There are only 3 requirements that must be needed for any prospective “theory”:
- That the concept be “falsifiable”.
- That it followed the requirement of Scientific Method, which involves 2 stages -
- Formulation of the hypothesis (which is to turn “concept” into detailed “explanations” with predictions)
- Test the hypothesis (eg evidence & experiments)
- Peer Review (presents the hypothesis, plus evidence & data, to independent scientists to analyze, review & test them, as well to find errors or discrepancies)
Failing the 1st point (Falsifiability), won’t allow scientist to proceed to the next (Scientific Method). And a scientist would only present his works for peer-review if his testing support the explanations & predictions in the hypothesis.
Reaching a concept is a logical process,
establishing evidence with or against a hypothesis is a logical process,
falsification is a logical process. Even peer review is a logical process. Any rational process of any kind must adhere to logical principles.
It’s not about the methodology but rather the rational ground that ensures the true application of it.
You confuse being methodical/rational with being directly observable or testable.
Again, consider the example of dark energy as a total unknown and may never be known yet the concept of its existence is considered methodical, rational and falsifiable.
A very important principle of the scientific method/naturalism is the fact that naturalism is a “posteriori” view. It's not an advance commitment to certain ontology or axiom.
Actual application of naturalism became a prior commitment to the so-called materialism (as if materialism is an absolute concept rather than a provisional relative). A commitment that mandates a priori adherence to material cause that must produce the so-called material explanations no matter how counter-intuitive or mystifying to the uninitiated.
The real question becomes what are the criteria that define the so-called “naturalistic” vs. the “non-naturalistic”? Is it being unknown, unseen, or being of a nature that cannot be understood? Isn’t this exactly the case with all natural forces? How is it different from the so-called “supernatural”? How can we make such distinction? Is there such thing as “supernatural”? Or is it simply another “unknown”?
There is no such thing as materialistic or not, there is only data getting logically processed to draw conclusions, that’s all there is and we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. The classification of something as natural or not is a conception or rather a misconception but not by any means an intrinsic nature. How can you classify an unknown?
As a “posteriori” view, Naturalism should be open to acceptance to even what may be perceived as a radical kind of entities/forces. Naturalism should accommodate any conclusion driven by data/logic no matter how radical it appears to be. No assumption of any kind should be established as a priori tell the data is logically examined. That is exactly the logical error that can be seen in actual application of naturalism, which is the strict adherence to undefined/unevidenced false priori.
Order, rules, purpose and control are all exhibited in every observation in the cosmos, life, even at the atomic and subatomic level. We either fail to see it or simply attribute it to unseen forces that we don’t know what it is and simply assign some names to it and think that a given name to an unknown (such as “dark energy” or “strong nuclear force”) is an explanation or a mechanism
Assessment of data should be driven from a neutral view not an unevidenced priori of any kind. What supports the priori that rejects any possibility that a causal influence (God) may purposefully and consciously influence matter if every observation in our universe points to order, rules, purpose, control?
It's never about an entity following a rule; it’s about
why the rule itself exist and how it does what it does. For us, it just exists; being a perceived norm takes away the wonder.
Whether it’s the universe, subatomic matter or life, it’s never about the input but rather the controlling processes that produce the output. Without the processes controlling subatomic particles, there is no matter, without the processes controlling the genes, there is no life.
Neither the processes nor the outcome is random. But regardless of how peculiar the norm may be, we tend to fall under the false impression that being the norm is itself a sufficient explanation but it’s not.
All entities that we can observe are probabilities; probabilities are changes that may or may not materialize, changes are only changes relative to an existing state.
Probabilities are not possible without an existing state that gives rise to it. Reality exists/must exist; hence reality cannot be only probabilities, probabilities don’t give rise to itself.
An aspect of reality must be a necessary existence to give rise to all probabilities.
If we logically follow the evidence (wherever it leads), it only leads to God. God is not a relative explanation to an individual system; God is the absolute explanation to the relative existence in its entirety. The absolute is the only explanation that must exist to give rise to every probable.
See #1851
Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums