10 Aug 08
Originally posted by MattP"...IT DOES NOT try and explain the origin of the balloon. "
Hey Kelly,
I dont really understand your issue with the Big Bang Theory.
The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is acknowledged as not accounting for the "creation" of the universe. It is simply a theory for how the universe developed immediately after it "began".
More to the point, scientists realise that the BBT does not account for everything we can observe a ...[text shortened]... otherwise, as to do so assumes that God exists, for which there is no evidence.[\b]
Yes, I know, but people use it to denouce what does.
Kelly
10 Aug 08
Originally posted by whodeyI somewhat agree 🙂
As do I. However, if you are faced with the truth that the stories in the Bible are based in truth via digs and objective analysis but approach the whole affair from a perspective of unbelief then what choice do you have?
I think what we have is a book that was written at some point and it is presented as truth. We then have to take a look at how we can verify what is true and what is not. Since there was a lot of mythology back then we just don't know.
It's just like Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. It presents the battle of troy and Odysseus' trip home like they happened, but we'd be unlikely to believe the stuff he puts in about the gods would be true - and it's definitely not scientifically verifiable. However, people do try and verify whether the events happened or not.
10 Aug 08
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…"As I mentioned in my previous post, scientific knowledge is independent of humans..."
"As I mentioned in my previous post, scientific knowledge is independent of humans..."
The only way that could be true, was if science and humans did not
require one another. Now reality, does not depend on humans to be
what it is, but science without a doubt does.
Kelly
The only way that could be true, was if science and humans did not require one another.…
No. It is true that “science requires humans” or some other kind of sapient beings to exist but how does this logically contradict the fact that, just as MattP said, “knowledge is independent of humans" ? Please explain your logical deduction here.
Even if science initially gets onto a bad footing because of initially flawed or insufficient evidence, in the long run science would inevitably have a predisposition to find the truth simply because it is evidence-based. The same cannot be said of religion.
It is part of current scientific knowledge that the Earth is round and not flat. That means IF scientific knowledge IS dependent on humans, the Earth would cease to be round if we all died of a virus tomorrow. Do you believe this to be true?
If some science somewhere in an isolated part of the Earth was forced to rely on flawed or incomplete data and wrongly concluded as a result of this bad data that the Earth was in fact flat, would that make the Earth flat in reality? -IF, as you imply, scientific knowledge IS dependent on humans, then I presume you would conclude that that [flawed] scientific belief would in fact make the Earth flat in reality!
…Now reality, does not depend on humans to be what it is…
Correct. -and we have science to judge what that reality is in a more objective way based on the evidence that is independent of our emotions and what we WANT that reality to be.
10 Aug 08
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayEDIT: Kelly, sorry again for the length of my post - but I hope it responds properly to your points (and that you have time to read it! 🙄 )
My point is that to compare apples to apples you have to give an
account when comparing anything to creation to how and why did
it begun since that is all creation is. It isn't very fair at all to say
that there isn't any evidence for creation when 'science' it now
seems avoids that topic completely. Evolution is a process, the Big
Bang it now seems is ...[text shortened]... hodology to view the universe that has built in blinders
to see such things as well.
Kelly
Thank you for your detailed reply - I have a much better understanding of your views now and can see why you hold the beliefs you do.
However, I am afraid that you are still using the same seriously flawed logic. You seem to be using an argument along the lines of:
"Science makes no attempt to explain creation, therefore science doesnt rule out "religious creation" by a god. So it is likely that god did create us".
This is flawed because it uses the lack of a scientific explanation as evidence for a supernatural explanation.
You also say:
"It isnt very fair at all to say that there isnt any evidence for creation when "science" it now seems avoids that topic completely"
Again, you are using negative proof. You are effectively saying "Science has not proved my religious beliefs wrong, so they must be correct", This is not a reasonable claim to make as it ASSUMES that your views, for which there are no evidence, are correct until proven wrong - it does not offer any actual supporting evidence for those views, simply relies on the lack of alternate evidence. So why is it that your views are correct when other religion's views are not?
There really is no evidence at all for "creation by a god". If you have some specific evidence I would be interested to review it.
As I said before, your views on "creation" are entirely dependant on the cultures you have been exposed to - you could not possible be a Christian if you had not been exposed to Christian views as they are impossible to arrive at on your own as they have no observable evidence to back them up. This is not true of science, if two independent scientists preform the same experiment they will come to the same conclusions. Even if they have no contact with each other or anyone else, they will arrive at the same knowledge as each other because scientific findings are independent of beliefs.
