Epistemology

[Pete]

Very simply: Observations count towards evidence. I can see a comet in the night sky, and say "I theorise that this is a rock hurtling through space". That observation alone is not evidence, because it could have clearly been a delusion. However, if more people see the comet, then the observation becomes evidence. To support my theory, more evidence of the nature of the comet must be sought. Say a telescope gets pictures of the comet. This would be evidence towards my theory since telescopes are impartial and what they depict is an observation.

That's nice but you still haven't defined what you mean by "evidence" is. Saying its something that is proof of something else is insufficient to tell you if what you have is considered evidence. In the case above your evidence is not based on evidence.

Which is exactly how atheists view God. You don't seem to see the similarities between God and the pink rabbit, but you cannot view the universe the way we do I guess.

I understand the point you're trying to make with the rabbit thing. I just think its not a valid point. People do have reasons to postulate the existance of God. As I said - an atheist is a person who claims that such reasons are not reasons at all. But denying that people have legitimate reasons for doing so, and those reasons are quite valid, doesn't mean that being an atheist invalids those reasons. It just means that you reject them.

You asked me to give examples of how the Bible has been proved wrong by science. I did so.

Not really. You've given your opinion of what you think the Bible says about it. Most, if not all, atheists omit the fact that the Bible itself states that the days of God are not the days of man, i.e. one day for God could be a billion of years as measured by man.

Now you complain that most believers don't believe that sort of thing, which doesn't stop the fact that the Bible proclaims it as true.

That's what happens when you use a "sound bite" from the Bible.

Yes, we are talking about the same model. Read "Why Darwin Matters" by Michael Shermer, he covers some of the results that this model shows.

I question his claims and will keep that book in mind for the future. I'll have to see that for myself since I know that physicists say quite the opposite. What does this Michael Shermer do for a living? Is he a physicist? Who is the author anyway? What is his area of expertise? In the mean time you could take a look at
Multiverse cosmological models, by Paul Davies, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 19, 727 (2004) which is online at
http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/publicat...s%2083.pdf
The author is a well known astrophysicist/astrobiologist. Owen Gingerich has a book out about similar subjects. He's a well known astronomer from the Havard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

If there are so many obvious flaws then please highlight them.

It doesn't even approach any type of arguement that I've ever seen or heard of so how can I compare it to arguements that nobody uses? Adams example is about something that is not alive, never mind being conscious. It can only make sense if its about something conscious which is pondering its existance. Even if a puddle could ponder its existance then its not a complex system in the same sense that life is considered to be. People ponder the origin of life because is a complex system. Even then I've never heard of that kind of an arguement since the mystery he is talking about that people wonder over is about the irreducible complexity of life and how, if it were truly irreducible then it couldn't exist without a designer. I myself never wonder how this universe is so taylored to fit our forms of life. I wonder how life itself originated to the point where evolution could start to work. How the universe could be able to support even the existanc of matter or planets, stars, galaxies etc.

If you think it is a terrible analogy then surely you should respond to it instead of ignoring it altogether.

Why? I've used counter examples on this discussion board which have gone totally ignored. E.g. I gave the example of virtual particles and nobody commented on it. So if you think that using that as an analogy to suppor my point then why did you ignore it?

Adams' might have been a sci-fi writer, but he had a keen interest in science, and his analogy was admired by Richard Dawkins,

I've just lost a little respect for Dawkins.

I have briefly studied them yes, in my spare time they are the subjects that most interest me. I much prefer philosophy.

Are you interested in scientific philosophy? If so then you might want to read The Structure of Scientific Revolution, by Thomas Kuhn. I just picked it up myself. I've heard many good things about it over the years. Karl Popper's is supposed to be good to.

I don't think I've spoken to you like you are a creationist in any of this though. You keep bringing up the point again and again and it really is unneccessary.

I said that it sounds like that way. Of course I could be wrong. I didn't bring it up elsewhere that I know of other than the thread in the introductions section and only there since you brought it up.

Evidently you think that anything we say that objects to your view deems you a "creationist".

That's silly. However I do see where a lot of atheists seem to believe that all theists with also creationists. I think someone in this very forum mentioned that.