Restating the Paradox

In the scientific sense, evolution is a fact, and Evolution is a theory.

Science uses deduction only in that it has premises that are considered "fact" or "true" by induction. Without induction, science cannot have deduction.

Query "philosophy of science" in wikipedia for more info.

Hi Philo,
I was just reading this old thread and your reply cracked me up, especially in light of finding out I'm an existentialist:

"Are you kidding? Do you really want to concede that a super-smart super-evolved alien could be god?"

The funny thing is that I am willing to concede this. But I surly hope you and the other Christians on this forum turn out to be correct, because upon further study of existensialism - it's too damn depressing.
Yukoncpa

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
In the scientific sense, evolution is a fact, and Evolution is a theory.

Science uses deduction only in that it has premises that are considered "fact" or "true" by induction. Without induction, science cannot have deduction.

Query "philosophy of science" in wikipedia for more info.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get into a silly debate when we probably basically agree. good read on Popper for those interested.

excerpt:
[ QUOTE ]
The Growth of Human Knowledge
For Popper accordingly, the growth of human knowledge proceeds from our problems and from our attempts to solve them. These attempts involve the formulation of theories which, if they are to explain anomalies which exist with respect to earlier theories, must go beyond existing knowledge and therefore require a leap of the imagination. For this reason, Popper places special emphasis on the role played by the independent creative imagination in the formulation of theory. The centrality and priority of problems in Popper's account of science is paramount, and it is this which leads him to characterise scientists as ‘problem-solvers’. Further, since the scientist begins with problems rather than with observations or ‘bare facts’, Popper argues that the only logical technique which is an integral part of scientific method is that of the deductive testing of theories which are not themselves the product of any logical operation. In this deductive procedure conclusions are inferred from a tentative hypothesis. These conclusions are then compared with one another and with other relevant statements to determine whether they falsify or corroborate the hypothesis. Such conclusions are not directly compared with the facts, Popper stresses, simply because there are no ‘pure’ facts available; all observation-statements are theory-laden, and are as much a function of purely subjective factors (interests, expectations, wishes, etc.) as they are a function of what is objectively real.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some issues with Popper's work that could argue against science being deductive but we could simply get round those by assuming a few more premises.

Once we get away from the idea that science produces naked truths about the world then its pretty easy to make it deductive.

chez

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Second, if the Universe IS ordered, possibilities are not infinite *even* if the Universe is eternal since possibilities are limited by natural laws.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This once again assumes the UP. You limit the number of possibilities by assuming order in nature then use that to prove order in nature.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I wanted to make that point clear.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not artificial. You proposed an argument containg the word God to a Christian without defining the word. Now you don't want to define the word the way you ought to have known a Christian would define it. My definiton of the word God is "the God of the Bible", not some impersonal life force or a group of aliens from Alpha Centauri. That's not artificial. Maintaining there is an infinite number of possibilities, any of which could correctly be labeled "God" is artificial.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. The point of the latter part of this discussion was to compare two similar arguments. I went further to discuss the conclusions and how argument 2's conclusion is meaningful while argument 1's is not. I'm not looking at this with an agenda. It's a purely logical approach. The fact is that with argument 1, unless there is some outside information that increases the probability of specific premises being true, the conclusion is worthless. From a logical standpoint it *is* artificial to arbitrarily limit the premises with no justification.

That said, if you have outside information that would make your God-of-the-Bible explanation more likely to be true, then we should discuss that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I wanted to make that point cl ear.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is invalid if natural law isn't ultimate. If chance is ultimate then presumably possibility is infinite.

[ QUOTE ]

The point of the latter part of this discussion was to compare two similar arguments. I went further to discuss the conclusions and how argument 2's conclusion is meaningful while argument 1's is not.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not very difficult to make an argument meaningless by stating a primary word in the argument is undefined. Which is why I want to give content to the word God. Otherwise argument 1 doesn't really say anything. My position is that existence tends to prove Someone specific. Your formulation of 1 doesn't represent this position if the word God can be anything.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not very difficult to make an argument meaningless by stating a primary word in the argument is undefined. Which is why I want to give content to the word God. Otherwise argument 1 doesn't really say anything. My position is that existence tends to prove Someone specific. Your formulation of 1 doesn't represent this position if the word God can be anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not meaningless because the word is undefined. Even if you define it narrowly, the conclusion is meaningless because the premise is only one of an infinite number of possible premises.

The point is that from a purely logical standpoint, that evidence can be evidence for an infinite number of *specific* things. And, once again, that's *barring* any outside information.

Go back to my pen example. You know something put a pen on your desk. You decide who might have done it based on information about each person. With no information, it could have gotten there in a (practically, at least) infinite number of ways. The fact that it's there *is* evidence that it was put there *somehow*, but without any outside information, you have *no* idea as to how.

Same with argument #1. The fact that we exist is evidence that *something* happened, but without any additional information, we have no idea what. Without any additional information, the existence of the universe is *not* evidence for the existence of the Christian god because there's nothing to make the Christian god explanation more likely to be true than any of the other possibilities.

Are you following me?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Even if you define it narrowly, the conclusion is meaningless because the premise is only one of an infinite number of possible premises.


[/ QUOTE ]

There can't be an infinite number if it's defined narrowly.

[ QUOTE ]

The point is that from a purely logical standpoint, that evidence can be evidence for an infinite number of *specific* things. And, once again, that's *barring* any outside information.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about outside information. I'm talking about a specific premise.

[ QUOTE ]

Go back to my pen example. You know something put a pen on your desk. You decide who might have done it based on information about each person. With no information, it could have gotten there in a (practically, at least) infinite number of ways.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not if your premise is that a person had to put it there.

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that we exist is evidence that *something* happened, but without any additional information, we have no idea what.


[/ QUOTE ]

You want to presuppose that anything is possible. I don't make such an assumption.

[bearly]

ok, i'll be more direct: will you be 'really enjoying' your pre-determined life if (or when) it is a life of terrible misery? oh, and by the way, you have no control over whether you enjoy your life or not. you could very well win the wsop me and tell the reporter interviewing you that 'this is the single worst moment in my life'. so you say "you like" as if it means something---given your views (which i believe you think are irrefutable), it doesn't......................b

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
There can't be an infinite number if it's defined narrowly.


[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstood. There can be an infinite number of premises, *each* narrowly defined. In fact, the more narrowly you define them, the more possibilities there are.

Overall, the entire point is that argument 1) is artificially specific barring some outside information. You've stated before that there are plenty of reasons to believe in the Christian idea of god, which is the outside information I've been referring to. It's time you started presenting some of those ideas, because otherwise, your argument 1) has no merit whatsoever.

[ QUOTE ]
Not if your premise is that a person had to put it there.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, that just limits it to 6 billion premises. That the pen is there is now evidence, but only 1/6bil % for each possible premise.

[ QUOTE ]
You want to presuppose that anything is possible. I don't make such an assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

From a purely logical standpoint, argument 1) is no better than a similar argument with a non-Christian-God entity in its place. The strength of the argument is precisely the same. I'm waiting on you to present outside information that would make the Christian-God-premise more likely to be true, and thus make the "universe is here" evidence more likely to point to the Christian god.

Just because the ability to look into the future would tell us what is to be, doesn't mean that what comes to be hasn't become with the exercise of free will.