Facts vs evidence

[PureX]

It is evidence that we can conceptualize and ask questions. What is meant by "God" in that question is undefined. It could mean nature.

Yes, the more vague the question, the more likely it will remain unanswered. But vagueness is a real experience. The unknown does logically still exist. And therefor so do the possibilities that exist within it.

That puts parameters around us again. It is also the beginnings of arguments from ignorance.

All our arguments are arguments from ignorance. It's the price we pay for not being omniscient.

Certainly science has limits, but within the scope that science fits, it has been performing well for us. Often many of the failures attributed to science are not from science but from the tool users abusing it, manipulating it, suppressing the information or misrepresenting it.

I'm not sure what you mean. By making rational statements about what we learn from the natural world, this is not transcendent and helped man blinded by the god of lightning learn about electricity.

Science cannot investigate anything beyond what physically exists. And yet even the universe itself shows us that there is more to it then that. Meanwhile, the term "God" is referring to that "more to it" mystery. So science is of no help, here.

 

[exchemist]

You are instructing a chemist on
the simple basics of water ?

Do you have some tips on the fine points
of Cantonese grammar?

It’s what he does [shrug]. He’s been doing it for about a decade, on various forums, regardless of the subject under discussion. He’s harmless, but usually not interesting to read.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not being part of another conversation, I can't say much. But it sounds like a person that has concluded that both their subjective and objective reality are one same and that would be the core of a belief system. I don't think it would fit under the banner of scientism though.

Of course, I could be misunderstanding you.

How do you understand these:
-excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
-that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

Be honest. Yes, they are subjective beliefs and a part of a belief system. But that is the point.
There are 3 kinds of understanding of science.
No actually understanding of what it is and denial of what it can do.
What you understand it as.
Those who claim in effect as above.

 

[exchemist]

Why would an omnipotent "god" need
to tinker with his creation like it was
@Revoltingest old car, to keep it going?

Indeed. That would be the view of the main Christian denominations, if pushed.

 

[Audie]

It’s what he does [shrug]. He’s been doing it for about a decade, on various forums, regardless of the subject under discussion. He’s harmless, but usually not interesting to read.

That's why I glanced at maybe one word
in ten.

 

[osgart]

Sure, but again it is important to be clear what this is. It is about the mechanisms that lead organisms, individually or collectively, to exhibit purposeful behaviour, e.g. a swarm of bees, or a colony of protozoa, or a plant, or whatever. It is not suggesting any kind of supervising or guiding agency external to nature.

I'm aware of that it's not suggesting a supervising external agency. He sticks to empirical usefulness. With his experimentation he has regenerated frog legs. He would not have gotten that far without a top down approach incorporating intelligence and teleology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, the more vague the question, the more likely it will remain unanswered. But vagueness is a real experience. The unknown does logically still exist. And therefor so do the possibilities that exist within it.

Possibilities require evidence to be seen as actual. The actual is constrained and some may be more likely than others. Some possibilities with nothing to sustain them at all except a vivid imagination. Do you see a doctor, a faith healer, a witty neighbor, a witch doctor or what for illness? I'm going to doctor myself. But if I were desperate and afraid, I may open myself to even the most thin of possibilities that have nothing to support. Grasped at out of my own desperation.

All our arguments are arguments from ignorance. It's the price we pay for not being omniscient.

But some are more ignorant than others and some have nothing but ignorance behind them.

Science cannot investigate anything beyond what physically exists. And yet even the universe itself shows us that there is more to it then that. Meanwhile, the term "God" is referring to that "more to it" mystery. So science is of no help, here.

No one has demonstrated that there is more than physical existence to contend with. How does the universe show us this?

Identifying the limits of science does not eliminate what has been or can be learned using science.

Using it does not invalidate it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Possibilities require evidence to be seen as actual. The actual is constrained and some may be more likely than others. Some possibilities with nothing to sustain them at all except a vivid imagination. Do you see a doctor, a faith healer, a witty neighbor, a witch doctor or what for illness? I'm going to doctor myself. But if I were desperate and afraid, I may open myself to even the most thin of possibilities that have nothing to support. Grasped at out of my own desperation.

But some are more ignorant than others and some have nothing but ignorance behind them.

No one has demonstrated that there is more than physical existence to contend with. How does the universe show us this?

