Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

[PureX]

Since an Atheist's position is entirely dependent on the amount of knowledge received from objective evidence, and not from his "profound ignorance", ...

You are describing a view of reality based solely on physics, rather then on life experience, and relative moral values. This can become just as much a blinding bias as any other subjectively derived view of reality. And the fact that you are not able to recognize this (apparently) only underscores my point.

 

[ChristineM]

I do not disagree with you. I personally don't think that there will ever be any evidence that can support anything supernatural, let alone the existence of a God. I personally agree that every argument that has been presented has been presented before, and have failed the evidence test. Because of this I can take full responsibility of everything I do, everything I say, and everything I think.

But from a rational point of view, my mind must always be open to the possibility that I could be wrong. And that in the future, proof could be presented confirming the existence of God or the supernatural. This is just being intellectually honest and consistent. In the mean time, life will certainly go on with or without religions. But life will certainly cease without science.

Should evidence of the supernatural be presented then if course it must be reviewed

 

[PureX]

Was there a point to this? Their inability to accept reality only reflect badly on them. Try to remember in this thread that the topic is evidence.

You mean their inability to accept YOUR view of reality, don't you? Or are you presuming that your view of reality is the only "correct" view of it?

The problem with that is that they are demonstrably wrong. And no, it is not "true". They may believe their ideas to be true, but that does not make them true. No matter how hard a cargo cult follower believes he can't force the planes to come back and bring him more wonders and riches.

Ah, but the same is true of science. No matter how strongly one "believes" that evolution happened as the evidence suggests, it will always remain a theory, because scientists understand that they cannot know anything for certain. Something many atheists lost in their modern philosophy of "scientism" routinely ignore.

I am not stating that all of the Bible is false, but some parts are demonstrably wrong.

What you mean is that by your understanding ofd reality, some interpretations of it are wrong, don't you? It's important to note these clarifications.

 

[ChristineM]

I explained what proof by exhaustion entails in post 43, and provided a link to the Wiki article on it on post 61.

It requires 2 steps:

(i) that you prove that only a finite set of cases exists and
(ii) that you then prove each case individually.

You can do neither in the case of God. The number of cases is as varied and open-ended as the individual conceptions of God that religious believers put forward. And you can only disprove any of these cases if they make testable claims about God. Which most do not.

Yes and still you refuse to consider the fact at literally billions of cases do not represent proof by exhaustion. And yes,even billions is finite

Individual conceptions have nothing to do with the evidence provided over thousands of years, group failure is not individual.

 

[PureX]

If we are talking about ID/creationism, how is that not a physical interaction?

Also, the whole point of the scientific method is to remove as much subjectivity as possible in order to remove human bias from our conclusions.

The desire to "remove subjectivity" is itself a subjective desire, and the product of delusional thought. It is not logically possible for a human to remove "subjectivity" from his view of reality, as the human is the "subject" being referred to by this use of the term. When understood in this light, "scientism" is just as subjectively derived as theology is.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Should evidence of the supernatural be presented then if course it must be reviewed

I again agree. All scientific evidence must be reviewed.

 

[PureX]

Is there any difference between fact and opinion in your view?

The difference in in the relative perspective through which the fact/opinion is being determined.

Science is able to determine what is empirical and what is not, so why can't this be applied everywhere?

Why should it be? What makes impiricism superior to all other methods of thought?

Why can't we say that one idea is subjective opinion where another idea is scientific fact and/or a supported scientific theory?

We can. But we are fooling ourselves if we think we have ascertained any "objective truth", because we are the subjects being referred to in the term "subjectivity". All world views are subjective.

If you don't have limitations on what is and isn't evidence, then you have a meaningless epistemology. When everything is true no matter what, how can you find truth?

The point is; who's limits?

 

[exchemist]

Yes and still you refuse to consider the fact at literally billions of cases do not represent proof by exhaustion.

That's because they don't.

Billions of negatives are not proof that a positive will not occur. Any mathematician or logician will tell you that. Moreover, that is precisely the reason why we say scientific theories cannot be proven. The logic is identical.

 

[PureX]

Creationists have been trying to argue that creationism is scientific for decades now.

No, most of them have not. Most creationists have dismissed science as pointless human self-deception. And many of those that do try to debate the science are not trying to establish a scientific theory, they are trying to win religious converts. There is a distinct difference.

