Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?

[dfnj]

Well, one issue is that any *fundamental* description of things cannot have an answer to 'why' it is that way. Any answer to the question 'why' will rely on even more fundamental reasons or laws.

So, why do you expect the question 'why' will have an ultimate answer? Isn't it ultimately impossible to get such by the very nature of explanation?

I don't expect answer and yes it is ultimately impossible to answer the questions based on objective evidence and reason.

I answer it with faith precisely because the answers cannot be based on objective reasons.

I don't have a problem with anyone nihilistic view of existence. I just choose to have faith and pretend my life has cosmic importance. You might say it's irrational. But my argument would be if everything is meaningless then it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. So you might as well choose to make it meaningful since what difference does it make. At least choosing meaningful life has more meaning.

 

[dfnj]

It is important that the 'why?' question is NOT a question for Methodological Naturalism, and the concept of convergence in science could not include metaphysical questions nor 'why?.'.

I think science has limitations. It is a narrow point of view.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think science has limitations. It is a narrow point of view.

I am not sure what you are calling 'narrow.' Science has specific limitations, and one of those it cannot address the philosophical question 'why?'

 

[shunyadragon]

Science is like the following story.

A certain man was found dead in his apartment. There was a pool of blood around him and a nearby pistol. Experts were called in to examine the scene and shortly thereafter, a report emerged.

1) The man died from blood loss and a collapsed lung.
2) The blood loss and the collapsed lung was due to a lead projectile passing through the man.
3) The lead projectile passed through the man because it was traveling at a high speed.
4) The lead projectile was traveling at high speed because of a gunpowder explosion.
5) The gunpowder exploded because it was compressed inside a brass casing that would explode if tapped sharply on one side.
6) The pistol contains a hammer that could tap the bullet sharply on one side.

Skeptic: Yes, yes. All well and good. But who fired the weapon?

Science: There's no need to postulate an intelligent actor. We have identified the natural causes of death. We do not need to postulate supernatural, intelligent beings taking action.

Skeptic: Surely you must realize that an intelligent actor need not be supernatural. It might well have been his wife, a thief, or an estranged lover. Your explanation doesn't answer the vital question at hand.

Science: All explanations must stop somewhere. If we postulate an intelligent actor, such as a wife, we must also ask ourselves what intelligent actor created that wife? Then we must also think about who created the being that created the wife? And who created that being? On and on, we would never get to the beginning of questions. It's best to stop with the natural explanations.

Of course, science only deals with natural descriptive explanations based on objective verifiable evidence. Nothing else, and nothing more.

The rest of the above is not meaningful concerning science and Methodological Naturaism.

 

[Polymath257]

Like, for example, if there were a theory that predicted that light were a particle and another theory that predicted that light was a wave, then I could test and show that light had properties of a wave, thus falsifying the theory that light is a particle? Interesting.

Yes. And when you verify that light has the properties of a particle, you also show that the theory stating it is only a wave is falsified.

The point is that *both* of those naive theories have been falsified. They were very detailed (and not just 'light is a particle' or 'light is a wave') and the observations have shown both of them wrong.

What *is* correct is that ALL quantum particles show properties that were *classically* associated with both waves and particles. Light is neither a classical particle nor is it a classical wave. It is a quantum particle, which means it has some properties of both types of classical models, but also has additional properties that have been tested and verified.

Well, of course, you must realize that you can't.

So you deny knowledge is possible concerning science? Then maybe you have too strict of an idea of knowledge.

That's very interesting. You claim that Bayesian statistics can help you solve the problem of induction. Why don't you provide us with an example, complete with the math involved?

No, this is speculation. Even though I might agree with some (or all) of those claims, it is not knowledge.

Yes, they are justified true beliefs. They are true to the degree of approximation implied by the statements. Just like, for example, the statement that the Earth orbits the sun is a true statement.

I doubt that. Let's see your Bayesian solution.

When I have some time, I will write it up.

 

[Polymath257]

Science is like the following story.

A certain man was found dead in his apartment. There was a pool of blood around him and a nearby pistol. Experts were called in to examine the scene and shortly thereafter, a report emerged.

1) The man died from blood loss and a collapsed lung.
2) The blood loss and the collapsed lung was due to a lead projectile passing through the man.
3) The lead projectile passed through the man because it was traveling at a high speed.
4) The lead projectile was traveling at high speed because of a gunpowder explosion.
5) The gunpowder exploded because it was compressed inside a brass casing that would explode if tapped sharply on one side.
6) The pistol contains a hammer that could tap the bullet sharply on one side.

Skeptic: Yes, yes. All well and good. But who fired the weapon?

Science: There's no need to postulate an intelligent actor. We have identified the natural causes of death. We do not need to postulate supernatural, intelligent beings taking action.

Skeptic: Surely you must realize that an intelligent actor need not be supernatural. It might well have been his wife, a thief, or an estranged lover. Your explanation doesn't answer the vital question at hand.

