|
|
#101
09-30-2005, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] God isn't an answer -- at least in scientific matters [/ QUOTE ] If science is the search for truth, and you rule out a cause before it has a chance to speak simply because you think it's "superfoulus" what's that? We shouldn't prejudge just because we don't like it. We've come to accept the definition of science that excludes design as a scientific explanation. When we recognize the effects of inteligence in so many other areas of reasoning. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not ruling out intelligent design as a cause because I don't like it -- you aren't much of a scientist, or thinker, if you do things like that -- I'm ruling it out because it's not a testable hypothesis and has no scientific value. Scientifically, it makes just as much sense to assert that a purple unicorn designed the universe as it is god. Untestable and nonfalsifiable theories have no place in science. Let's say I'm studying how gravity works between planets. Can you think of any time where making the assertion that God created the universe will have scientific value? The observed phenomena stays the same regardless of whether God or the purple unicorn made it that way. Imagine any type of research a scientist may be conducting and give me an example of when accepting ID or even the concept of God as a premise has any value to the hypothetical research. As to your last point, I'm not sure what other areas of reason you are referencing. 
|
|
#102
09-30-2005, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
I'm ruling it out because it's not a testable hypothesis [/ QUOTE ] I suppose in naturalistic materialism you're right. This definition is my whole point. [ QUOTE ] Let's say I'm studying how gravity works between planets. Can you think of any time where making the assertion that God created the universe will have scientific value? The observed phenomena stays the same regardless of whether God or the purple unicorn made it that way. [/ QUOTE ] Agree. [ QUOTE ] Imagine any type of research a scientist may be conducting and give me an example of when accepting ID or even the concept of God as a premise has any value to the hypothetical research. [/ QUOTE ] How about the creation of the universe? [ QUOTE ] As to your last point, I'm not sure what other areas of reason you are referencing. [/ QUOTE ] This is a part of our normal reasoning. Heres a very simplistic example. When you see the HOLLYWOOD sign you reason that it did not get there naturally even though you didn't see exactly how it got there. Since you it's improbable that those letters fell there, and you recognize the letters- you logically infer that someone put it there.
|
|
#103
09-30-2005, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm ruling it out because it's not a testable hypothesis [/ QUOTE ] I suppose in naturalistic materialism you're right. This definition is my whole point. [ QUOTE ] Let's say I'm studying how gravity works between planets. Can you think of any time where making the assertion that God created the universe will have scientific value? The observed phenomena stays the same regardless of whether God or the purple unicorn made it that way. [/ QUOTE ] Agree. [ QUOTE ] Imagine any type of research a scientist may be conducting and give me an example of when accepting ID or even the concept of God as a premise has any value to the hypothetical research. [/ QUOTE ] How about the creation of the universe? [ QUOTE ] As to your last point, I'm not sure what other areas of reason you are referencing. [/ QUOTE ] This is a part of our normal reasoning. Heres a very simplistic example. When you see the HOLLYWOOD sign you reason that it did not get there naturally even though you didn't see exactly how it got there. Since you it's improbable that those letters fell there, and you recognize the letters- you logically infer that someone put it there. [/ QUOTE ] Two points. As far as I can tell, naturalistic materialism is the only perspective that will work with the scientific method. If there is another, please let me know. Second, the creation of the universe may be beyond the scope of science to explain. There is no scientific way to test any type of creationist view of existence. That is the main reason why people don't want ID in science classrooms; it's not science. People can discuss the philosophical and theological merits of the argument from design and even the existence of God itself. But that type of debate has no place in science.
