10 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasWow real input from you, wrong input but real nonetheless.
In the first two postings your hypothesis is that god exists. Then it's no science. You cannot ever use scientific methods to prove god's existance. You cannot bring science into religion. Therefore this thread is about religion.
Bring this to Spiritual Forum, dear moderators! Please...
Science is not hindered by God, it isn't hindered by ID, it isn't not at
all hindered by religion.
Scientic methods are just as valid no matter what the beginning, the
only thing that would change is we credit God verse dumb luck if
God is accepted.
Kelly
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by joneveryNo!
Now I see what you’re getting at, any unknown variable is God
An unknown variable would still be an unknown variable, cause or
reason would be God, I can build a piece of software, knowing I did
something isn't knowing how it is done. We are still limited to the
events and material within this universe, how and why are still
questions we want to answer.
Kelly
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's not true. Eladar said "You think you know God's intentions?". That wasn't the question. My question was what would a menagerie design by God look like. If anyone wants to answer the question, they can feel free. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I don't like asking "gotcha!!" questions. It's a rhetorical device that gets us nowhere closer to the truth.
So as soon as you get a creationist to answer you tell him to shut
his pie hole and you want to learn how a creationist thinks? I do not
think you are being very honest here. He gave you a valid place to
begin, design requires intent and you blew that off without a second
thought.
Kelly
10 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by PBE6The answers to these questions don't turn out to be actual answers. At best they are answers with variables attached to them...like a math answer.
Created by me, your new God. Everybody pissed? Good. Now, let's do some detective work instead of bickering.
Question:
Let's assume that God the Intelligent Designer designed all the living creatures of the world according to His plan. This is our model. Now, what predictions could we make about such a world using this model? That is, how would we e the data, so a "wrong" answer here doesn't kill the model.
Get cracking, Creationists!
Instead of an answer in math, we often get something like 2x+7^y as an answer.
The same will be true with these answers exept the "letters" will be variables that we don't have answers to. In order to solve the variables we'd need more information.
10 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarOh really? If you assume God created the earth and you assume that the current conditions on earth are what he intended, then you should be able to examine the data between the time the earth was created until today and then examine and look for patterns over that time frame. From this, you should be able to make predictions if you can find long term trends during your analysis.
Do you think you know God's intentions? Without understanding intentions, it is impossible to make predictions.
In other words, if you find trends that were repeated in the past, you should be able to predict them in the future since you have no reason to believe the trends will not occur in the future. It will be a prediction and may not actually happen but you can sure as hell predict it with a reasonable level of confidence.
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarThe importance would lie in the predictions made by the person answering. For instance, if my model assumes that God designs every structure of the body perfectly, then we could check body structures to see if they're all the same. I know for a fact that they are not, and we don't even have to take a sojourn into the rest of the animal kingdom, just check your nose against your neighbour's! So now the task would be to try and describe why God would design the same structure differently in different bodies, which will require more assumptions which we can test, etc...
[b] My question was what would a menagerie design by God look like. If anyone wants to answer the question, they can feel free.
Anyone can answer the question, but the answer would have no importance. It would just be someone's opinion.[/b]
10 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynka…Some gods are even claimed to have been observed with the naked eye. For such gods, it would also have been possible to observe them through a telescope. ..….
[b]Can you, for example, “observe” a “god” through a telescope?
Some gods are even claimed to have been observed with the naked eye. For such gods, it would also have been possible to observe them through a telescope.
Can you perform an experiment that would demonstrate the existence of a “god”?
For any god that has a tangible effect on the w s.
It is true for all “gods”
FAIL.
PS: Please read up on the meaning of "all".[/b]
So can this be verified in the modern day?
Which way must we point our telescope to see “god”? is there any way of knowing which way to point? -if there is no practical way of either proving or disproving a hypothesis then it is not part of science (that includes string theory in my opinion simply because it makes no predictions that can be tested in practical reality thus making it not “real science” but “speculative science“ -the two must not be confused).
… Can you perform an experiment that would demonstrate the existence of a “god”?
For any god that has a tangible effect on the world, this is certainly possible.
.….
How would anyone know the difference between an effect that is caused by a “god” and an effect that is caused only just by natural phenomenon in the material world?
-without being able to distinguish one from the other there is no testable prediction that can be made from the hypothesis that a “god” caused something that can be tested scientifically.
…It is true for all “gods”
FAIL.
PS: Please read up on the meaning of "all".
.….
So can you give me just one example of a “god” which can be (and has been -else how would we know it “can be“?) scientifically shown to exist using scientific method?
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by PBE6I still dispute that it can be dismissed as a valid hypothesis so easily. I never said the claim was unverifiable, that is a totally different thing. I only said that we may not be able to predict what sort of animals God might create.
