Epistemology

[Tiberius]

I think my point may have been misinterpreted. I was referring to things which are thought of as being evidence of something. People seem to be using the hard sciences as a template for some reason. Our knowledge of the world around us isn't of the hard science type per se. I was using archaeology as an example.

I've been having the feeling that some people use the terms "evidence" and "proof" synonymously. That's one of the reasons I created a thread on epistemology. So far its been me asking questions and getting responses only to those questions. That's not why I created this thread. I really wanted people to tell me what they consider to be valid sources of knowledge. Perhaps use examples from your daily lives? E.g. if your daughter told you that your mother said to pick up some milk on your way home from work, do you really need scientific proof that your wife asked this? How important is it to you to get direct confirmation from your wife, especially if she can't be contacted until you got home from work? That kind of thing. Please use your own examples so I can get a more accurate view of how you folks make everyday decisions in your life based on information and where that information comes from and why you'd make decisions or take actions on that source of information.

Evidence is a fact. Proof is a theory that is deemed to have enough evidence to make it factual. The only reason the theory of Evolution is not yet a proof is because of the complexity of the theory. We have mountains of evidence, we just don't yet have all the explanations

You seem to be confusing scientific evidence and social evidence. I trust my sister because I've known her all my life and she generally tells the truth. This is based on experience. Scientists cannot trust the evidence unless it can be validated, which is why they use dating methods and proper procedures, all of which are "trusted" because they have proved to be beneficial for many years.

Wasn't it you who said that even science can't "prove" things? If science doesn't work based on proofs then why do you think it makes sense to talk about proof in the existance of God. And if you acknowledge the fact that one can't prove that God does not exist, and you actually call yourself a theist because you don't believe that God exists then on what basis do you claim that "it is true"? Since you claim its true then can you prove it?

Again, possibly the wrong way to explain things. When I said science can't prove things, I mean "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt". We could have all the evidence that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, but that wouldn't count for anything if we discovered that we were all plugged into a giant computer simulation and we were being made to think that. In the circumstances, enough evidence supporting an explanation is proof enough. Nobody can prove or disprove God because God has been placed outside the realms of evidence by whoever dreamed it up. I could do the same: "There exists outside of everything, a giant pink rabbit named George". Go on, prove me wrong.

On what basis do you claim that the Bible has been refuted by science on multiple occasions? What evidence can you provide of this?

The fact that the universe is not 6,000 years old, the fact that evolution happens, the fact that there wasn't a global flood 4,000 years ago, etc. There is a long list here if you wish to read it.

If you don't consider it to be a mystery then that's your perogative. But scientists most certainly do. Our ability to ask these questions only demonstrates that the universe does allow for life. But just because we know that it does allow for life it doesn't mean that we know or understand how it could. and that is a big mystery in science today. Scientists ask these questions because not to would leave us blind in a lot of areas. We cannot make advances in science if you don't ask questions. Especially questions of this nature.

You've changed the question here from a "why" to a "how". Evidently it is a mystery how the universe supports life, this wasn't something I would have disagreed on. I suspect this was an error on your part, but please make sure you keep to your original question, or you might appear to be trying to bait people.

I find that impossible to believe because I know better. As I recall a small change in any parameter leads to a universe which cannot have life in it. I can elaborate on this if you'd like.

Well firstly this is blatantly untrue since nobody knows how the universe supports life (as you already outlined above) so how would you know it couldn't support it? There have been many models tested, some which predict life, some which don't. The general thinking of the scientific community today is that we do not understand enough to make such models viable, and that we have no idea what kind of life has arisen elsewhere in the universe under very different conditions than Earth.

Its not meaningful to speak of a universe as being "perfect" for life. And we haven't found any worlds at all that we know can support life other than Earth and possibly Mars and Europa.

Possibly because we haven't sent probes to hardly any other planets??? 3 objects in one solar system is enough to predict probable objects in others. Considering there are countless billions of galaxies, let alone the trillions and trillions of star systems out there.

I hope you don't expect me to take your puddle idea seriously?

Deadly seriously. It isn't my idea, it is Douglas Adams', and it is a brilliant metaphor for how we view the world according to religion and not science.

If you're interested then I recommend that you pick up some literature on it and learn about it.

I do all the time, and I encourage you to do the same.