(September 2, 2008 at 7:53 am)Pete Wrote: I often hear people ask for proof when they are discussing various things but every body seems to have a different idea of where our knowledge comes from. The theory of knowledge is called epistemology. Its that branch of philosophy which covers how we know what we know.

Since the difference between the beliefs of atheists and the beliefs of theists is what they accept as evidence then I'd like to ask people about what they consider valid sources of knowledge. I guess the kinds of questions I'd like to ask are as follows; In your opinion what does evidence consist of? Do you think that evidence is that which proves something to be true? What sources of knowledge do you accept as valid? Do you believe that task of science is to prove things? What do you consider to be proof? Perhaps you can give examples to illustrate your opinions.

Thank you very much.

Pete

Evidence as in something that can be studied. You can't study an apple if there is no apple.

How do we know how well alchahol works on cars? We study and look into it. Evidence is study, it is something that can be detected and studied. You can't study bacteria if you cannot detect it.

God is non-detectable and so un-studiable and that means lack of evidence. You can't study what you can't detect. That's why religion is just a belief. Religion is worthless without evidence/Data. No data would mean dismissal of claims.

Evidence is important for any claim. No evidence would mean doubts which in turn means dismissal...In other words rejecting claims.

Evidence must be detectable. Evolution has evidence, it has detectable materials which can be studied and the studys show that evolution is correct.

Religion won't be taken seriously without evidence. You must have detectable material to study.

Evidence is based on the detectable.

My apologies for the long cut and paste. It is from Robert Persig's hippy manefesto "Zen & The Art OF Motorcycle Maintenance" One of my all time favorite books, and I hate hippies.

This particular passage exited me a lot when I first read it. The concepts are probably old hat to cunning philosophers like you but it explained things nicely for me.

Quote:Kant says there are aspects of reality which are not supplied immediately by the senses. These he calls a priori. An example of a priori knowledge is "time." You don't see time. Neither do you hear it, smell it, taste it or touch it. It isn't present in the sense data as they are received. Time is what Kant calls an "intuition," which the mind must supply as it receives the sense data.

The same is true of space. Unless we apply the concepts of space and time to the impressions we receive, the world is unintelligible, just a kaleidoscopic jumble of colors and patterns and noises and smells and pain and tastes without meaning. We sense objects in a certain way because of our application of a priori intuitions such as space and time, but we do not create these objects out of our imagination, as pure philosophical idealists would maintain. The forms of space and time are applied to data as they are received from the object producing them. The a priori concepts have their origins in human nature so that they're neither caused by the sensed object nor bring it into being, but provide a kind of screening function for what sense data we will accept. When our eyes blink, for example, our sense data tell us that the world has disappeared. But this is screened out and never gets to our consciousness because we have in our minds an a priori concept that the world has continuity. What we think of as reality is a continuous synthesis of elements from a fixed hierarchy of a priori concepts and the ever changing data of the senses. Now stop and apply some of the concepts Kant has put forth to this strange machine, this creation that's been bearing us along through time and space. See our relation to it now, as Kant reveals it to us.

Hume has been saying, in effect, that everything I know about this motorcycle comes to me through my senses. It has to be. There's no other way. If I say it's made of metal and other substances, he asks, What's metal? If I answer that metal's hard and shiny and cold to the touch and deforms without breaking under blows from a harder material, Hume says those are all sights and sounds and touch. There's no substance. Tell me what metal is apart from these sensations. Then, of course, I'm stuck.

But if there's no substance, what can we say about the sense data we receive? If I hold my head to the left and look down at the handle grips and front wheel and map carrier and gas tank I get one pattern of sense data. If I move my head to the right I get another slightly different pattern of sense data. The two views are different. The angles of the planes and curves of the metal are different. The sunlight strikes them differently. If there's no logical basis for substance then there's no logical basis for concluding that what's produced these two views is the same motorcycle.

Now we've a real intellectual impasse. Our reason, which is supposed to make things more intelligible, seems to be making them less intelligible, and when reason thus defeats its own purpose something has to be changed in the structure of our reason itself.

Kant comes to our rescue. He says that the fact that there's no way of immediately sensing a "motorcycle," as distinguished from the colors and shapes a motorcycle produces, is no proof at all that there's no motorcycle there. We have in our minds an a priori motorcycle which has continuity in time and space and is capable of changing appearance as one moves one's head and is therefore not contradicted by the sense data one is receiving.

Hume's motorcycle, the one that makes no sense at all, will occur if our previous hypothetical bed patient, the one who has no senses at all, is suddenly, for one second only, exposed to the sense data of a motorcycle, then deprived of his senses again. Now, I think, in his mind he would have a Hume motorcycle, which provides him with no evidence whatsoever for such concepts as causation.

But, as Kant says, we are not that person. We have in our minds a very real a priori motorcycle whose existence we have no reason to doubt, whose reality can be confirmed anytime.

