Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Limitations of Science?

Options
1…910121415

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The science fallacy is claiming that the lack of scientifically measurable evidence disproofs God's existance. It is a logical fallacy to claim that science can now or perhaps can ever disproof God as the originator of our observed universe.

    However, it is entirely consistent for atheists to criticize one logical fallacy while holding fast to another.

    Can you point out an atheist who actually believes that ?


  • Options
    #333
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The science fallacy is claiming that the lack of scientifically measurable evidence disproofs God's existance. It is a logical fallacy to claim that science can now or perhaps can ever disproof God as the originator of our observed universe.

    However, it is entirely consistent for atheists to criticize one logical fallacy while holding fast to another.
    So were did I say any of that? Where did anyone?

    And no it's not a fallacy.


  • Options
    #334
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Explain

    If a deity originated our observed universe complete with its natural laws, there is no way for science to observe this or measure it. Stating that the lack of evidence of the deity disproves the deity is a logical fallacy.


  • Options
    #335
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    If a deity originated our observed universe complete with its natural laws, there is no way for science to observe this or measure it. Stating that the lack of evidence of the deity disproves the deity is a logical fallacy.
    But a lack of evidence is a good reason to not accept that such a being exists as it is indistinguishable from something entirely imaginary.


  • Options
    #336
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Eramen wrote: »
    Do you place any stock in the infinity of numbers even though it cannot be supported by evidence? You will probably have to ponder that.

    The infinity of numbers can be supported by evidence, so you question is a non-sequitur
    Eramen wrote: »
    Why should I only believe in the technique of observation, that is detached and only repeatable in certain circumstances as per experiment, which is in itself based on relations of substances, thus making any information completely relative?

    What alternative do you have?
    Eramen wrote: »
    I mean, if we only contain ourselves to the evidential form of science then we really are squandering our human intelligence.

    10,000 years of human ignorance and misadventure would suggestion otherwise.
    Eramen wrote: »
    Don't interpret this as a 'anti-atheist' argument, rather I just can't see how using only one branch or science and philosophy is the right methodology for constructing reality. But yet this is the culture of modern atheism's worldview.

    Of all the people who come onto this forum promoting such an idea none so far have been able to explain how any alternative methodology over comes the problems science attempts to deal with in a better fashion. And people have been claiming this for years.

    Perhaps you want to be the first?
    Eramen wrote: »
    Atheism has become a modern mythology. And then an atheist turns around and might say 'numbers/universe/energy is infinite', while holding that all things must be based on observable evidence, despite the former being impossible to support via empiricism. It's puzzling and contradictory.

    Numbers are infinte can be supported.

    The universe is infinite is mere speculation, no one knows if it is or not.

    No one claims energy is infinite, at least no one who knows anything about energy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    If a deity originated our observed universe complete with its natural laws, there is no way for science to observe this or measure it.

    Correct. Where is the logical fallacy?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Stating that the lack of evidence of the deity disproves the deity is a logical fallacy.

    Correct. Given I didn't state that, where is the logical fallacy?


  • Options
    #338
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    King Mob wrote: »
    But a lack of evidence is a good reason to not accept that such a being exists as it is indistinguishable from something entirely imaginary.

    Not really. The evidence we have is that the universe exists, that fact is not imaginary. We may not understand the underlying reality of the univese but we don't deny it exists. There are only two possibilities on the origin question, either the universe in some material sense always existed or it was created. Given the evidence I will go with created, that is an entirely logical position.


  • Options
    #339
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Correct. Where is the logical fallacy?
    Correct. Given I didn't state that, where is the logical fallacy?

    Where did I state either King Mob or yourself stated this logical fallacy? I am saying it is a common logical fallacy and is frequently invoked on threads such as this. Science tells us nothing regarding the existance or non-existance of God.


  • Options
    #340
    EmmettInc
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭EmmettInc


    Eramen wrote: »
    Do you place any stock in the infinity of numbers even though it cannot be supported by evidence? You will probably have to ponder that.

    Why should I only believe in the technique of observation, that is detached and only repeatable in certain circumstances as per experiment, which is in itself based on relations of substances, thus making any information completely relative?

    I mean, if we only contain ourselves to the evidential form of science then we really are squandering our human intelligence.

    Don't interpret this as a 'anti-atheist' argument, rather I just can't see how using only one branch or science and philosophy is the right methodology for constructing reality. But yet this is the culture of modern atheism's worldview.

    Atheism has become a modern mythology. And then an athiest turns around and might say 'numbers/universe/energy is infinite' while holding that all things must be based on observable evidence, despite this kind of thinking being impossible to support via empiricism. It's puzzling and contradictory.

