Theory....again

[Thief]

Whichever your past or your IQ, there is such a thing as a proper scientific definition of Theory. You can't in good faith blame others for your choice of ignoring it.

By all means....I mention such things now and then as some participants assume I don't understand.

Yes I do.

As for science......
I believe in God BECAUSE of science.

All experimentation as a scheme.
Observe......make a good guess for the cause ......construct an appropriate experiment......be SURE to associate the terms of the experiment to the result.

You cannot separate cause and effect.
You don't have 'proof' if you do.

So.....science takes us back to the singularity.
It stops right there.

Science needs numbers.....reactions.....photos.....stains......'something'......

Science will never explain the singularity.
It can't.
The petri dish will never hold the experiment.

But the Effect is still here.....the universe.....the one word.

I still say you can't separate the effect from the Cause.
The universe is the effect.
God is the Cause.

 

[outhouse]

God is the Cause.

Yet you cannot state that with credibility outside mythology.


It looks like people created your god, we know they did. We see ancient Israelites taking two deities and compiling them together. We see Israelites using a previous cultures family of deities. Nothing indicates that they didnt create this god to meet their cultural needs.

You can pervert science how ever you want to fit mythology, but without sources you will not be able to make any sort of credible statement. Your only supplying your biased opinion and nothing more.

 

[Thief]

Science is science.
I cannot remove cause and the effect that follows.
I cannot remove effect as the cause brings it forth.

The universe had a Cause.
Nothing moves until 'Something' moves it.

 

[technomage]

Science is science.
I cannot remove cause and the effect that follows.
I cannot remove effect as the cause brings it forth.

The universe had a Cause.
Nothing moves until 'Something' moves it.

That's simply not true, Thief.

Oh, to be sure, it is true in most cases ... but not in all. There are specific circumstances where causality stops functioning. Below the quantum level, events can occur with no cause--not "no detected cause," but literally NO cause. Inside a singularity, causality is also out the window.

And all the evidence we have indicates that the pre-Big Bang conditions were a singularity.

No cause for the universe is needed.

 

[Thief]

That's simply not true, Thief.

Oh, to be sure, it is true in most cases ... but not in all. There are specific circumstances where causality stops functioning. Below the quantum level, events can occur with no cause--not "no detected cause," but literally NO cause. Inside a singularity, causality is also out the window.

And all the evidence we have indicates that the pre-Big Bang conditions were a singularity.

No cause for the universe is needed.

To say 'I AM'......you might want an Echo.

No really.
If you separate cause and effect....no form of science can work.
The numbers have to work.....
The photo needs to be clear....
The fingerprint may not be smudged....
and the experiment has to fit in the petri dish.

Some things.....you just have to think about.

 

[technomage]

If you separate cause and effect....no form of science can work.

Which is a pretty good description of a singularity. Within a singularity, there is no space-time, and no causality. You have infinite density within a zero-dimensional area ... but even at that, you have to be "outside" the area to define it.

Not to mention you can't do science in there, because it's too dark to read your notes.

 

[jtartar]

Theory....

rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice.

speculation: abstract thought or contemplation.

idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture.

(someone asked me to have a look.....this is what I found)
(hope he is reading this)

Thief,
No matter what knowledge you are seeking, the best method to find the answer is called, The Scientific Method. The sequence is: Find a problem, gather all the information about the subject you can find, analyze the evidence, synthesize, then form a theory, of an hypothesis. If the theory fits all the evidence, it must be true, if some evidence does not fit your theory, your theory is wrong, you must form a theory that agrees with all the evidence.

 

[technomage]

No matter what knowledge you are seeking, the best method to find the answer is called, The Scientific Method.

Oh, so the Scientific Method will help me answer the question "Which is better-broccoli or cauliflower?" How about the question "Is the new WTC building beautiful?" How about the question "do these pants make my butt look fat?"

Or--especially considering the methodological naturalism that is required for the scientific method--can the scientific method answer the question "Does God, however defined, exist"?