You say that science is "blinkered", but this simply isnt true at all - the best science is science that challenges accepted principles. The greatest discoveries are the ones that changed understanding. It is religion that is blinkered, as religion has a set of ideas which it will never change no matter what evidence (or lack of evidence) it finds.
Look at how much scientific knowledge has changed and advanced in the last 50 years alone. Now compare that to religion, which is largely unchanged over THOUSANDS of years. It is religion that is set in it's ways, refusing to change in response to evidence.
There is no evidence for your irrational religious views, you have them simply because you believe them. If you have never been told/read/exposed to Christian views you could not be a christian as there is no way to independently arrive at them because they are NOT deduced from evidence, they are simply MADE UP out of thin air. I can back up my "beliefs" with evidence; if you do not believe electromagnetic is described by Maxwell's equations then you can do an experiment and see for yourself - the same is true for all scientific knowledge. Which is why science is NOT A MATTER OF FAITH, but instead scientific knowledge is reasoned and can be verified with evidence.
But I think I have found the reason for our major differences, feel free to correct me if I am wrong:This is a very long post, but please bear with it and keep reading because i think it sums up our entire debate.
There is no evidence for how the universe "started" (or even if it did "start", but you know what I mean). I, being a scientist, am content to say that "We dont know how it started - at the moment we have no way to explain it and no evidence to work with". I am happy to observe the parts of nature that we have access to and understand them as best we can rationally.
Now here is where we differ. You are not content with that answer, and want to know things that we cannot, at the moment, know. So you choose to believe a religious view. The religious view is largely determined by what you were exposed to when you grew up and could be total different if you were exposed to different things during childhood. You will never accept "we dont know" as an answer and so are forced to have an irrational belief that cannot be verified. HOWEVER, you have let your beliefs spill over into other things. I have noted that you have been happy to use reason and logic and to be rational about most things, but if there are any things that contradict your pre-decided religious views you are willing to be irrational. You also do not hold your religious views up to the same standards are scientific views - you choose to believe irrational, unsupported religious views when the alternate scientific view is opposed to it. You do this even when the scientific view has been confirmed by experiments and repeatable observations.
You seem to think that "science is faith based", and scientists "choose" what they believe. No, science is based on reason and evidence and is arrived at via experimentation that can be verified and repeated - this is not "faith" at all.
This is where our difference lies, and I do not think we will ever get passed it because you are not willing to accept anything which doesnt fit your religious views even if it is supported by evidence.
I do not say any of this to be rude, and this is not a dig at you in any way. I am just pointing out that we are very different people, I choose reason, logic and evidence; you have chosen to blindly follow a belief system given to you by others. I am not judging either way, we must both do what makes us happy and if religion makes you happy and improves your life then you should of course make it part of your life. However, you should be careful about debating if you are not prepared to accept reasoned evidence.
I honestly hope you have not been upset by our discussion. I will continue to point out where you are mistaken or do not understand scientific things, or join in a conversation if asked - but I see no further point in having drawn out debates as they do not go anywhere. Your religious beliefs seem very important to you and I wish you every success in following them. If you ever need to ask a science based question I would be happy to answer, but until then - enjoy playing chess 🙂
Matt
11 Aug 08
Originally posted by MattPNo problem on lenght of posts, time on the other hand I'm in short
EDIT: Kelly, sorry again for the length of my post - but I hope it responds properly to your points (and that you have time to read it! 🙄 )
Thank you for your detailed reply - I have a much better understanding of your views now and can see why you hold the beliefs you do.
However, I am afraid that you are still using the same seriously flawed logic. Y ...[text shortened]... to answer, but until then - enjoy playing chess 🙂
Matt
supply will get back to this soon.
Kelly
11 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…"As I mentioned in my previous post, scientific knowledge is independent of humans..."
[b]…"As I mentioned in my previous post, scientific knowledge is independent of humans..."
The only way that could be true, was if science and humans did not require one another.…
No. It is true that “science requires humans” or some other kind of sapient beings to exist but how does this logically contradict the fact that, just as MattP s ased on the evidence that is independent of our emotions and what we WANT that reality to be.[/b]
The only way that could be true, was if science and humans did not require one another.…
No. It is true that “science requires humans” or some other kind of sapient beings to exist but how does this logically contradict the fact that, just as MattP said, “knowledge is independent of humans" ? Please explain your logical deduction here.
