21st the days in the Northern Hemisphere have gotten a little longer. I know that tomorrow will be longer than today. I also know that this will continue until June 21. Thereafter, for about 6 months, the days will get shorter. I am not predicting the future. I am using reason based on the evidence of the past.

There are today the following limits:
Science can don't morality/ethics, aesthetics, tell you what to use science for or decide metaphysics/supernatural claims.
...
So how do you know that science will progress to be able to do morality?

I don't mind you jumping in on a conversation that I am having with another. That's perfectly acceptable. However, if you are going to do it, you should have familiarized yourself with the context of the discussion. We were not discussing morality/ethics/aesthetics/metaphysics/supernatural. We were discussing abiogenesis.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps we have a language barrier problem. I did not say nor did I imply that my reasoning would cause science to progress. Science has progressed over the centuries without the help of my reasoning.

Correct

Every day since December 21st the days in the Northern Hemisphere have gotten a little longer. I know that tomorrow will be longer than today. I also know that this will continue until June 21. Thereafter, for about 6 months, the days will get shorter. I am not predicting the future. I am using reason based on the evidence of the past.

You should note the following difference between using reason on something connected to scientific laws and not. Your example is connected to scientific laws. I know that is not a law from God/man and I might as well say scientific theory. So your reasoning is based on scientific theory and amount to a conditional statement in part based on there tomorrow are humans, an earth, a sun and so on and thus your example makes sense. In effect you are saying that if the conditions remain the same, then...
Your knowledge is conditional on the conditions remaining the same. That is knowledge based on induction. I know that and you know that. Now are the conditions for science in general to progress the same or different as your example. They are different. I accept that science can progress, but there are some limits. If the conditions remain the same the science won't tomorrow be able to make moral judgments. So what are the conditions today, which make it a fact that science doesn't make moral judgments? Well, in short to do science and what makes it science, is in part that it is observer independent. Moral judgments are not a case of being observer independent. Rather they are personal, opinions, relative and not a case of empirical evidence. Morality is in scientific terms a result of evolution and connected to the replication of the fittest gene. Because it is not the species of humans which need to survive but rather just enough member need to sexually reproduce and not all; and there is competition for mates and resources, morality ends up as feelings/emotions/principles/etc and not being based on empirical evidence, i.e. not independent of humans and not observable.
In short, as with some poetic license. The idea that one day science can make moral judgments requires another species, that we become Borgs, like ants and what not or it is a nice idea, but the wrong species. But on a more fundamental level, it is a nice idea, but the wrong universe, because the universe in toto has no purpose, meaning or so on independent of human beliefs, if you use methodological naturalism and science. That leads to the next part

I don't mind you jumping in on a conversation that I am having with another. That's perfectly acceptable. However, if you are going to do it, you should have familiarized yourself with the context of the discussion. We were not discussing morality/ethics/aesthetics/metaphysics/supernatural. We were discussing abiogenesis.

No, we are not disguising just only abiogenesis. Read the OP. Look at the whole. Now let us go to last Thursday-ism and say a god created the universe last Thursday. I don't believe that and I don't need nor want to believe that, but a human, who believed that, can/could do that. Any belief in a god/gods is within the natural world a fact. It takes places as human behavior, just as time-taking and using calendars is a human behavior. Religion as a human behavior is a fact, you can observe it empirically. Now is religion wrong in any scientific sense? That goes to the limit of science; science can't answer as true/false, right/wrong and so on morality/ethics/aesthetics/metaphysics/supernatural claims. Science can explain those as human behavior using methodological naturalism, but science can't answer if those are fundamentally true/right and so on.
So what caused life to emerge? That depends on what you take for granted. What is reality in the metaphysical sense? That depends on how you think/reason/believe. You, I and other humans hold a multitude of view of what reality is, but because of cognitive relativism as long someone doesn't go against certain facts in certain cases; you, I and other humans can get away with holding contradictory views and still have a life. E.g. verification versus falsification in science amount to a contradiction, yet 2 scientists who can't agree on what knowledge is, can both still have a life.
There is indeed a difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism. The former allows you to claim that religion is wrong, but that is not science per se, it is philosophy. You can hold different views of what science is, including realism/anti-realism, positivism, pragmatism, instrumentalism and so on.
Indeed most humans hold logically false views, yet most of them don't jump out of windows believing they can fly and other such cases.

Now if you want to argue what makes a good life a good life and that we ought to achieve a better world, we can do that. But that is not natural science alone. That is a combination of science, philosophy, humanities and religion in practice and it can't be decided using science alone. The demarcation between science and religion is not really about science and religion. It is about what is common to humans versus how an individual makes sense of reality and no methodology exists, which allows for objective authority over any human. Neither science, philosophy nor religion has solved that and there is no reason to believe that will change unless humans cease to be humans or reality changes in a fundamental way. No human holds truth, proof, evidence and what not over any other human.

So I am a creationist in that I believe that a supernatural force created the natural world, but within the natural world there is to me no revealed god/gods and no form of objective authority. I don't even believe in Heaven/Hell or reincarnation, magic within the natural world or miracles. That makes me a deist, but I am also an agnostic. I don't know what reality really is. I believe and it has worked so far for me and I accept that other humans do it differently.

 

[ecco]

You should note the following difference between using reason on something connected to scientific laws and not. Your example is connected to scientific laws. I know that is not a law from God/man and I might as well say scientific theory. So your reasoning is based on scientific theory and amount to a conditional statement in part based on there tomorrow are humans, an earth, a sun and so on and thus your example makes sense. In effect you are saying that if the conditions remain the same, then...

Conditions remaining comparatively the same is a valid assumption. Through WWI, WWII, assassinations, scandals et al, conditions stayed comparatively the same. A major meteor strike may change things.

In the 1965 Gordon Moore predicted that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubled about every two years. Moore, applying reason and logic predicted that trend would continue. It is completely valid to take evidence from the past and extrapolate into the future.

Your knowledge is conditional on the conditions remaining the same. That is knowledge based on induction. I know that and you know that. Now are the conditions for science in general to progress the same or different as your example. They are different.

See above.

I accept that science can progress, but there are some limits. If the conditions remain the same the science won't tomorrow be able to make moral judgments.

We were discussing scientific advances in abiogenesis. We were not discussing "Moral judgements". Let's stay on topic.

So what are the conditions today,
<snip comments about morality not related to abiogenesis>

No, we are not disguising just only abiogenesis. Read the OP. Look at the whole.

The discussion between you and me was whether or not science would find the basics of how abiogenesis works.

I argued that science has progressed in all areas and there was no reason to assume it wouldn't progress in the knowledge of abiogeneses. You disagreed.

<snip>
... but because of cognitive relativism as long someone doesn't go against certain facts in certain cases; you, I and other humans can get away with holding contradictory views and still have a life. E.g. verification versus falsification in science amount to a contradiction, yet 2 scientists who can't agree on what knowledge is, can both still have a life.

Now you have strayed completely off the topic of advancements in abiogenesis and delved deeply into woo. I'll be glad to discuss that, or any other topic, once we conclude the current discussion.

You really haven't shown any reasons why advancements in abiogenesis shouldn't progress just as advancements in other areas of science have progressed.