    Theoretical physics is ever growing, and trying to solve the mysteries of life, some is successful, some is not, but the point scientists make is that they are open to changing their opinions should a more logical or reasonable hypothesis or theory be developed, whereas religious thinking is not.

    As for contradictions, scientists will often explain that the universe is ever expanding, thus facilitating the concept of infinity, what it is expanding into, they say nothing, but not nothing as we know it.

    as for number, its a logical sequence which is evidenced on the rules applied to it... Again it is infinite because we has created it to be an infinite concept, this is where so many people get confused... Concepts are what man makes them- time, numeracy, god etc. these things only become real when we apply meaning to them... Without our comprehension of them, they do not exist...


  • Options
    #341
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Not really.
    Yes really. If there is no evidence for something's existence, then it is indistinguishable from being imaginary.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The evidence we have is that the universe exists, that fact is not imaginary. We may not understand the underlying reality of the univese but we don't deny it exists. There are only two possibilities on the origin question, either the universe in some material sense always existed or it was created. Given the evidence I will go with created, that is an entirely logical position.
    Lol.
    There's a false dilemma fallacy.

    Those aren't the only options. And there's no evidence that it was created.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Where did I state either King Mob or yourself stated this logical fallacy?

    Er, here

    The specific ones you fall victim to relate to whther you are an atheist, deist or theist.

    I asked you to explain, and you answered with this particular logical fallacy. Is there another one I fall victim to?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I am saying it is a common logical fallacy and is frequently invoked on threads such as this.

    By who?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Science tells us nothing regarding the existance or non-existance of God.

    Science tells us that humans imagine gods for reasons other than that they exist. This explains why humans claim to have experience of gods.

    Once you remove the claim of the concept the concept itself has no support.

    This says nothing for whether it is actually real, but if it is it is mere coincidence and given that the set of imaginary things is larger than the set of real things it is highly unlikely.

    This is the same as you saying you are going to win the lottery and me saying that is nonsense. That discussion has no bearing on whether you will or won't win the lottery (unless you don't enter), but I can still safely disregard your claim that you will.

    Or to put it another way, it is correct to point this out but also worth remembering that it does not take away from the soundness of atheism, nor lend support to theism.


  • Options
    #343
    EmmettInc
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭EmmettInc


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Not really. The evidence we have is that the universe exists, that fact is not imaginary. We may not understand the underlying reality of the univese but we don't deny it exists. There are only two possibilities on the origin question, either the universe in some material sense always existed or it was created. Given the evidence I will go with created, that is an entirely logical position.

    That is the exact opposite to logical, it is in fact in every way illogical. I don't know the answer so I'll just say this. The idea of the universe being created only pushes the question of "who/what created that" back one step to what the created the creator, now theists say well the creator is, was and always will be, why not just say that of the universe which we know to exist, and leave it there, why do we need to add in the creator? The answer, to makes ourselves feel better, and to make the weak minded feel that there is meaning to life, when really, it is only the meaning we apply to it that is real...


  • Options
    #344
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    There are only two possibilities on the origin question, either the universe in some material sense always existed or it was created. Given the evidence I will go with created, that is an entirely logical position.

    Weren't you just giving out about people over reaching?

    You have absolutely no basis for saying there are only two possibilities on the origin question, none what so ever.

    The reality is we don't know how the universe came into existence, nor even what the set of possibilities for that are, or even if "came into existence" is the correct notion to describe it


  • Options
    #345
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Not really. The evidence we have is that the universe exists, that fact is not imaginary.

    That's not proof that the universe exists. For all we know, it might not.


  • Options
    #346
    Eramen
    Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Eramen


    Zombrex wrote: »
    The infinity of numbers can be supported by evidence, so you question is a non-sequitur

    The infinity of numbers can't be observed [hint: it would take forever], it can only be related to in some form via mathematics, which not evidence. Evidence requires observation.

    If atheist empiricists believe in something that can't be observed it goes against their premise of "Show me evidence", "I only believe in observational science." If this was not so the concept of God would not be a difficult problem as they would know empiricism is not applicable, much like the infinity of numbers.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    What alternative do you have?


    The alternative is already incorporated into science/philosophy. Universal principles such as energy, matter, the causes of the forces have never been observed but there existence may be inferred through their produce (all material phenomena). Yet thus far as we can observe and gather through evidence they cannot be explained in entirely physical terms themselves, but only through abstractions. The abstractions and what exactly they constitute as (physically metaphysically etc) requires real exploration.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    10,000 years of human ignorance and misadventure would suggestion otherwise.

    I propose that people who have not yet learned to conduct themselves not be given permission to conduct others.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Of all the people who come onto this forum promoting such an idea none so far have been able to explain how any alternative methodology over comes the problems science attempts to deal with in a better fashion. And people have been claiming this for years.

