Science&Logic-Flawed?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Gee Deut... it's amazing that you accuse ME of that when it was Pah that introduced that concept.

Gee NetDoc, I just checked and, best I can tell, I responded to what you said. So, fo example, you wrote:

... far as I can see abiogenesis was produced to 'splain away an athiestic view of evolution.​

I'm not at all sure how you might justify this kind of logical error - not to mention petty slander. Abiogenesis could be fact or fiction without saying anything at all about evolution. Furthermore, do you truly maintain that those researchers in the field are simply disingenuous fools attempting to "'splain away an athiestic view of evolution"?

No, NetDoc, you were ridiculing science and methodological naturalism because the poverty of your position can supply no better tactic. In doing so you unfortunately mistook your own confusion for cleverness. Please don't blame Pah for that oversight.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yeah Deut... that's the way I see it. Science has failed to answer two basic questions. You have failed to answer the same questions. I am not ridiculing science as MUCH as I am pointing out it's limitations. YOU HOWEVER, RIDICULE RELIGION ON THIS BOARD WITH IMPUNITY. A clear violation of Rule #5.

There is no error in my logic. I was responding to Pah. Your response to me should be mindful of that. But your propensity to belittle the beliefs of others has blinded you to that fact, I am sure.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

YI am not ridiculing science as MUCH as I am pointing out it's limitations. ... There is no error in my logic.

So you continue to maintain that: "abiogenesis was produced to 'splain away an athiestic view of evolution"?

 

[Scuba Pete]

As sure as there are no Fluffy Pink Unicorns.

 

[Ryan2065]

Ryan, bubby, that's the whole stinking point. It is IMPOSSIBLE for science to prove or disprove fuzzy pink unicorms. That's how it fails. When it comes to spiritual beliefs and evidences it comes up as completely inadequate to handle them

You should really take a class in logic NetDoc. Logically, it is harder to disprove something than it is to prove it. Science can prove something by showing it. So LOGICALLY it would not be impossible to prove that there are fuzzy pink unicorns, all you would have to do is find one. Then you have proven that they exist. The same concluscion can be drawn for life. All science has to do is make life in a lab and they will prove that it could have happened by something other than god. To say that disproving fuzzy pink unicorns is easier than proving life is logically flawed.

You don't seem to be getting this one point that I am trying to explain so I will simplify it for you.

Point 1: To disprove fuzzy pink unicorns you have to prove an infinate amount of situations false.
Point 2: To prove that life can come about without the help of god you have to create life in a lab once.

Which point do you think is easier? Proving an infinate amount of situations wrong, or proving one situation right?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Logically, it is harder to disprove something than it is to prove it.

Not really. I think a thread on "Proving a Negative" is in order. I'll try to start one when I get home if someone doesn't beat me to it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Dear Ryan,

I think it would be easier to prove that Fuzzy Pink Unicorns with pretty blue bows in their mane and with their hoofs painted aqua actually exist than it would be to "create life".

To think otherwise is pure folly.

But I admire your FAITH in science.

 

[Valjean]

.... The same concluscion can be drawn for life. All science has to do is make life in a lab and they will prove that it could have happened by something other than god....

Would it were so easy, Ryan. What's to prevent the True Believers from claiming that God blew the breath of life into the lab's biotic soup?

Believers aren't reasoning from observations to a theistic conclusion. Theism is their major premise; it's axiomatic. They always find a way to attribute any phenomonon to God. :banghead3

 

[Feathers in Hair]

(Off topic, I know, but when it comes to debate, why are the unicorns always dragged into it? Can't everyone pick on another animal for awhile?)

 

[Scuba Pete]

Juat like some scientists find a way to disavow God from any phenomenon.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

 

[meogi]

(Off topic, I know, but when it comes to debate, why are the unicorns always dragged into it? Can't everyone pick on another animal for awhile?)

I propose Spink's frog. I also propose the color orange, for no reason at all.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

And some are so aware that they will doubt. As to which is better...

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I propose Spink's frog. I also propose the color orange, for no reason at all.

I celebrate this proposal and second it! Orange frogs it is!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think it would be easier to prove ... Unicorns ... than it would be to "create life".

Of course you do. It is a theologically driven belief, and you're welcome to it.

At the same time, three things seem to be true ...

1. Even were it to turn out that you are correct, that woud not serve as evidence for deity. There is no scientific principle that all fully physical phenomena must be reproducible, or even comprehensible.
2. The relevant sciences of geophysics and biochemistry are incredibly young, and yet have a wonderful track record of accomplishment. It seems absurdly silly to bet against them.
3. In light of this, it's easy to understand Darwin when he wrote:
   "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."​

Conversely, in the words of Dr. Barbara Forrest:

It is not a categorical rejection of the supernatural, but a constantly tentative rejection of it in light of the heretofore consistent lack of confirmation of it. And rather than accepting methodological naturalism a priori as the only reliable methodology for acquiring knowledge about the cosmos, it accepts it rather as a methodology the reliability of which has been established historically by its success and the absense of any successful alternative method for acquiring knowledge about either the natural world or a supernatural order. The general rule for philosophical naturalism is this: the more of the cosmos which science is able to explain, the less warrant there is for explanations which include a divine or transcendent principle as a causal factor.

For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." Since its inception, methodological naturalism has consistently chipped away at the plausibility of the existential claims made by supernaturalism by providing increasingy successful explanations of aspects of the world which religion has historically sought to explain, e.g., human origins. The threat faced by supernaturalism is not the threat of logical disproof, but the fact of having its explanations supplanted by scientific ones.

- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection​

 

[Quiddity]

Methodological Naturalism is a load of crap if you ask me. It presupposes that people have no bias. Something that is impossible Deut. If someone seems to show signs of bias ITS YOU. Your posts are cold and impassionate. What can I say, but that YOU DON'T BELIEVE in anything but your own coldness. I'm sure this post will get deleted but that's ok.

~Victor

 

[Rex]

As sure as there are no Fluffy Pink Unicorns.

Why can't we not prove this on Earth right now. Take every known unicorn and see if there are any fluffy pink ones, or better yet see if there are any at all (hehe).

The error to this question is your asking science to prove/disprove something that has clearly be "made up". Why would you even have to prove it when we know it was "made up".

And until one shows me a fluffy pink unicorn, I will believe it to be made up.

Now replace fluffy pink unicorn, with God.

 

[Valjean]

Juat like some scientists find a way to disavow God from any phenomenon.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Scientists don't repudiate God. They just report their findings. If evidence of divine effect were discovered they'd report that like any other discovery.

The fact that God has, thus far, not surfaced as a factor in scientific inquiry is not a rejection of Him.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Methodological Naturalism is a load of crap is you ask me. It presupposes that people have no bias.

~Victor

It presupposes nothing of the kind.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sure this post will get deleted but that's ok.

Why on earth should anyone delete your post?

 

[Quiddity]

It presupposes nothing of the kind.

Whatever Deut ...you keep on saying that while ignoring some deep biases you have. Turn blue if you'd like. Maybe those QUF can suddenly pop up in your blue state.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Why on earth should anyone delete your post?

Only someone like you would ask this question. BECAUSE IT'S NOT NICE. Ever heard of that?

~Victor