Science: All explanations must stop somewhere. If we postulate an intelligent actor, such as a wife, we must also ask ourselves what intelligent actor created that wife? Then we must also think about who created the being that created the wife? And who created that being? On and on, we would never get to the beginning of questions. It's best to stop with the natural explanations.

Your caricature of science doesn't help your cause. In the case of a gunshot, we *know* that intelligent agents are usually involved, we know a great deal about the motivations of such agents, and we know many examples of such agents. And, being natural agents, they do not go outside of the scientific method, allowing for testing and verification.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't expect answer and yes it is ultimately impossible to answer the questions based on objective evidence and reason.

I answer it with faith precisely because the answers cannot be based on objective reasons.

I don't have a problem with anyone nihilistic view of existence. I just choose to have faith and pretend my life has cosmic importance. You might say it's irrational. But my argument would be if everything is meaningless then it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. So you might as well choose to make it meaningful since what difference does it make. At least choosing meaningful life has more meaning.

I'm not sure why you consider my viewpoint to be nihilistic. I *do* think that things have meaning, but I think that *we*, as intelligent, moral agents, are the ones that give meaning. I find a great many things in life to be meaningful: friends, family, learning, etc. I don't require a supernatural to find meaning.

 

[shunyadragon]

=Zosimus]
Let me summarize your argument to see whether I have understood it.

You have a theory of an electron, hereinafter ("T")
This T predicts certain observations ("O").
You observe O.
You conclude that T is correct.

Isn't this a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy?

No, because you do not conclude T is correct by generalization beyond the set limits of T, which would be the criteria of the fallacy where generalized statements are made beyond the specific limits proposed by T as in the following fallacy.

If I had been thrown off the top of the Trade Empire State Building, then I am dead.
I am dead.
Therefore, I had been thrown off the top of the Empire State Building.

Also, it is not assumed by one observation that the theory is necessarily 'correct.' Theories and hypothesis are falsified by a number of controled tests and research, and never absolutely correct.

Doesn't this violate the very problem of induction that you previously referenced? The most that you can say is that your theory was not falsified by the test at hand.

No. because verification of theories and hypothesis by the use of methods of induction in science is never conclusive. They are always subject to further testing and research, but yes the conclusions are drawn by tests at hand, but subject to change as new knowledge becomes available.

You appear to be 'arguing from ignorance' here, a fallacy..

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't expect answer and yes it is ultimately impossible to answer the questions based on objective evidence and reason.

I answer it with faith precisely because the answers cannot be based on objective reasons.

I don't have a problem with anyone nihilistic view of existence. I just choose to have faith and pretend my life has cosmic importance. You might say it's irrational. But my argument would be if everything is meaningless then it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. So you might as well choose to make it meaningful since what difference does it make. At least choosing meaningful life has more meaning.

Not irrational, but simply outside the scope of science.

How are you defining a nihilist view of existence?

 

[dfnj]

I'm not sure why you consider my viewpoint to be nihilistic. I *do* think that things have meaning, but I think that *we*, as intelligent, moral agents, are the ones that give meaning. I find a great many things in life to be meaningful: friends, family, learning, etc. I don't require a supernatural to find meaning.

I said meaningful on a comic timescale.

 

[dfnj]

I am not sure what you are calling 'narrow.' Science has specific limitations, and one of those it cannot address the philosophical question 'why?'

Like all systems of thought, accuracy and completeness is a limitation. One thing about nature is it always turns out to be much stranger than anything we could have ever imagined. I like this definition of God: God is a force in the Universe that keeps our full understanding of nature just one step beyond our full comprehension.

 

[shunyadragon]

I said meaningful on a comic timescale.

I do not believe the cosmic scale has time.

 

[shunyadragon]

Like all systems of thought, accuracy and completeness is a limitation. One thing about nature is it always turns out to be much stranger than anything we could have ever imagined. I like this definition of God: God is a force in the Universe that keeps our full understanding of nature just one step beyond our full comprehension.

OK sort of, but on scientific and theological perspective I do not agree.

I do not consider science getting weirder. You may be referring to Quantum Mechanics as sometimes 'appearing' weird and contradictory, but from the science perspective this is just the limits of human observations from our present capability, and actually the observations of Quantum Mechanics are actually very predictable even though not understood at present and appear contradictory to the Newtonian Universe.

I do not like this definition of God. Yes, God is simply the Source some call God's. When you say '. . . that keeps our full understanding of nature just one step beyond our full comprehension.' you are giving God anthropomorphic characteristics that God 'does things.' If anything can be said it is God's nature and the ultimate nature of God's Creation is simply unknown to fallible human nature.

 

[dfnj]

OK sort of, but on scientific and theological perspective I do not agree.