That is the whole point of the Intelligent Design movement. ID/creationists have tried over and over to have their ideas taught in science class, not in Sunday school.

Yes, but they do this because want to plant their religion in the minds of other people's children, not because they want scientists to accept their theories as "scientific".

 

[exchemist]

No, most of them have not. Most creationists have dismissed science as pointless human self-deception. And many of those that do try to debate the science are not trying to establish a scientific theory, they are trying to win religious converts. There is a distinct difference.
Yes, but they do this because want to plant their religion in the minds of other people's children, not because they want scientists to accept their theories as "scientific".

Exactly right!

 

[ChristineM]

That's because they don't.

Billions of negatives are not proof that a positive will not occur. Any mathematician or logician will tell you that. Moreover, that is precisely the reason why we say scientific theories cannot be proven. The logic is identical.

I never said a positive won't occur, on the contrary i have been specific that if a positive occurs it will break the proof.

However, to date, no positive has occurred.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You are describing a view of reality based solely on physics, rather then on life experience, and relative moral values. This can become just as much a blinding bias as any other subjectively derived view of reality. And the fact that you are not able to recognize this (apparently) only underscores my point.

Do you really think that what another human being experience, is exactly what you will experience? Do you think that the moral values of another human being will be the same as your moral value? Since our senses are body-specific, so will our view of reality. We are all blessed with the genetic upgrades from ancestors, that survived long enough to pass on their genes to their offspring.

I'm not good with inferences, so I'll wait for an explanation of what fact I am unable to recognize. Do you believe that our personality traits are not genetically linked to our behavior?

 

[exchemist]

I never said a positive won't occur, on the contrary i have been specific that if a positive occurs it will break the proof.

However, to date, no positive has occurred.

Look Christine, I don't disagree with that at all. I am simply concerned that people do not talk in a loose way about "proof", when proof is not what they have got.

And especially, that a formal proof technique with a technical meaning, like "proof by exhaustion" is not invoked to give a spurious sense of authority to a personal conviction.

 

[ChristineM]

Look Christine, I don't disagree with that at all. I am simply concerned that people do not talk in a loose way about "proof", when proof is not what they have got.

And especially, that a formal proof technique with a technical meaning, like "proof by exhaustion" is not invoked to give a spurious sense of authority to a personal conviction.

Sorry the world does not tick to your expectations.

Given the 100% failure rate i will stick with the facts, and iam pretty sure those facts are not personal.

 

[ecco]

No matter how strongly one "believes" that evolution happened as the evidence suggests, ...

Why the quote marks around the word "believes"?

There is nothing wrong with believing in something if the belief is based on an understanding of verifiable facts.

it will always remain a theory, because scientists understand that they cannot know anything for certain.

What's wrong with a theory, in the scientific usage of the word, if that theory is based on facts?

Something many atheists lost in their modern philosophy of "scientism" routinely ignore.

Not ignored at all. The scientific concept of theory is accepted by proponents of science both religious and atheistic alike.

 

[exchemist]

Sorry the world does not tick to your expectations.

Given the 100% failure rate i will stick with the facts, and iam pretty sure those facts are not personal.

Fine. Just don't pompously pretend you have a formal proof, when you do not even understand the terms you are using.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean their inability to accept YOUR view of reality, don't you? Or are you presuming that your view of reality is the only "correct" view of it?

I can show "my reality" exists. Do you think that you can do the same? Why do you try to make this about me? This is not just "my reality".

Ah, but the same is true of science. No matter how strongly one "believes" that evolution happened as the evidence suggests, it will always remain a theory, because scientists understand that they cannot know anything for certain. Something many atheists lost in their modern philosophy of "scientism" routinely ignore.

There is always a possibility that a theory is wrong. But if one goes by the standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then my world has been "proven". Also the beliefs of creationists have been shown to be wrong. The reason that some try to play silly games is that they have been shown to be wrong. Is this your reason for this argument?

What you mean is that by your understanding ofd reality, some interpretations of it are wrong, don't you? It's important to note these clarifications.

No, again, not just mine. Any testable versions of reality. If your version of reality is not independently verifiable and testable it is most likely just a figment of your imagination and any tests that only confirm it to you fail as being mere confirmation bias.

