Living Vs. Nonliving and Visible Vs. Invisible. Classification.

[gnostic]

Google: methodological naturalism. Or: naturalism as the basis for science. It is not necessary to put such a basis under natural research.

Why?

Naturalism and Methodology Naturalism are only philosophies about the approach of natural science, but they in themselves are not science.

Natural science is about investigating a specific phenomena:

1. formulate a model (eg hypothesis) of possible explanations and mathematical statements,
2. and then testing the model through objective observations that will either refute or verify the model’s likelihood.

These are steps required in Scientific Method.

These observations are achieved through testable evidence and/or through experiments. The accumulation of evidence or test results from the experiments, will allow scientists to statistically analyze and decide on the model (A) being “probable” & “true”, or (B) being “improbable” & “false”.

A successful model could be further assessed and analyzed by independent scientists through peer review.

Methodology Naturalism is just talk. Science is actually doing the real hard works.

And to date, Natural Science have achieve probable explanations to the natural and physical world, all without delving into implausible explanations of the supernatural world.

 

[leroy]

That just it, you have no evidence that Intelligent Designer created life, so your premises are not falsifiable.

Your premises are not evidence for anything. They are just your claims about something that you believe, they are your opinions.

Opinion doesn’t equal to evidence, leroy.

And as to your question, it is number 1, but it isn’t just your premise that is wrong, unfounded and unfalsifiable, it is your entire argument (especially attribute 4 and your conclusion).

Also unfounded and unfalsifiable is in your original claim that the Designer predated first life being aliens or god.

So if the premises happen to be true, (or probably true) woukd you accept thas as evidence for an inteligent designer of life?......... Or would you say "No it wouldn't be evidence because first you have to show that the designer exists"

 

[questfortruth]

And to date, Natural Science have achieve probable explanations to the natural and physical world, all without delving into implausible explanations of the supernatural world.

Do not be so sure. My paper about the invisible matter about 3 months under peer-review of a Q2 level science journal. If accepted, it will make us fly to distant galaxies just through prayer to God.
Watch in TV: paranormal emergency.

 

[night912]

Well exactly which point did I failed to address?..... the last time that I interacted with you I explained to you why a baby wouldn’t be SC (under my definition) showing that you fails to provide an example of SC that was not caused by a designer…… after that you simply ignored the comment and came back after several weeks…..


But anyway, exactly what point should I address?

Exactly what comment of mine was wrong? Ether quote it or apologize for your false accusation

Sorry, but the last you spoke with me, I gave you a SC that was not designed. And all you did was talked about design and embryos, which was irrelevant. And when I pointed that out, you changed your definition of SC because it refuted premise 1. So I'm still waiting for your rebuttal that's not fallacious.

So yea, you're still just repeating things that I've already explained as being invalid.

You weren't willing to discuss my initial objections so too bad, you changed anything during the process. That's not scientific.

So try again.

 

[leroy]

Sorry, but the last you spoke with me, I gave you a SC that was not designed. And all you did was talked about design and embryos, which was irrelevant. And when I pointed that out, you changed your definition of SC because it refuted premise 1. So I'm still waiting for your rebuttal that's not fallacious.

So yea, you're still just repeating things that I've already explained as being invalid.

You weren't willing to discuss my initial objections so too bad, you changed anything during the process. That's not scientific.

So try again.

Well care to share your SC that was not designed again, so that i can adress it.?



Please either quote a comment of mine where i said something wrong or apologize for your false accusation

 

[leroy]

That just it, you have no evidence that Intelligent Designer created life, so your premises are not falsifiable.

Falsifiable means that there is something that could potentially show that the premise is wrong. An observation of something SC that was not designed would falsify premise 1.

Your premises are not evidence for anything. They are just your claims about something that you believe, they are your opinions.

Opinion doesn’t equal to evidence, leroy.

The evidence that I am proposing for premise 1 is that every single verifiable observation that has been done confirms that SC can only be caused by a designer…… that is not an opinion, that is a testable fact, open to scientific inquiry……. Future discoveries could ether falsify or make this premise more probably true.

You might argue that this fact is not enough to show that P1 is true, but you cant dismiss this evidence as “just an opinion”

Also unfounded and unfalsifiable is in your original claim that the Designer predated first life being aliens or god.