Identifying the limits of science does not eliminate what has been or can be learned using science.

Using it does not invalidate it.

Do you know how come the answer 42 is as correct as any other answer as to the meaning of life, the universe and everything?

 

[exchemist]

I'm aware of that it's not suggesting a supervising external agency. He sticks to empirical usefulness. With his experimentation he has regenerated frog legs. He would not have gotten that far without a top down approach incorporating intelligence and teleology.

OK but in post 199 , the point at which I started to get involved, you seemed to be contrasting teleology with naturalism.

The only point I am making is that Levin’s work does not attempt to challenge naturalism. It is about goal-directed behaviour within nature. If we agree on this there is no issue.

 

[osgart]

OK but in post 199 , the point at which I started to get involved, you seemed to be contrasting teleology with naturalism.

The only point I am making is that Levin’s work does not attempt to challenge naturalism. It is about goal-directed behaviour within nature. If we agree on this there is no issue.

Yeah I don't buy into supernatural accounts of reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How do you understand these:
-excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
-that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

What is excessive? Is it seeing prior work and extending it to new questions? Or is it saying that science discovered this, so it can discover anything and that only the discoverable is real?

Is there another method that has been demonstrated to be equivalent to science at answering questions about reality?

Be honest. Yes, they are subjective beliefs and a part of a belief system. But that is the point.
There are 3 kinds of understanding of science.
No actually understanding of what it is and denial of what it can do.
What you understand it as.
Those who claim in effect as above.

I just don't think that latter group is a widespread here anyway.

There are some things that I cannot find answers for in science, but also doubt many of the answers that are championed by some here. Or more specifically, the conclusions that those champions draw from what they believe are the answers. I see people claiming many things, but unable to answer why or how I should believe what they claim. At least with science, there is a method and a record that we can go back to ourselves and examine. These champions circle their own words and find the conclusion they already had. You could do that with science too, but I don't see it as a predominant support for science here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you know how come the answer 42 is as correct as any other answer as to the meaning of life, the universe and everything?

My answer has always been 7. But it makes sense, since 42 is derived from 7.

 

[Audie]

I'm aware of that it's not suggesting a supervising external agency. He sticks to empirical usefulness. With his experimentation he has regenerated frog legs. He would not have gotten that far without a top down approach incorporating intelligence and teleology.

Frogs have been regrowing legs since forever.

 

[PureX]

Possibilities require evidence to be seen as actual.

I have just explained the "demonstrable" evidence of the possibility of God existing. What didn't you "actually" understand?

The actual is constrained and some may be more likely than others.

The "actual" as I think you mean it is the unknown part of the question. The fact that the (actual) answer IS unknown to us demonstrates that it IS possible that God exists. This is evidence that must be considered.

Some possibilities with nothing to sustain them at all except a vivid imagination.

Vivid imagination is not "nothing". In fact, without it we would not be even remotely recognizable as human. Imagining the possibilities is the foundation of science, art, religion, philosophy, and of our very survival as a species. And the more vivid our imagination, the more successfully human we become.

No one has demonstrated that there is more than physical existence to contend with. How does the universe show us this?

The "big bang" came with both possibilities, and impossibilities, 'built in'. And those determined the whole course and "nature" of the universe as it now exists. But how could that be? What was it that determined that "nature" was even possible? Whatever it was/is (time is irrelevant) it clearly transcends the 'nature' that it determined, and that within which we now exist.

The fact that science cannot even investigate the source of "natural law" even though it clearly recognizes the need is certainly evidence of the transcendence of "nature". As are the emergence of life from inert matter, and of conscious self-awareness from life.

Identifying the limits of science does not eliminate what has been or can be learned using science.

Actually, by that very statement, it does.

Using it does not invalidate it.

Science can't function beyond the predictable realm of "natural law". It cannot therefor be used to investigate it's source.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you know how come the answer 42 is as correct as any other answer as to the meaning of life, the universe and everything?

I understand that science doesn't give us answers to the meaning of life. I'm not sure that anyone has claimed it does. I don't.

I also know that I do not need to know anything that has been found about arsenic by science for me to know not to eat it. Though most of my knowledge of arsenic that I have now comes from scientific investigation of it. And also from history where incidence of its use are recorded along with reasons for that use and the results of it.