 

[Audie]

Maybe it's just me, but did anyone else reading this, actually believe that I thought that all of science IS "woefully ignorant"? Did anyone else think that I was making a "sweeping indictment of all science, with a hand wave"? Or, did anyone think that it was a hypothetical, making the point that IF all of science was proven wrong, that it would in no way advance the validity/credibility of any supernatural, religious, or spirit evidence? Believers would still have to prove their own claims, without exploiting the weaknesses in science. I only used "woefully ignorant" as a metaphor(literarily false), because the poster used "profoundly ignorant" as an analogy(literally true). It is my editorial right. Although I am feeling woefully under-appreciated by your woeful misrepresentation, and woeful comprehension. I don't think any rational person really believes that all of science is "woefully ignorant". What do you think?



I call such "lying with a straw man". You are not entitled to make up any interpretation you want about what people are saying. I would suggest that you try to read what people are saying within the same context that they are saying it. Not in the context that you want them to say it. Although the conversation with your straw man is entertaining, it is more of a distraction than having any actual meaningful point.
​

I see nothing wrong with my subjunctive(or hypothetical). How does highlighting the past-tense of the verb "to be", effect the entire subjunctive? But then again this is an open religious forum for adults, not an English Comp. class for children. I'm more interested in what people have to say, not how they say it. Many do not enjoy the same level of English proficiency that you do, so they communicate as best they can. This is why my arguments never stoop to exploiting the syntax and grammar of others. Otherwise I would have a field day with your posts. By the way, did you think that my subjunctive was a lie, or the truth? Or, are you claiming that it is both?



What about the responsibility the station has to its investors and shareholders? Do you think that the owners should not hire someone who would improve a good return on their investment? TV is a visual industry like the movie industry, the advertisement industry, or the modelling industry. Looks is everything, and unfortunately looks sell. However, if it was to be proven that a person was discriminated from a specific job because of their gender, religion, physical handicap, sexuality, or race without a job-specific reason, that company or industry could be libel for civil action. Therefore "lying with the truth" is ambiguous at best.

"I would suggest that you try to read what people are saying"

Dear me, Sir you actually did not realize I was
agreeing with you in your main ideas?

As you said elsewhere...my mind must always be open
to the possibility that I could be wrong.

You missed where I summed the thing about woeful ignorance?
(I would suggest you try to read what people are saying)
Try again-here it is:
"But it is the best that our creofriends seem able to come up with"
That could not possibly have been about you!


I don't think any rational person really believes that all of science is "woefully ignorant".

Depends on the degree of woe, I guess. But I am sure you have heard it from researchers that every discovery seems to open ten new questions.

I see nothing wrong with my subjunctive

Who could doubt you on that!

Now, on the thing about "lying with the truth" which
you dont seem to get the idea, at all.

One can make an entirely factual statement but
say it in such a way as to be misleading. Like, say, that
"science is woefully ignorant". Creos say such things for
the purpose of being misleading.

Or you could say someone's face is lopsided. That makes them sound unattractive.
But everybody's face is lopsided.

Or another example: Creos (not you) do try to
do a sweeping indictment of all science with
statements about, say, "no proof" or, "assumptions"
or even, yes, "woeful ignorance".

Do you get it now?

 

[Audie]

Hahaha. I've always felt it rather socially nerdy to admit to having a science degree - all the stereotypes of scientists keeping pens in their breast pockets and of "Green Anorak Chemists", at my university.

But you are not serious in your contention that academic science is some sort of fashion, are you? Or that pure and applied science are "old foes", other than in the sense of the friendly teasing between the Engineering faculty and the Physics faculty at some university cocktail party? Pure and applied science have gone hand in glove throughout history. One era's pure science discovery is the next era's goldmine of applications. For example we are now in the era of the applications of the great pure science theories of the c.20th: relativity and quantum theory.

I believe-he could correct me if I am wrong-that he is simply expressing his attitude. There isnt any more to it than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine. Just don't pompously pretend you have a formal proof, when you do not even understand the terms you are using.

This why I gave a qualified admission that she had evidence. I stopped short of "proof". Personally I am not even sure if it meets the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" but that may be because I was raised believing in God and I might still have some lingering beliefs.