If the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows……..the conclusion “there is an intelligent designer of life that predates life” logically follows from the premises……………the evidence for that conclusion is the premises themselves.

 

[gnostic]

So if the premises happen to be true, (or probably true) woukd you accept thas as evidence for an inteligent designer of life?.........

Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences only deal with possible solutions WHAT things are, HOW do they work, WHAT possible application they may have and HOW would they go about doing them.

There are no WHO in the Physical or Natural Sciences.

There are also no magical or supernatural entities, like gods, spirits, demons, fairies, etc, because they are all unfalsifiable. Your biblical God and ID's Designer would fall under that category.

No supernatural, magic, miracles, charms/talisman, prayers, rituals, afterlife (resurrection, reincarnation, heaven and hell, eternal reward or eternal torment, etc) are also something that science don't cover, but if you are interested in these subjects, then take a religion, Sunday schools, theology, comparative religions or comparative myths.

Nothing in ID, IC & SC involved in depth explanation of biological origin of life, because what it does say is very superficial, just as your silly version of Specified Complexity.

The question is why do you insist on believing in religion, which is basically what Intelligent Design is?

It is just another creation myth, with many senior members of Discovery Institute pretending that ID is science when it is not. Most of the members are not even scientists, yet they pretend they are.

The Discovery Institute is only a propaganda organisation for creationists, trying to hide creationism in the fake veneer of scientific research.

I have no interests in following Discovery Institute's dishonest tactics of using money and propaganda to promote ID in science classrooms, when it isn't science.

Michael Behe admitted that there have never been any evidence, experiment, original researches and data, and peer-reviewed papers from Intelligent Design adherents/followers.

So why would I accept Designer as real?

I keep telling you there are errors in your reasoning, but you ignore them. I have already told you that any model must be falsifiable and must have testable evidence, but you dismiss any request that you should present your evidence.

This speaks volume, when you keep dismissing the needs for evidence. It tell me, you never have interests in science.

So if you have no interested in science, then I have no interests in joining you and believing in the phony fantasy called Intelligent Design.

 

[gnostic]

Falsifiable means that there is something that could potentially show that the premise is wrong. An observation of something SC that was not designed would falsify premise 1.

AND I KEEP TELLING YOU THAT THE DESIGNER ITSELF IS UNFALSIFIABLE, therefore SC is also unfalsifiable.

The SC can not be falsifiable because you still connect your conclusion to the Designer. You don't simply just falsify a single line and ignoring the entire BLOODY ARGUMENT!

YOU KEEP IGNORING THE FACT that you made very clear that the Designer exist before life on Earth, so where are your evidence?

Nothing is science until you have objective and verifiable evidence, which you clearly don't have. All you have are assumptions about the DESIGNER that cannot be verified.

No evidence - ZERO EVIDENCE - means ID is pseudoscience, an useless codswallop.

 

[gnostic]

The evidence that I am proposing for premise 1 is that every single verifiable observation that has been done confirms that SC can only be caused by a designer……

Speculative assumption. Until you present the evidence for Designer, your claim that you have evidence is a lie. And you haven't confirm anything.

 

[leroy]

Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences only deal with possible solutions WHAT things are, HOW do they work, WHAT possible application they may have and HOW would they go about doing them.

There are no WHO in the Physical or Natural Sciences.

There are also no magical or supernatural entities, like gods, spirits, demons, fairies, etc, because they are all unfalsifiable. Your biblical God and ID's Designer would fall under that category.

No supernatural, magic, miracles, charms/talisman, prayers, rituals, afterlife (resurrection, reincarnation, heaven and hell, eternal reward or eternal torment, etc) are also something that science don't cover, but if you are interested in these subjects, then take a religion, Sunday schools, theology, comparative religions or comparative myths.

Nothing in ID, IC & SC involved in depth explanation of biological origin of life, because what it does say is very superficial, just as your silly version of Specified Complexity.

The question is why do you insist on believing in religion, which is basically what Intelligent Design is?

It is just another creation myth, with many senior members of Discovery Institute pretending that ID is science when it is not. Most of the members are not even scientists, yet they pretend they are.