The scientific method mirrors a lot of the means we use to learn about the world and draw conclusions about it. It is just that science has greater rigor and is challenged regularly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have just explained the "demonstrable" evidence of the possibility of God existing. What didn't you "actually" understand?

No. You have explained that humans have the ability to ask questions. You demonstrate that you believe asking a question creates a logical possibility. I don't know that a logical possibility of existence renders something into existence. My vast harem of beautiful 18 year old women of great and pleasing variety can attest to that.

The "actual" as I think you mean it is the unknown part of the question. The fact that the (actual) answer IS unknown to us demonstrates that it IS possible that God exists. This is evidence that must be considered.

It is possible too then, that God does not exist and you must consider that as evidence too.

Vivid imagination is not "nothing". In fact, without it we would not be even remotely recognizable as human. Imagining the possibilities is the foundation of science, art, religion, philosophy, and of our very survival as a species. And the more vivid our imagination, the more successfully human we become.

The "big bang" came with both possibilities, and impossibilities, 'built in'. And those determined the whole course and "nature" of the universe as it now exists. But how could that be? What was it that determined that "nature" was even possible? Whatever it was/is (time is irrelevant) it clearly transcends the 'nature' that it determined, and that within which we now exist.

The fact that science cannot even investigate the source of "natural law" even though it clearly recognizes the need is certainly evidence of the transcendence of "nature". As are the emergence of life from inert matter, and of conscious self-awareness from life.

Actually, by that very statement, it does.

Science can't function beyond the predictable realm of "natural law". It cannot therefor be used to investigate it's source.

I didn't say a vivid imagination was nothing, but that some possibilities are nothing more than a vivid imagination. Please read what I write and don't add your incorrect embellishments to it if you don't mind.

I did not relegate imagination to nothing either.

But what you have to do is show that possibilities are more than just imagined and your evidence is not evidence of what you claim.

I see evidence that humans ask questions. Evidence that we can think about things that go beyond what our senses perceive. Evidence that we can extend these musing into something that may or may not be real, but that some of us begin to see it as real.

None of that means what is believed is real. It isn't evidence for the possible reality, but for those postulating it as reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you know how come the answer 42 is as correct as any other answer as to the meaning of life, the universe and everything?

Within the context or scope of reality there are rules that we are compelled to follow as we and that reality around us exist.

It could be that none of this is real, but I don't know that and acting as if it does not has consequences. Some of which I don't want to see take place.

I have to act externally consistent with the reality that I see and hope that I can find internal reasons from the external to maintain that consistency.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I understand that science doesn't give us answers to the meaning of life. I'm not sure that anyone has claimed it does. I don't.

I also know that I do not need to know anything that has been found about arsenic by science for me to know not to eat it. Though most of my knowledge of arsenic that I have now comes from scientific investigation of it. And also from history where incidence of its use are recorded along with reasons for that use and the results of it.

The scientific method mirrors a lot of the means we use to learn about the world and draw conclusions about it. It is just that science has greater rigor and is challenged regularly.

Okay, I get you.
So this is not relevant:
"...
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

 

[osgart]

Frogs have been regrowing legs since forever.

He makes tadpoles with eyes on their tails. Could that one day help solve birth defects in humans?

Biologist Michael Levin manipulates electric currents to make odd creatures like tadpoles with eyes on their tails. Could his experiments one day lead to medical cures?

www.statnews.com

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Okay, I get you.
So this is not relevant:
"...
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

I don't know that you need science to be an atheist and I don't really see too many pure atheists here.

All I can say is that so far, we haven't found any evidence corroborating the actions or the presence of God in the universe. While I believe in God, I cannot demonstrate to you or to anyone else that God exists through any unambiguous evidence.

The existence of God is a possibility. But is a possibility enough evidence to render it an actuality? Is that the argument I would want to use?

The non-existence of God is also a possibility from that position. One that is equally likely as far as I can tell.

It is possible that a man accused of murder is a murderer that committed the crime he is accused of. It is also possible he is not the murderer and is falsely accused. Other possibilities exist. Perhaps he is a man of such guile and audacity that he committed the murder and placed himself in a position to be accused in some effort that will lead to the false conclusion of his innocence. In any case, we have only the evidence and the weight applied to that evidence to guide us.

Perhaps some questions cannot be answered and the only answer is in the looking.