|
|
#104
09-30-2005, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm ruling it out because it's not a testable hypothesis [/ QUOTE ] I suppose in naturalistic materialism you're right. This definition is my whole point. [ QUOTE ] Let's say I'm studying how gravity works between planets. Can you think of any time where making the assertion that God created the universe will have scientific value? The observed phenomena stays the same regardless of whether God or the purple unicorn made it that way. [/ QUOTE ] Agree. [ QUOTE ] Imagine any type of research a scientist may be conducting and give me an example of when accepting ID or even the concept of God as a premise has any value to the hypothetical research. [/ QUOTE ] How about the creation of the universe? [ QUOTE ] As to your last point, I'm not sure what other areas of reason you are referencing. [/ QUOTE ] This is a part of our normal reasoning. Heres a very simplistic example. When you see the HOLLYWOOD sign you reason that it did not get there naturally even though you didn't see exactly how it got there. Since you it's improbable that those letters fell there, and you recognize the letters- you logically infer that someone put it there. [/ QUOTE ] Two points. As far as I can tell, naturalistic materialism is the only perspective that will work with the scientific method. If there is another, please let me know. Second, the creation of the universe may be beyond the scope of science to explain. There is no scientific way to test any type of creationist view of existence. That is the main reason why people don't want ID in science classrooms; it's not science. People can discuss the philosophical and theological merits of the argument from design and even the existence of God itself. But that type of debate has no place in science. [/ QUOTE ] We agree on your first point. The first part of your second point I also agree with. The last sentence though- wouldn't it be neat to have design as an alternative AS LONG AS that's where the current evidence points? Not as a catch all excuse, but if many facts suggest that design had a part in creating the universe, and our own intelligence backs that up shouldn't it be considered? Or should we just stick with the "old trusty" scientific method? Like one of your counterparts said "keep thinking the Earth is the center of the universe".
|
|
#105
09-30-2005, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
We agree on your first point. The first part of your second point I also agree with. The last sentence though- wouldn't it be neat to have design as an alternative AS LONG AS that's where the current evidence points? Not as a catch all excuse, but if many facts suggest that design had a part in creating the universe, and our own intelligence backs that up shouldn't it be considered? Or should we just stick with the "old trusty" scientific method? Like one of your counterparts said "keep thinking the Earth is the center of the universe". [/ QUOTE ] It is funny that you are mockingly juxtaposing the "old trusty scientific method" with the antiquated theory of the Earth as the center of the universe, considering rigorous scientific work went into disproving that theory. Again, point out to me how ID could possibly be tested or verified and I'll accept it as a scientific point of interest. I understand the philosophical and spiritual import of the theory, but it has nothing to do with science. Personally, I'd only be fine with presenting ID as a valid scientific view in schools if my theory that a multidimensional, sentient ham sandwich is the creator in question.
|
|
#106
09-30-2005, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'd only be fine with presenting ID as a valid scientific view in schools if my theory that a multidimensional, sentient ham sandwich is the creator in question. [/ QUOTE ] You stole the idea for my next post!! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
|
#107
09-30-2005, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Personally, I'd only be fine with presenting ID as a valid scientific view in schools if my theory that a multidimensional, sentient ham sandwich is the creator in question. [/ QUOTE ] You stole the idea for my next post!! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] There is an underground multidimensional sentient ham sandwich movement that is larger than people think. We'll have our day in the sun, oh yes, we will...
|
|
#108
10-01-2005, 12:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
1. The universe is an illusion [/ QUOTE ] To an extent. [ QUOTE ] 4. The universe was created by something that is infinite, and eternal From my stance this makes the most sense. [/ QUOTE ] I say 1 and 4. Consciousness thought the universe into existance. So in effect, the universe is a pea soup of vibrating energy, created from infinite consiousness, which our interface with this dimension decodes into existance according to our dna/beliefs. An illusion. The computer monitor I am looking at now is not out there as it appears to me, it is in my brain.
|
|
#109
10-01-2005, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
What about: 5. We don't know what happened yet, maybe someday we will, maybe it's beyond our ability to discover. From my stance, this is the only thing that makes sense. [/ QUOTE ] 'We' as in the general masses. Those at the top of the tree know, and have done for eons.
|
|
#110
10-01-2005, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Four Possibilities For Our Universes\' Existence
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's just me, but if irrefutable proof came that we are just a bunch of mice in a really big cage, I'd be sorely disappointed. I'm just as entitled to believe that as you are to your beliefs. [/ QUOTE ] Somewhat close to the truth, when considering the universe.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