"No, It is true..." Not sure if you are agreeing with me or not here. 🙂
Knowledge requires someone to have it, reality simply is what it is,
and knowledge basically does not mean someone is correctly grasping
all there is about reality either. It is quite possible you could be very
knowledgeable about some subject and yet still fail to really
understand it. Reality on the other hand just is does not require any
point of view by anyone, that makes it completely independent from
humans. While science is totally dependent upon people along with
their assumptions and prejudices.
"Even if science initially gets onto a bad footing because of initially flawed or insufficient evidence, in the long run science would inevitably have a predisposition to find the truth simply because it is evidence-based. The same cannot be said of religion. "
I'm sure you believe that, a statement from a faithful devotee. You
realize don’t you that you have in your statement suggest that at
times it is quite possible for science to be wrong. The statement of
faith on your part is that in science (people) will in time manage to get
it right while religion I agree it would be very difficult to change if
wrong. The issue I have with your point of view is that you assume,
because in time science (people) can tell when religion is getting it
right, and when science is getting it wrong, just because science is ever
changing in what it accepts as true. Going back to reality that is quite
independent of people, both can be wrong or right about several
subjects, the trick will be knowing which got it right if either did.
"It is part of current scientific knowledge that the Earth is round and not flat. That means IF scientific knowledge IS dependent on humans, the Earth would cease to be round if we all died of a virus tomorrow. Do you believe this to be true? "
Nope, I'm quite sure we can say it isn't flat, but people did believe that
years ago didn't they? Reality as I told you does not depend on
people period, you seem to mix science and reality. If you are
assuming science and reality are one and the same you do have
flaws and the questions you just asked me you should answer.
Kelly
11 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by MattPI did not say, effectively or any other way that, "Science has not
EDIT: Kelly, sorry again for the length of my post - but I hope it responds properly to your points (and that you have time to read it! 🙄 )
Thank you for your detailed reply - I have a much better understanding of your views now and can see why you hold the beliefs you do.
However, I am afraid that you are still using the same seriously flawed logic. Y to answer, but until then - enjoy playing chess 🙂
Matt
proved my religious beliefs wrong, so they must be correct" my point
was that science does not address the subject. So all statements
creation lacks evidence does not hold water, because no one knows
how to look at it, or what to look for. The correctness of my position
was not even addressed by me, only the statements about lack of
evidence for creation. All the theories of science that have been
currently brought forward here not one of them addresses the
beginning of all things, only the current processes we can now see.
You wrote a lot, I'll get back to the rest of your points later.
Kelly
11 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…Knowledge requires someone to have it,.…
[b]…"As I mentioned in my previous post, scientific knowledge is independent of humans..."
The only way that could be true, was if science and humans did not require one another.…
No. It is true that “science requires humans” or some other kind of sapient beings to exist but how does this logically contradict the fact that, just as MattP said, “k me you do have
flaws and the questions you just asked me you should answer.
Kelly[/b]
Of course. But what we mean when we say that: “scientific knowledge is independent of humans” is NOT:
“the very EXISTANCE of scientific knowledge is independent of humans”;
rather what we mean in this context is that
“the VALIDITY of scientific knowledge is independent of humans”.
To help clarify what we mean by this:
If two independent people who do not communicate or interact with each other are given exactly the same set of observations and evidence, and if they both ONLY use strict scientific method to draw their conclusions from those observations and evidence, they generally would arrive at the SAME conclusion. Even if one was not human but a sapient alien from another world, they would probably still arrive at the SAME conclusion! -regardless of their differing prejudices and emotions.
Note the point here: the conclusion they reach is generally INDEPENDENT of which human made the conclusion being because they will generally arrive at the SAME conclusion which can then be considered to be “scientific knowledge” regardless of which human being or which sapient being is given the set of observations and evidence; -it is in THAT sense “scientific knowledge is INDEPENDENT of humans”.
…I'm sure you believe that, a statement from a faithful devotee….
Faith has nothing to do with it.