The Discovery Institute is only a propaganda organisation for creationists, trying to hide creationism in the fake veneer of scientific research.

I have no interests in following Discovery Institute's dishonest tactics of using money and propaganda to promote ID in science classrooms, when it isn't science.

Michael Behe admitted that there have never been any evidence, experiment, original researches and data, and peer-reviewed papers from Intelligent Design adherents/followers.

So why would I accept Designer as real?

I keep telling you there are errors in your reasoning, but you ignore them. I have already told you that any model must be falsifiable and must have testable evidence, but you dismiss any request that you should present your evidence.

This speaks volume, when you keep dismissing the needs for evidence. It tell me, you never have interests in science.

So if you have no interested in science, then I have no interests in joining you and believing in the phony fantasy called Intelligent Design.

I asked a very simple yes or no question, If the premises where true (or probably true) would you accept them as evidence for the conclusion? YES or No?

The question is why do you insist on believing in religion, which is basically what Intelligent Design is?

Because it seems to me that the premises are probably true……….and the conclusion “a designer caused life” follows logically and necessarily from the premises.

 

[leroy]

A

YOU KEEP IGNORING THE FACT that you made very clear that the Designer exist before life on Earth, so where are your evidence?

.

I am not ignoring that fact, I´ve been telling you that “an intelligent designer that caused life” is the conclusion of the argument.

My evidence are the fact that the premises are probably true.

I support premise 1 by observation, every single observation that has been made confirms that premise 1 is true

And premise 2 has not been commented much, but after you accept premise 1 we can move to premise 2 and I can show you the evidence for premise 2.

...

 

[leroy]

Speculative assumption. Until you present the evidence for Designer, your claim that you have evidence is a lie. And you haven't confirm anything.

And you keep ignoring my question……….how am I suppose to present evidence for the designer, if any argument for a designer would be dismissed because “there is no prior evidence for a designer”?

What type of evidence for a designer would you accept that could not be dismissed by “there is no prior evidence for a designer”

 

[gnostic]

I am not ignoring that fact, I´ve been telling you that “an intelligent designer that caused life” is the conclusion of the argument.

My evidence are the fact that the premises are probably true.

I support premise 1 by observation, every single observation that has been made confirms that premise 1 is true

And premise 2 has not been commented much, but after you accept premise 1 we can move to premise 2 and I can show you the evidence for premise 2.

...

You are confusing assertions or assumptions made as if they were evidence. You haven’t presented any evidence at all.

All your attributes, premises are just speculative assumptions, nothing more, nothing less.

Real observation required something that can be actually detected or observed, something that can be quantified, measured and tested, but you haven’t given anything remotely like that.

So stop claiming you have evidence or observations.

Do you remember the all swans are white? The generalization is wrong, but there are evidence that some swans are indeed white, and you can observe that they exist. But there are black swans, and you can observe and know that they exist.

So there are some swans that are black, and some white. And if you observe them you have evidence. You count them, measure them (eg measure their weight and size), you can compare them, and so on.

But you cannot do the same things with the Designer, be they god or aliens. You cannot observe or detect the Designer, you cannot measure or quantify the Designer, and you cannot test the Designer.

So as far as reality is concern, the Designer don’t exist beyond imaginary there are ones.

All you have fantasy about Intelligent Design and Specified Complexity that are unfalsifiable concept: pseudoscience.

And if you had evidence, you would have presented them 400 posts ago. Instead you are making stories that you have these imaginary evidence.

 

[questfortruth]

AND I KEEP TELLING YOU THAT THE DESIGNER ITSELF IS UNFALSIFIABLE

The Absolute Truth, e.g. 2+2=4, can not be false. So, the falsifiability criterion is unscientific.

 

[gnostic]

Falsifiability still require evidence, Leroy.

A model that can be tested, is falsifiable, regardless if the evidence or observations support model or don’t support the model.

(A) A tested and VERIFIED model is FALSIFIABLE.​

(B) A tested and REFUTED/DEBUNKED model is FALSIFIABLE.

(C) An untestable model or model that has zero evidence, is a model that is UNFALSIFIABLE.​

Intelligent Design has no evidence to support it because it untestable, therefore it is unfalsifiable, by the simple fact there were never any evidence to support the existence of the Designer.