Now, if no predictions can be made about God and what sort of living beings God would create, that actually does rule it out as a valid hypothesis - it reduces that statement to a unsubstantiated claim. As I mentioned in the "Evolution of the eye" thread, abductive reasoning is the rational comparison amongst and selection of the most probable hypothesi ...[text shortened]... tionists from asserting "everything would be designed as we see it now", a clear tautology.
To demonstrate my argument, please predict what sort of life forms evolution might produce on an alien planet. We shall then compare your predictions with actual discoveries, and if they do not match, can we declare that evolution was not responsible?
If you cannot make a reasonable prediction, can we rule out evolution as a reasonable hypothesis for any alien life forms we may discover?
10 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6Or, if god or God, take your pick, does it think at all? Does a god have to be a thinker?
Well then, it seems that Intelligent Design can never be brought to the level of a hypothesis, because we can't know what God thinks! Exactly the point I was trying to make.
Intelligent Design is not science. Case closed.
A non-thinking G/god would explain a lot of the inconsistencies in religion.
10 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo demonstrate my argument, please predict what sort of life forms evolution might produce on an alien planet.
I still dispute that it can be dismissed as a valid hypothesis so easily. I never said the claim was unverifiable, that is a totally different thing. I only said that we may not be able to predict what sort of animals God might create.
To demonstrate my argument, please predict what sort of life forms evolution might produce on an alien planet. We shal ...[text shortened]... , can we rule out evolution as a reasonable hypothesis for any alien life forms we may discover?
Any lifeforms arising on an alien planet through the process of evolution would have to have some means of replication that passes genetic (or the alien equivalent) information from one generation to the next. They would also have to show signs of gradual change over time that increased the fitness of the species with respect to its long-term environment. The form of these changes would have to be consistent with the environment and history of the alien planet, but given specifics about the planet we could be more precise about the form that these evolutionary changes would take. In addition, we would expect to see verification of the Price equation (for genetic heritability), Hamilton's rule (for altruism), and other models from evolutionary biology.
We shall then compare your predictions with actual discoveries, and if they do not match, can we declare that evolution was not responsible?
We must compare our predictions with what we observe to determine the veracity of our model. However, while wholesale deviations from the theory (such as a complete lack of change over time, or stable large scale changes over short periods of time, the absence of genetic or equivalent heritability, etc...) would cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution (at least on this alien planet), small deviations would not discount the entire theory. As I've said before, the scientific method allows (and in fact, demands!) refinement, so we may have to make changes to the theory itself to explain the data. However, any changes we make must still allow the modified theory to be consistent with the data that verified the original theory and with itself, otherwise we have substituted an empirical theory for a deductive one, at which point the theory can no longer make reasonable predictions about data outside the observed subset and becomes useless from an explanatory point of view.
If you cannot make a reasonable prediction, can we rule out evolution as a reasonable hypothesis for any alien life forms we may discover?
Yes! If we can't make any predictions using the theory, it is not a hypothesis, merely a claim. Of course, this does not rule out the development of some other theory that does make predictions and includes evolution as the mechanism of change. The standard for eliminating hypotheses lies in their verifiability, not in their similarity to other unverifiable claims.
10 Oct 08
The importance would lie in the predictions made by the person answering. For instance, if my model assumes that God designs every structure of the body perfectly, then we could check body structures to see if they're all the same.
Yes, someone might make the faulty assumption that God would want to design every structure perfectly from our point of view, but that does not mean the person is correct.
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonMy God, your stupidity is legendary.
[b]…Some gods are even claimed to have been observed with the naked eye. For such gods, it would also have been possible to observe them through a telescope. ..….
So can this be verified in the modern day?
Which way must we point our telescope to see “god”? is there any way of knowing which way to point? -if there is no practical way of eit ...[text shortened]... n -else how would we know it “can be“?) scientifically shown to exist using scientific method?[/b]
The question is whether it is true that (and I quote Fabian, emphasis is mine) "you cannot ever use scientific methods to prove god's existance[sic]".
With that in mind:
So can this be verified in the modern day?
Irrelevant. See emphasis above.
Which way must we point our telescope to see “god”?
I'm not sure what your trying to achieve here beyond showing your complete inability to understand what the question is.
How would anyone know the difference between an effect that is caused by a “god” and an effect that is caused only just by natural phenomenon in the material world?
Through direct or indirect observation, like any other experiment. Again, if this god has a tangible effect on the world, then it is by definition...tangible.
So can you give me just one example of a “god” which can be (and has been -else how would we know it “can be“?) scientifically shown to exist using scientific method?
Read emphasis above. Twice if needed. Perhaps even more.
List of concepts that Andrew has been shown to have trouble with:
- all
- ever