Epistemology

[Tiberius]

What would be considered archaeological evidence and what would such evidence serve to teach us? For example; how do we know about life in ancient Egypt. What kind of evidence has helped us come to that understanding? Could a document or ancient writing tell us anything other than how long ago it was written?

Well things like manuscripts and building remains are observable and testable by dating methods. With manuscripts you would have to have multiple sources, or a previously known reliable source before you could accept it. Most of the time, there is physical evidence to back up the claims made in the manuscripts.

Does that rule out ancient scrolls? If so then how can we learn about the past?

Ancient scrolls can be tested for accuracy both by dating and by verifying them with other sources. One account of an event doesn't prove anything unless there is other evidence to back it up. For instance, if we found an account of a city being burnt to the ground and completely disappearing from the Earth (no remains found today) then we should not count it as proper evidence unless we find other accounts that describe the same thing.

Excellant response. But I'm curious as to why so many atheist keep saying There is no proof that God exists. Any ideas?

Well they say it because it is true. We also admit that there is no proof that God does not exist. All we say is that given the evidence (or lack thereof), there is no reason to believe that there is a God, and certainly not a God that is described in the Bible, since the Bible has been refuted by science on multiple occasions.

One of the mysteries of science that exists today is why the universe seems to be just right for the existance of life.

Well if you actually think about it, it isn't really a mystery. If the universe wasn't just right for life, then we wouldn't be discussing why it was, for the simple reason that we wouldn't be here. Coincidently, the whole thing about the universe being right for life has been tested in computer simulations, which all conclusively showed that even if certain universal variables were changed (such as the amount of matter, the strength of atomic bonds, etc) then life could still arise.

In his book "Why Darwin Matters", Michael Shermer briefly touches on this subject, and explains how the universe is really not perfect for life at all. It is vastly empty, and only a few worlds have formed that could support life out of the billions we have discovered. In fact, the universe wasn't finely tuned for us, we were finely tuned for the universe.

Douglas Adams is popular for his witty insights into science, where he manages to get an extremely complex subject across in an easy to understand metaphor. He dealt with the "perfect universe" theory this way:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Of course the puddle is just like us. It fits in it's hole perfectly and because it doesn't know better, it assumes that the hole was made for it to be in it. In fact, we know that gravity is the only reason the puddle takes the shape of the hole. Gravity is a natural process, so nothing special is at work. What most of us forget to do is to apply the same logic to our own understanding of the universe.

Was the universe designed for us, or do we simply fit into the universe because we are a part of its nature, and must follow the natural laws?