Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?

[shunyadragon]

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.

As reasonable scientist with a good background in physics and math I do not see our limits of knowledge concerning Quantum Mechanics a mystery, Of course science does not know ultimate how the nature of Quantum Mechanics is 'realized.' Science is descriptive of the nature of our physical existence and as more information is acquired our description will improve, Science really cannot go beyond being descriptive, and not how things in Quantum Mechanics are realized.

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.

I find this sort of OK, but I do avoid anthropomorphic language concerning God.

 

[blü 2]

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

That's because science is largely concerned with facts. Frees of such constraints, the mind can wander whither it pleases.

 

[syo]

Which is why that assumption can be safely discarded.

Were God real, you could.

no. if you can test god, then it's not god.

 

[JoshuaTree]

no. if you can test god, then it's not god.

 

[Polymath257]

no. if you can test god, then it's not god.

Which is a very, very good reason not to believe in such a thing.

 

[shunyadragon]

I said: Your argument presupposes that evolution occurs -- to which you respond, "No I do not"? Do you even understand the statement that I made?
I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the argument. We can know whether an argument involves an assumption by using the negation test. If we put the negated assumption as a premise, you can see that the argument fails:

P1: Evolution does not occur.
P2: Math evolved for very logical and practical reasons as part of the human logical tool box.


No, it is not. I just proved that absolute truth exists.

. . . and ah Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo. Flat statements like 'Evolution does not exist.' are meaningless and do not prove anything, You have proved nothing. I DID NOT SAY EVOLUTION DOES NOT OCCUR. I said science nor I do not presuppose nor assume evolution occurs.

The evidence indicates that math evolved in human history from simply counting things to modern math over time.

Untrue. Imagine, for example, that someone is testing the speed of light. On his first experiment the speed of light comes in 80% of the expected value. That person rechecks all of his instruments and then retests. Now the speed of light comes in at 100% of the expected value. There are two ways to explain this:

1) The speed of light varied during his test, or
2) Something was wrong with his instruments.

You have no way of knowing which was the case.

Hypothetical assumptions here with no scientific citation, imagination does not count in science, and the above is meaningless as to how science actually functions. 'What ifs . . . ?' have no place in a coherent argument.

As far as the speed of light is concerned, it is determined through repeated experiments thousands and thousands of times with different methods, and math under specific controlled conditions. It is the basis of the Theory of Relativity and is a constant that has been at the foundation of modern physics

 

[Subduction Zone]

no. if you can test god, then it's not god.

Now that's one heck of a non sequitur.

 

[blü 2]

no. if you can test god, then it's not god.

Exactly. And that's because God doesn't / gods don't exist in reality, only as something imagined in individual brains.

 

[dfnj]

That's because science is largely concerned with facts. Frees of such constraints, the mind can wander whither it pleases.

Creativity is what separates us from mindless automatons.

 

[blü 2]

Creativity is what separates us from mindless automatons.

You think creativity ─ the finding of unanticipated and useful, interesting or amusing links between unlike things and concepts, for example ─ can't in principle be understood?

 

[dfnj]

You think creativity ─ the finding of unanticipated and useful, interesting or amusing links between unlike things and concepts, for example ─ can't in principle be understood?

I thought you were nihilist. Why do you care about knowledge since there's no God there's no purpose in learning.

 

[blü 2]

I thought you were nihilist. Why do you care about knowledge since there's no God there's no purpose in learning.

On what I presently know, I think reality is best explained by materialism; and that human behavior is wholly explicable in principle, and already much explained, by the biochemistry (and its related phenomena) of the body and the brain.

That's no reason to think I'm a nihilist. Nor to think that I expect humans to behave any differently to their usual behavior. Nor to refuse to enjoy the ride. Nor to discard our evolved tendencies to morality and sociability. Nor to be ungenerous, exclusive, humorless, cruel, lacking compassion, deceitful, dishonest, or wholly selfish.

And so on.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

You are assuming there is a 'how' for the realization that is distinct from the probabilities. In other words, you are assuming causality in a domain where causality has been shown to be wrong. In essence, you are asking for 'hidden variables' where actual experiments have shown there cannot be such.

One aspect of this is that the classical ideas of physics are *wrong*. They are good approximations at the macroscopic level, but they fail miserably at the microscopic level. But people still attempt to understand QM via classical ideas.And that is doomed to failure. You don't understand the new ideas based on the old ones, but the old ones based on the new. The question isn't how to 'explain quantum mechanics'. The question is how, given QM, does one explain that classical physics worked so well?

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.

I kind of like the idea that the laws of physics are such that complexity is maximized.

 

[Polymath257]

I thought you were nihilist. Why do you care about knowledge since there's no God there's no purpose in learning.

Huh? Why would you assume that? That I don't believe in a supernatural sky-daddy has NOTHING to do with the usefulness or interest of knowledge. The 'purpose' in learning is to know and understand. That is quite sufficient for me. In addition, that knowledge helps us to improve our lives and of those we love. That seems pretty important to me.

No God is required for purpose.

 

[Zosimus]

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.

As I have already pointed out, verificationism is unverifiable. I have also pointed out that empiricism cannot be derived empirically.

 

[shunyadragon]

As I have already pointed out, verificationism is unverifiable. I have also pointed out that empiricism cannot be derived empirically.

Unfortunately, as usual, this makes absolutely no sense. You pointing things out based on a religious agenda has no meaning what so ever.

Empiricism and verification work based on repeated predictability and simply it works since the first stone ancestor made the first stone tool, if what you say is true, computers would not work and airplanes would not fly.