I do not consider science getting weirder. You may be referring to Quantum Mechanics as sometimes 'appearing' weird and contradictory, but from the science perspective this is just the limits of human observations from our present capability, and actually the observations of Quantum Mechanics are actually very predictable even though not understood at present and appear contradictory to the Newtonian Universe.

Very predictable but we have absolutely not idea what IT is that decides which quantum state gets realized once observed. Knowing it probabilistic or what the probability will be is not the same thing as knowing how is it realized. The mystery of existence seems to never go away now matter how much we think we understand how nature behaves.

I do not like this definition of God. Yes, God is simply the Source some call God's. When you say '. . . that keeps our full understanding of nature just one step beyond our full comprehension.' you are giving God anthropomorphic characteristics that God 'does things.' If anything can be said it is God's nature and the ultimate nature of God's Creation is simply
unknown to fallible human nature.

I think we do it to ourselves. Language is an abstraction. Language is not the reality it represents even though most people think their words are reality.

I just find it really strange that reality is always beyond our comprehension. It's not clockwork and there doesn't seem to be hard determinism anywhere. It's like a few years ago when we found out the Universe is not only expanding but accelerating. It seems like the Universe is always showing up in the most strangest ways imaginable.

 

[syo]

What truth test did you carry out on the bible to determine that it's inerrant?

you can't test god.

 

[blü 2]

Articles of faith are accepted as being true without any evidence or proof. The "truth" you are looking for does not exist in religion. Having faith is a "choice" not a "decision" based on reason.

So 'articles of faith' are arbitrary statements which the faithful agree not to examine for truth or falsity.

That would explain the data well enough. But it means that when eg Christians use the word 'truth', which they frequently do, it translates as 'our arbitrary statements'. That's a sad fate for the word 'truth'.

The difference between a human being and an automaton is human beings are capable of making choices. Automatons are only capable of making decisions.

It's true that humans are free to act irrationally, but is it something to boast about?

 

[Polymath257]

I said meaningful on a comic timescale.

Why would you expect there to be meaning on that scale? of what value would it be?

 

[Polymath257]

you can't test god.

Which is why that assumption can be safely discarded.

 

[blü 2]

Not once did I talk about any book. That's your pathological attempt to project Christianity on me.

You quoted John and Genesis; and you persisted with your interpretation of 'earth' in Genesis. but since you say you're not a Christian, what philosophically or religiously, are you?

Here we have another case of special pleading. You want to know how we can determine whether phenomenon X is caused by God. Fine. But when I ask how you know that the fuzzy outer portion of your picture is caused by an electron, you claim that I don't know what I'm talking about.

You asked me no such question, and the reply you attribute to me is equally fictitious. Your first statement was "Electrons are a useful fiction that science dabbles in -- nothing more." And your second statement was "I looked at your picture, and there was no electron to be observed."

That's an interesting statement. But is that statement verifiable? Please indicate the process you undertook to verify the truth of that statement.

Yes, it's verifiable. It was verified to my satisfaction by (a) the absence of such a definition and (b) inference from your evasion of the issue by changing the subject.

In your system there are no absolutes? Really? So if I said: "The cause always precedes the effect, temporally" you would say that this is not absolutely true?

That only results from the definition of 'cause', not from physics. A phenomenon can be called an 'effect' only in relation to its cause. Some phenomena have no cause in terms of classical physics.

Would you also say that the statement "In 'my system' there are no absolutes" is not absolutely true?

The statement in its full cuteness is, "With the unique exception of this statement, there are no absolutes".

God didn't make the universe 14 billion years ago.

First, what do you intend to denote by "God"? On all the evidence available to me, God is and gods are imaginary, exist only as concepts in particular brains, with no real counterpart. If you mean something with objective existence, what do you mean?

Second, what does your statement mean? God didn't make the universe? God made make the universe but not 14bn years ago?

Third, whichever, how did you verify it?

Not necessarily. People can arrive at truth through pure reason. The entirety of math is an example.

Maths can make statements useful in reality, but not true statements about reality. This is because maths is abstraction. 2+2=4 is only 'true' in a secondary sense, as 'correct according to the rules of the system'. However, two real apples and two real apples gives four real apples.

No, you seem to have missed the entire point of the thread. The Bible defines Earth as 'dry land' and then says that said 'dry land' was flat. Then you want to argue whether the globe was spherical at that time. This is, by far, the most idiotic argument I've ever heard.

Why do you rely on the bible? You've repeatedly said no book was involved in your argument.

This presupposes that Yahweh was invented. How did you verify that Yahweh was invented?

Easy. He's not real, so someone made him up.

That's not a picture of an electron. Even the article itself says that it's not a picture of an electron. It says: "What you’re looking at is the first direct observation of an atom’s electron orbital — an atom's actual wave function!"

I'm happy with that. It refutes your assertion that electrons are a fiction.

 

[blü 2]

you can't test god.

Were God real, you could.