…You realize don’t you that you have in your statement suggest that at
times it is quite possible for science to be wrong. …
Although scientific method doesn’t always produce the correct conclusions ALL of the time, the scientific method itself is not “wrong” in the sense that it IS the best way of judging what reality is. I think you totally misunderstand the nature of science method: Just because it is best way of judging what reality is does not mean scientific method will give all the right conclusions ALL the time (and no good scientist would claim it does) but, generally, it does gives the right conclusions most of the time. The most rational way to judge what reality is is by the evidence and observation and reason -and NOT by faith. If some data is actually an illusion that makes something X appear to exist when it isn’t, then, without the benefit of the hindsight that it is an illusion, the most RATIONAL conclusion you can draw from the data is that X exists even though it doesn’t in reality. But later on you may discover more data that shows that the initial data was an illusion . Then the most RATIONAL conclusion you can draw from the data is that X does NOT exists and this is true in reality. In this way, scientific method has the predisposition to give us the truth in the long run; -the same cannot be true for pure faith. It is not “faith” to believe that scientific method has the predisposition to give us the truth in the long run as you suggested because it is a matter of logic that scientific method has the predisposition to give us the truth in the long run -that is because, as time goes by, more and more data is collected from various sources and, as this data mounts up, this allows scientific method to have a greater and greater probability of reaching the correct conclusions because it has more and more relevant data to draw from.
…Nope, I'm quite sure we can say it isn't flat, but people did believe that years ago didn't they? .…
-and they did NOT use scientific method to draw their conclusions -didn't they? later on, science method demonstrated that the earth is round and you agreed that earth is round -that is a vindication of scientific method.
…Reality as I told you does not depend on people period. …
When did I say it does?
…you seem to mix science and reality…
How so?
12 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Of course. But what we mean when we say that: “scientific knowledge is independent of humans” is NOT:
[b]…Knowledge requires someone to have it,.…
Of course. But what we mean when we say that: “scientific knowledge is independent of humans” is NOT:
“the very EXISTANCE of scientific knowledge is independent of humans”;
rather what we mean in this context is that
“the VALIDITY of scientific knowledge is independent of humans”.
T ...[text shortened]... …[/b]
When did I say it does?
…you seem to mix science and reality…
How so?[/b]
“the very EXISTANCE of scientific knowledge is independent of humans”;
rather what we mean in this context is that
“the VALIDITY of scientific knowledge is independent of humans”.
No, I completely disagree! Reality is independent, if humans have to
accept something as true or false it then is on humans to accept or
reject knowledge. You again seem to want to make science an
independent force from the human race, like water not being able
to rise above its source on its own, so it will be with science and the
human race. You cannot take the human ability to screw it up out of
the picture.
Two independent people who are completely a part in every meaning
of that term “a part” can in deed reach the same conclusions; however,
that is not always the case either! People with the same data points
can look at the same thing and still come up with different views too. It
is the human factor in the equation, and what we call science is drug
along with our faults and strengths. You cannot claim that even if
two people or two groups of people reach the same conclusion does
not make it independent of humans, you just admitted it was people
that made the conclusions. Can I say if two people can read the same
passage of scripture that proves scripture is true if they agree about
the meaning? Of course not, yet you feel justified in saying
agreement among people being apart makes what they agree on
something special apart from the human race as long as they didn’t
interact.
Kelly
12 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI did not address everything in your post, I will get back to it.
[b]…Knowledge requires someone to have it,.…
Of course. But what we mean when we say that: “scientific knowledge is independent of humans” is NOT:
“the very EXISTANCE of scientific knowledge is independent of humans”;
rather what we mean in this context is that
“the VALIDITY of scientific knowledge is independent of humans”.
T ...[text shortened]... …[/b]
When did I say it does?
…you seem to mix science and reality…
How so?[/b]
Kelly
12 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…No, I completely disagree! REALITY is independent, . …. (my emphasis)
"Of course. But what we mean when we say that: “scientific knowledge is independent of humans” is NOT:
“the very EXISTANCE of scientific knowledge is independent of humans”;
rather what we mean in this context is that
“the VALIDITY of scientific knowledge is independent of humans”.
No, I completely disagree! Reality is independent, if humans ...[text shortened]... agree on
something special apart from the human race as long as they didn’t
interact.
Kelly
I am not saying : “REALITY is independent of humans”; because OBVIOUSLY I would agree that is false. I am saying:
“the VALIDITY of scientific knowledge is independent of humans”. -big difference!
…Two independent people who are completely a part in every meaning
of that term “a part” can in deed reach the same conclusions; however,
that is not always the case either! People with the same data points
can look at the same thing and still come up with different views too. .…
As I was at pains to explain, NOT if they are using exactly the same data and use the same good logic (logic without any flaws). Two people will be more than likely to come to the same conclusion if they analyse the SAME data completely rationally and leave their emotions out of it. It IS possible for people to be objective.