    Perhaps you want to be the first?

    Perhaps people should investigate the conundrum of empirical belief. "Why do I believe that that which is relative [the material] to be real?"

    It would be a good start.

    Another question of greater importance still:

    "Why am I suffering?"

    Perhaps the sad being of man could be uplifted somewhat.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Numbers are infinte can be supported.

    The universe is infinite is mere speculation, no one knows if it is or not.

    No one claims energy is infinite, at least no one who knows anything about energy.


    I agree that numbers are infinite can be supported. Not by evidence or empiricism though, which was my original point.


  • Options
    #347
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Eramen wrote: »
    The infinity of numbers can't be observed [hint: it would take forever], it can only be related to in some form via mathematics, which not evidence. Evidence requires observation.

    You know what proof by induction is, right?


  • Options
    #348
    EmmettInc
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭EmmettInc


    Numeracy is a concept, we created it, therefore it is answerable to an authority... We say by adding one at any given point will increase the number we currently have by one... But is the authority (hypothetically - we/us) placed limitations on the application of that rule the concept becomes encapsulated, but we don't therefore we state numbers are infinite... That in and of itself is evidence, we created to be that way therefore logic dictates that unless the authority limits it, it is therefore infinite, but only for so long as it can be comprehended, as, is true of all concepts, the concept is only real aslong as the concept can be comprehended... Like time and to whit God...


  • Options
    #349
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    EmmettInc wrote: »
    That is the exact opposite to logical, it is in fact in every way illogical. I don't know the answer so I'll just say this. The idea of the universe being created only pushes the question of "who/what created that" back one step to what the created the creator, now theists say well the creator is, was and always will be, why not just say that of the universe which we know to exist, and leave it there, why do we need to add in the creator? The answer, to makes ourselves feel better, and to make the weak minded feel that there is meaning to life, when really, it is only the meaning we apply to it that is real...

    The "who created God" argument is another logical fallacy. It is related to a lack of understanding of the concept of eternal and muddling it with the concept of infinity. Time is relative and measured according to our perspective. The God who created our observed universe is hardly subject to its laws. That's like saying if I make a movie I am subject to only a two dimensional existance.


  • Options
    #350
    EmmettInc
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭EmmettInc


    As for energy, and matter, the concept of both is predicated that neither can be created or destroyed but changed from one form into another... Therefore one can argue that both are infact limited and unlimited at once, but only by there own interaction and reaction, proof is not the goal here, but theory...


  • Options
    #351
    Eramen
    Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Eramen


    Sarky wrote: »
    You know what proof by induction is, right?


    Yes I read Greek philosophy and you've brought up what I'm getting at.

    Proof is not evidence. Proof is a definite while evidence has been gathered in conditions subject to relativity, and so is not definite but an observed estimate.

    Proof is based on intellection, the construction of ideal mathematical and philosophical terms and formula to represent X ... and so on. It's essentially an attempt at understanding a value which is proven through the abstraction of concepts & ideas. Numbers are ideas in their original state.

    If you can understand this then understanding what might constitute as God is within grasp.

    Empiricism is about perception, yet as we all know appearences can be deceiving. Reality can only ever be defined though intellection of ideas to give everything its proper value. Math does this wonderfully.

    It's the intellection of ideas that makes things real, such as theorized physics, or ethics. Since the material world can only ever be understood by relation, by comparison of one object, substance or observation to another, all is relative in this sphere. Empiricism is this exercise, one that can't arrive to proof through it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The "who created God" argument is another logical fallacy. It is related to a lack of understanding of the concept of eternal and muddling it with the concept of infinity. Time is relative and measured according to our perspective. The God who created our observed universe is hardly subject to its laws. That's like saying if I make a movie I am subject to only a two dimensional existance.
    That's also not a fallacy.
    It's a tricksy point to catch out people who making the argument "everything need a creator-therefore god created everything." (which is a fallacy.)
    To answer the point such a person must them either admit to an infinite regress or admit that something can exist without a creator, negating the first premise.

    But you know, that's just me framing people's positions fairly and in context...


  • Options
    #353
    EmmettInc
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭EmmettInc


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The "who created God" argument is another logical fallacy. It is related to a lack of understanding of the concept of eternal and muddling it with the concept of infinity. Time is relative and measured according to our perspective. The God who created our observed universe is hardly subject to its laws. That's like saying if I make a movie I am subject to only a two dimensional existance.

    So you're argument is god being an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being created a world in which he has no ability to directly interfere, and in which his existence cannot be proven... That's very convenient... You'd nearly think God was some sort of public servant at that rate... Anyone can create a set of perimeters which cannot be tested and call it a hypothesis, it takes real imagination to accept the perimeters we can conceive and work with-in them to develop a theory...