Specified Complexity is similarly unfalsifiable, because again the Designer itself don’t exist, since there are no evidence.

Your SC argument conclude without testing it, because the DESIGNER itself is untestable.

All you are doing is concluding SC being the cause by the Designer, where are your tests, your observations and evidence that you claimed to have?

You don’t have any evidence. So your conclusion are baseless opinion, and nothing more than that.

You are more slippery than Eden’s serpent.

 

[gnostic]

The Absolute Truth, e.g. 2+2=4, can not be false. So, the falsifiability criterion is unscientific.

In science, they relied on observations and tests, such as evidence and experiments, data.

They don’t rely on Absolute Truth.

You want Absolute Truth, then you should be seeking in religions or some philosophies.

As to your 2+2=4 example. That’s maths, not natural sciences.

Maths are useful logical tools, but they are not what determine which model is science and which model isn’t science.

To determine the validity of a proposed explanatory model, it must be tested through observations, tests and evidence.

For example, to study the heart, you would need know to what the heart, what it do, how do the heart work. And there are number of ways to study the heart, and to test them, to diagnose if it is healthy heart or suffer from diseases or defects, etc.

Anything we learn about heart, come from accumulated tested knowledge and from experiences, and not some maths.

On what contexts that you would bring up 2+2=4 example? Does it have anything to do with your OP?

It doesn’t; it serve no purpose to this thread that you have started, so basically it is a pointless rhetoric.

 

[leroy]

Do you remember the all swans are white? The generalization is wrong, but there are evidence that some swans are indeed white, and you can observe that they exist. But there are black swans, and you can observe and know that they exist.

So there are some swans that are black, and some white. And if you observe them you have evidence. You count them, measure them (eg measure their weight and size), you can compare them, and so on.

In the same way there is evidence (direct observation) that indeed some SC are designed (analogous to white swans)………..the observation of a SC that was not caused by a designer would falsify premise 1, in the same way the observation of a black swan falsified the “all swans are white claim”

Please answer……… if the premises where true (or likely to be true), would you accept them as evidence for the conclusion?

Please answer………..how can I present evidence for a designer, if any argument for a designer will be rejected because “there is no prior evidence for a designer”?

 

[gnostic]

Please answer……… if the premises where true (or likely to be true), would you accept them as evidence for the conclusion?

You are not thinking.

How can I accept assumptions to be true, when the assumptions have been been tested?

You have already made conclusion on assumptions (premises) without ever testing the entire argument. And since you have no evidence, it wouldn’t be logical to accept something like the Designer that’s not even real.

Do you have evidence for aliens existing before life on Earth, that I can verify?

Do you have evidence that god exist that I can verify?

If “no” to both answers, then SC is improbable, because it is untestable and unfounded.

So why in the hell would I even possibly even consider to be true, when you have demonstrated that the Designer exist?

You haven’t presented any evidence.

I have already answered your questions before, but you keep asking the same stupid questions again and again.

Your arguments (about the Designer and about SC) are false and made up, and your reasoning are utterly flawed.

 

[leroy]

You are not thinking.

How can I accept assumptions to be true, when the assumptions have been been tested?

You have already made conclusion on assumptions (premises) without ever testing the entire argument. And since you have no evidence, it wouldn’t be logical to accept something like the Designer that’s not even real.

Do you have evidence for aliens existing before life on Earth, that I can verify?

Do you have evidence that god exist that I can verify?

If “no” to both answers, then SC is improbable, because it is untestable and unfounded.

So why in the hell would I even possibly even consider to be true, when you have demonstrated that the Designer exist?

You haven’t presented any evidence.

I have already answered your questions before, but you keep asking the same stupid questions again and again.

Your arguments (about the Designer and about SC) are false and made up, and your reasoning are utterly flawed.

Again answer with a yes or no , if the premises where true would you accept the conclusion? Yes or no?

 

[questfortruth]

Again answer with a yes or no , if the premises where true would you accept the conclusion? Yes or no?

The answer you'd get depends on people:

Yes, if we are followers of Truth,
No, if we are followers of Big Fat Lie.