…Can I say if two people can read the same passage of scripture that proves scripture is true if they agree about the meaning? Of course not.…
I agree. That is because I think it would be unlikely they would even try to use scientific method to determine its meaning and, even if they did try to use scientific method to determine its meaning, they would probably fail because there is the thorny problem of what criteria you should use to define which is the “correct” interpretation of the MEANING of the scriptures -if these criteria are not designed very carefully, there would be the risk of two or more logically conflicting “correct” interpretation of the MEANING of the scriptures which would lead to a logical contradiction. This is not analogies to the problem of trying to deduce what you can from some data from, say, some scientific measurements, because there is typically clearly only one “correct” interpretation of what each measurement is saying even if some of these measurements are spurious or wrong -if a measurement says that something is one-inch long then the only “correct” interpretation of what that measurement SAYS is “one-inch long” even if what it measures is not one-inch long! -there could be multiple “correct” interpretation of what the scriptures SAYS.
…yet you feel justified in saying agreement among people being apart makes what they agree on something special apart from the human race as long as they didn’t
interact. …
No -not merely “as long as they didn’t interact” -that is not what I said. If, say, they use blind faith, then of course what they come to believe is dependent on them even if they don’t interact. But what if they use rigorous scientific method? That would make them much more likely to come to the SAME conclusion even if they don’t interact -do you deny this?
12 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[/b]So this is what I think you have just said.
[b]…No, I completely disagree! REALITY is independent, . …. (my emphasis)
I am not saying : “REALITY is independent of humans”; because OBVIOUSLY I would agree that is false. I am saying:
“the VALIDITY of scientific knowledge is independent of humans”. -big difference!
…Two independent people who are completely a part in every meaning ...[text shortened]... m much more likely to come to the SAME conclusion even if they don’t interact -do you deny this?
If two sets of people or two different people, act the same exact way
using flawless logic they will come up with the same answer each time.
You do understand that people are different, and everything they
bring to the table because they are different is a strenght and what
you just described is impossible, except maybe for computers that just
isn't going to occur each and every time; moreover, many times over
I'm not even sure we would want that to occur. There may be times
when the data sets are small that does occur, but even there the data
sets would be limited and if they are misunderstood by all the same
way it wouldn't matter that they came up with the same answer.
Kelly
12 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…If two sets of people or two different people, act the same exact way
So this is what I think you have just said.
If two sets of people or two different people, act the same exact way
using flawless logic they will come up with the same answer each time.
You do understand that people are different, and everything they
bring to the table because they are different is a strenght and what
you just described is impos rstood by all the same
way it wouldn't matter that they came up with the same answer.
Kelly[/b]
using flawless logic they will come up with the same answer each time. ….
PROVIDING they are given the SAME data -that is generally correct .
…You do understand that people are different. .…
Yes. But that doesn’t mean that those differences would necessarily compromise their objectivity. Differences or no differences, it IS possible for people to be objective.
…and everything they bring to the table because they are different is a strenght and what you just described is impossible.…
Explain why it is impossible for people to be objective? Just tell me straight; do you believe it is impossible for a person to be competely objective when making a judgement on reality without involving their emotions in that judgement? Yes or no?
…There may be times when the data sets are small that does occur, but even there the data sets would be limited and if they are misunderstood by all the same
way it wouldn't matter that they came up with the same answer. . …
I agree it isn’t perfect. But, despite that, scientific method is still the most objective way to judge reality. Have you got a better alternative way to judge reality to offer in its place? Blind faith maybe? Blind faith has no objectivity.
13 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'm saying that people can look at the same data and come up with
[b]…If two sets of people or two different people, act the same exact way
using flawless logic they will come up with the same answer each time. ….
PROVIDING they are given the SAME data -that is generally correct .
…You do understand that people are different. .…
Yes. But that doesn’t mean that those differences would necessa ...[text shortened]... way to judge reality to offer in its place? Blind faith maybe? Blind faith has no objectivity.[/b]
different views or opinions about it, just as people who do not see
each other at all can come up with the same views. My point being,
you have not, or anyone else here given a good reason why I should
look at science as being something apart from the human race.
Reality is the only thing that opinions do not mean anything too,
things are what they are, we can view them correctly or in error the
way we view reality doesn’t change reality only our perceptions of
it.
Kelly
13 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Explain why it is impossible for people to be objective? "
[b]…If two sets of people or two different people, act the same exact way
using flawless logic they will come up with the same answer each time. ….
PROVIDING they are given the SAME data -that is generally correct .
…You do understand that people are different. .…
Yes. But that doesn’t mean that those differences would necessa ...[text shortened]... way to judge reality to offer in its place? Blind faith maybe? Blind faith has no objectivity.[/b]
Where did I say people could not be objective?
Kelly