 

[Zosimus]

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?

I thought it was painfully obvious what my philosophical predilection was. I am a [url+http://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_rationalism.html]rationalist [/url]. I believe that logic and human reason are superior to appeals to holy books (such as the Bible) or appeals to sensory input (such as scientific experiments). In that sense, I am a lonely voice here in this wilderness of logical fallacies. Should you wish to read my book, as you might refer to it, I recommend reading In Defense of Pure Reason.

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."

Indeed. The facts speak for themselves. What's the problem?

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

Regardless of your attempt at semantic cuteness, you have offered up an absolute statement -- proof that you recognize the existence of absolute truth. There is no logical way to escape the idea. This also brings us to the point I was trying to make: Knowledge can be obtained by use of rational thinking. Now, however, I would like to criticize your statement "With the unique exception of this statement, there are no absolutes." Do you classify this as knowledge? If so, then how did you arrive at this knowledge? Empirically? I doubt that, but I would be willing to listen to your empirical defense of the statement. Would you further carry this statement into effect in science? For example, would you say that it is not absolutely true that energy is conserved? Would you say that it is not absolutely true that heat moves spontaneously from hot to cold and never vice versa? Somehow I doubt it.

First, what do you intend to denote by "God"?

"God" is the name attributed to the Abrahamic God, a being worshiped by Jews and Christians. For the Christian definition, you need look no further than the Nicene Creed, as I already pointed out.

On all the evidence available to me, God is and gods are imaginary, exist only as concepts in particular brains, with no real counterpart.

Ahh, but didn't you just say that there are no absolutes? Surely you must mean to say that it is not absolutely true that all gods are imaginary. However, I am willing to go over your supposed evidence that there are no gods. Present it.

If you mean something with objective existence, what do you mean?

All right, let's begin with Hempel's Paradox. Imagine that I wish to prove that all ravens are black. So I set out in the world and find a green apple, a red straw, a white car, a brown leaf, an orange orange, a yellow banana, and a purple flower. I conclude from the evidence that it is very likely that all ravens are black because I reason as follows: "Any one of those non-black things could have been a raven, yet none of them were. Therefore, the evidence strongly indicates that all ravens are black." Question: Do you agree with the conclusion? Why or why not?

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

The Big Bang theory claims that the universe began in a colossal explosion some 14 billion years ago. If that is so, there should be no structures in the galaxy that are older than 14 billion years. The Sloan Great Wall, however, would require 100 billion years to form. Accordingly, the Big Bang theory is false through an application of modus tollens..

Third, whichever, how did you verify it?

I don't verify things. That's your game. I simply pointed out that verificationism is impossible.

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.

The premises you present refute your claim. If we claim that 2+2 = 4 and then put together two apples and two apples and find that there are 4, then we find that math has made a true statement about reality.

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

I do not rely on the Bible. You rely on the Bible.

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

It does nothing of the sort. The sad thing is that you cannot see that.

 

[Zosimus]

Unfortunately, as usual, this makes absolutely no sense. You pointing things out based on a religious agenda has no meaning what so ever.

Well, if you wish to classify rational thought as a religious agenda, then anything can be classified as a religious agenda.

 

[Zosimus]

. . . and ah Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo. Flat statements like 'Evolution does not exist.' are meaningless and do not prove anything, You have proved nothing. I DID NOT SAY EVOLUTION DOES NOT OCCUR. I said science nor I do not presuppose nor assume evolution occurs.

Yes, you did say something like that before, but I assumed that it was a typo. Surely you meant to say: "Neither science nor I assumes evolution occurs." Ahh, but you do. What you have failed to understand is the negation test for assumptions. To divorce the argument from content, let's take a simple, sample argument: "John is very tall. He must be good at basketball." This argument assumes that tall people are good at basketball. How can I prove that? I can prove so by negating the assumption. If the assumption is negated, the argument will fail. So the new argument would be: "John is very tall. Tall people are not good at basketball. John must be good at basketball." Thus we can see that the negated assumption destroys the argument. Clearly, the statement "Tall people are good at basketball" is a necessary assumption for the argument.

The evidence indicates that math evolved in human history from simply counting things to modern math over time.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Hypothetical assumptions here with no scientific citation, imagination does not count in science, and the above is meaningless as to how science actually functions. 'What ifs . . . ?' have no place in a coherent argument.

On the contrary, what ifs have a great deal to do with arguments. Gettier cases, for example, are good examples of how what ifs can expand the scope of an argument. Let's imagine, for example, that someone claims that knowledge is justified true belief. A Gettier case might be the following: What if Farmer John goes by the field where his brown cow often grazes. He from a distance, he sees a brown cloth flapping in the wind and falsely believes that it is his cow. He goes home certain that his cow is safely in the field. In reality, the cow is safely in the field, nestled down, out of sight, sleeping. Thus, Farmer John believes that the cow is there, the cow is really there, and the brown cloth that he saw was his justification for his true belief. Does Farmer John actually know that his cow is safely in the field? What say you?

As far as the speed of light is concerned, it is determined through repeated experiments thousands and thousands of times with different methods, and math under specific controlled conditions. It is the basis of the Theory of Relativity and is a constant that has been at the foundation of modern physics

This is such a ridiculous thing to say that it is obvious that you completely misunderstood the argument. The argument has nothing to do with the speed of light. Go back and re-read the argument. Then, perhaps you can make an intelligent response.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, if you wish to classify rational thought as a religious agenda, then anything can be classified as a religious agenda.

Not true, your religious agenda it totally without objective evidence to verify your beliefs.