  • Options
    #354
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Eramen wrote: »
    The infinity of numbers can't be observed [hint: it would take forever], it can only be related to in some form via mathematics, which not evidence.

    Of course it is evidence. As for observation, you can observe the rules that are evidence that numbers are infinite.

    For example, this is Euclid's proof of infinite primes

    Theorem.
    There are infinitely many primes.
    Proof.
    Suppose that p1=2 < p2 = 3 < ... < pr are all of the primes. Let P = p1p2...pr+1 and let p be a prime dividing P; then p can not be any of p1, p2, ..., pr, otherwise p would divide the difference P-p1p2...pr=1, which is impossible. So this prime p is still another prime, and p1, p2, ..., pr would not be all of the primes.

    You and I are now observing this.
    Eramen wrote: »
    The alternative is already incorporated into science/philosophy. Universal principles such as energy, matter, the causes of the forces have never been observed but there existence may be inferred through their produce (all material phenomena). Yet thus far as we can observe and gather through evidence they cannot be explained in entirely physical terms themselves, but only through abstractions.

    They aren't explained (see my earlier post about place holder terms)
    Eramen wrote: »
    I propose that people who have not yet learned to conduct themselves not be given permission to conduct others.

    Ok.. that doesn't counter my point
    Eramen wrote: »
    Perhaps people should investigate the conundrum of empirical belief. "Why do I believe that that which is relative [the material] to be real?"

    It would be a good start.

    Not really. You claim that there are better ways to discover if claims about reality are accurate or not. What are these better ways.
    Eramen wrote: »
    Another question of greater importance still:

    "Why am I suffering?"

    Well right now I'm reading your posts ... oh, you meant spiritually I imagine.

    Well you will notice that the major strives in improving human quality of life only were made after the Enlightenment and the abandonment of magical thinking.

    So while ancient religions promised all sorts of wonderful things in the after life, they did very little to increase our understanding of the world around us in order to prevent suffering. They merely told people to get on with dying and look forward to the wonderful stuff that awaited them afterwards.
    Eramen wrote: »
    I agree that numbers are infinite can be supported. Not by evidence or empiricism though, which was my original point.

    You don't seem to understand what evidence is.


  • Options
    #355
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    EmmettInc wrote: »
    So you're argument is god being an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being created a world in which he has no ability to directly interfere, and in which his existence cannot be proven... That's very convenient... You'd nearly think God was some sort of public servant at that rate... Anyone can create a set of perimeters which cannot be tested and call it a hypothesis, it takes real imagination to accept the perimeters we can conceive and work with-in them to develop a theory...

    Of course God has the ability to directly interfere in the world he created, including making it vanish should he choose. Every field of science when take holistically as opposed to individually suggests an underlying reality that is a mathematical construction. Only a mind is capable of mathematical construction.


  • Options
    #356
    EmmettInc
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭EmmettInc


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Of course God has the ability to directly interfere in the world he created, including making it vanish should he choose. Every field of science when take holistically as opposed to individually suggests an underlying reality that is a mathematical construction. Only a mind is capable of mathematical construction.

    Wow... So, God has a mind similar to man? But is all seeing and knowing? Also, what you said simply is not true...


  • Options
    #357
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    That's your logic, nagirrac?


  • Options
    #358
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    EmmettInc wrote: »
    Wow... So, God has a mind similar to man? But is all seeing and knowing? Also, what you said simply is not true...

    No, nothing similar to man obviously, a bit more advanced I would imagine (from looking at the evidence).


  • Options
    #359
    EmmettInc
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭EmmettInc


    nagirrac wrote: »
    No, nothing similar to man obviously, a bit more advanced I would imagine (from looking at the evidence).

    You are aware you're one post away from revealing you believe burning bushes can talk to people?


  • Options
    #360
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    EmmettInc wrote: »
    You are aware you're one post away from revealing you believe burning bushes can talk to people?

    You've thrown in the towel then I take it.. next


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    EmmettInc
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭EmmettInc


    nagirrac wrote: »
    You've thrown in the towel then I take it.. next

    No, but if you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people...

    You obviously don't understand anything to do with quantum mechanics, or the principles of concept and reality, and you're just making up things at this stage... I value my time more than to have these conversations with people that aren't open to being proven wrong...

    I ask just one question, the only one I need to ask...

    Prove God exists... If you cannot, then explain why he must in order for the universe to make sense... That would turn your hypothesis into a theory, but if you cannot then it remains a hypothesis- a poor one, but a hypothesis... Now if you're hypothesis can be disputed by by a better hypothesis, then it still is a hypothesis but is not as valid as a better one...

    If you can make headway on any of the above PM or post here, I'll see it, but nothing I've seen so far has done anything for me...


Advertisement