The scientific method is restricted to a specific sub-set of questions--namely, questions dealing with objective observation of physical phenomena. By definition, science cannot consider non-natural explanations for the phenomena that it examines. That does not mean that there are any true non-natural explanations, nor does it mean there are none: it simply means that science cannot consider these questions.

That's why I am an agnostic--I am quite in support of science, and of the scientific method, but I am aware that there is knowledge that science cannot provide.

 

[Thief]

Thief,
No matter what knowledge you are seeking, the best method to find the answer is called, The Scientific Method. The sequence is: Find a problem, gather all the information about the subject you can find, analyze the evidence, synthesize, then form a theory, of an hypothesis. If the theory fits all the evidence, it must be true, if some evidence does not fit your theory, your theory is wrong, you must form a theory that agrees with all the evidence.

Observe...
Question.....
Construct experiment.....
Draw conclusion.....

The experiment must have repeatable results.
Cause and effect may not be separated.

The universe is here....so are we.
God did it.

The portion we would do as experiment will have to wait til we die.

No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, no experiment.....
the singularity won't fit in the petri dish.

 

[McBell]

Cause and effect may not be separated.

Make up your mind.

 

[McBell]

Oh, so the Scientific Method will help me answer the question "Which is better-broccoli or cauliflower?"

yes

How about the question "Is the new WTC building beautiful?"

yes

How about the question "do these pants make my butt look fat?"

yes

Or--especially considering the methodological naturalism that is required for the scientific method--can the scientific method answer the question "Does God, however defined, exist"?

If applied in the same manner as was used to come up with god in the first place...
Yes.

The scientific method is restricted to a specific sub-set of questions--namely, questions dealing with objective observation of physical phenomena. By definition, science cannot consider non-natural explanations for the phenomena that it examines. That does not mean that there are any true non-natural explanations, nor does it mean there are none: it simply means that science cannot consider these questions.

I tend to agree that science is a specific tool.
Much like a screw driver.

However, I disagree with the ever so prevalent "logic" that what cannot be proven false must be true.

That's why I am an agnostic--I am quite in support of science, and of the scientific method, but I am aware that there is knowledge that science cannot provide.

fair enough

 

[technomage]

yes

You and I will have to disagree with the utility of science for these questions.

However, I disagree with the ever so prevalent "logic" that what cannot be proven false must be true.

I would say that I've never seen this ... but I have. The argument is fallacious. However, the counter-argument is also fallacious. That which cannot be proven or refuted is simply an unsupported assertion.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

yes


yes


yes


If applied in the same manner as was used to come up with god in the first place...
Yes.


I tend to agree that science is a specific tool.
Much like a screw driver.

However, I disagree with the ever so prevalent "logic" that what cannot be proven false must be true.


fair enough

So aesthetics don't matter?

 

[McBell]

So aesthetics don't matter?

how do you figure?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

how do you figure?

How do you figure that science can determine whether certain pants can make my butt look fat? Or whether broccoli is better tasting than cauliflower?

 

[McBell]

How do you figure that science can determine whether certain pants can make my butt look fat? Or whether broccoli is better tasting than cauliflower?

Since I never made any such claims....

The question asked was if I could use the scientific method to determine those things.

I can.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Since I never made any such claims....

The question asked was if I could use the scientific method to determine those things.

I can.

Here is you making the claim that science can determine which pants can make my butt look fat:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3704432-post31.html

So please 'splain, how does science determine which pants make my butt look fat.

 

[McBell]

Here is you making the claim that science can determine which pants can make my butt look fat:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3704432-post31.html

So please 'splain, how does science determine which pants make my butt look fat.

you should try again for reading comprehension.

I did not say that science can do anything.

I said I can use the scientific method to answer the questions.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

you should try again for reading comprehension.

I did not say that science can do anything.

I said I can use the scientific method to answer the questions.

So go ahead then, explain how you can use the scientific method to determine how certain pants make my butt look fat.

 

[technomage]

you should try again for reading comprehension.

I did not say that science can do anything.

I said I can use the scientific method to answer the questions.

That's every bit as much a bait and switch as Thief's definition of "theory" above.

How can you condemn the one, yet defend the other?