This a priori motorcycle has been built up in our minds over many years from enormous amounts of sense data and it is constantly changing as new sense data come in. Some of the changes in this specific a priori motorcycle I'm riding are very quick and transitory, such as its relationship to the road. This I'm monitoring and correcting all the time as we take these curves and bends in the road. As soon as the information's of no more value I forget it because there's more coming in that must be monitored. Other changes in this a priori are slower: Disappearance of gasoline from the tank. Disappearance of rubber from the tires. Loosening of bolts and nuts. Change of gap between brake shoes and drums. Other aspects of the motorcycle change so slowly they seem permanent...the paint job, the wheel bearings, the control cables...yet these are constantly changing too. Finally, if one thinks in terms of really large amounts of time even the frame is changing slightly from the road shocks and thermal changes and forces of internal fatigue common to all metals.

It's quite a machine, this a priori motorcycle. If you stop to think about it long enough you'll see that it's the main thing. The sense data confirm it but the sense data aren't it. The motorcycle that I believe in an a priori way to be outside of myself is like the money I believe I have in the bank. If I were to go down to the bank and ask to see my money they would look at me a little peculiarly. They don't have "my money" in any little drawer that they can pull open to show me. "My money" is nothing but some east-west and north-south magnetic domains in some iron oxide resting on a roll of tape in a computer storage bin. But I'm satisfied with this because I've faith that if I need the things that money enables, the bank will provide the means, through their checking system, of getting it. Similarly, even though my sense data have never brought up anything that could be called "substance" I'm satisfied that there's a capability within the sense data of achieving the things that substance is supposed to do, and that the sense data will continue to match the a priori motorcycle of my mind. I say for the sake of convenience that I've money in the bank and say for the sake of convenience that substances compose the cycle I'm riding on. The bulk of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is concerned with how this a priori knowledge is acquired and how it is employed.

Kant called his thesis that our a priori thoughts are independent of sense data and screen what we see a "Copernican revolution." By this he referred to Copernicus' statement that the earth moves around the sun. Nothing changed as a result of this revolution, and yet everything changed. Or, to put it in Kantian terms, the objective world producing our sense data did not change, but our a priori concept of it was turned inside out. The effect was overwhelming. It was the acceptance of the Copernican revolution that distinguishes modern man from his medieval predecessors.

What Copernicus did was take the existing a priori concept of the world, the notion that it was flat and fixed in space, and pose an alternative a priori concept of the world, that it's spherical and moves around the sun; and showed that both of the a priori concepts fitted the existing sensory data.

Kant felt he had done the same thing in metaphysics. If you presume that the a priori concepts in our heads are independent of what we see and actually screen what we see, this means that you are taking the old Aristotelian concept of scientific man as a passive observer, a "blank tablet," and truly turning this concept inside out. Kant and his millions of followers have maintained that as a result of this inversion you get a much more satisfying understanding of how we know things.

http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Quality...part2.html

I just realized that since I'm in the minority here (or am the only theist here) that most/all objections to my comments will likely go unresponded to unless I myself respond. Since I don't want to spend that much time on a forum I find that I will probably only respond to relatively few comments. Sorry.

(September 3, 2008 at 8:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 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.

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.

(September 3, 2008 at 8:02 pm)Pete Wrote: 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.
[/quote]
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?

Quote: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.

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

(September 3, 2008 at 8:02 pm)Pete Wrote: 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.
[/quote]
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.

Quote: 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.

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.

Quote: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.

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.

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

Quote: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?

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

(September 6, 2008 at 10:09 pm)Pete Wrote: 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.

(September 6, 2008 at 10:09 pm)Pete Wrote: 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.

(September 6, 2008 at 10:09 pm)Pete Wrote: 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.

(September 6, 2008 at 10:09 pm)Pete Wrote: 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.

(September 6, 2008 at 10:09 pm)Pete Wrote: 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.

(September 6, 2008 at 10:09 pm)Pete Wrote: 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.

(September 6, 2008 at 10:09 pm)Pete Wrote: 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.

(September 6, 2008 at 10:09 pm)Pete Wrote: 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.

(September 6, 2008 at 10:09 pm)Pete Wrote: I just realized that since I'm in the minority here (or am the only theist here) that most/all objections to my comments will likely go unresponded to unless I myself respond. Since I don't want to spend that much time on a forum I find that I will probably only respond to relatively few comments. Sorry.

Yes, but you're wrong becase......oh wait whoops!

lol

(September 7, 2008 at 1:49 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 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

Consider the following example; Einstein's theory of special relativity is based on the following two postulates (1) The Principle of Relativity - The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference and (2) Invariance of the Speed of Light - The speed of light has the same value in all inertial frames of reference. What would you consider evidence of this theory?

Quote:You seem to be confusing scientific evidence and social evidence.

Nope. Not at all. I haven't indicated any personal opinion on evidence. I've tried not to. I'm here only to learn what you folks mean when you use the term "evidence". I'm also hear to learn about your views on epistemology. Sources of knowledge in everyday life are not all confinded to science. From what I've seen so far from the responses in this thread it appears that you folks don't use the term "evidence" oustide the field of science.

Quote:I trust my sister because I've known her all my life and she generally tells the truth. This is based on experience.

Okay. That's what I was looking for. Thanks.

Quote:Scientists cannot trust the evidence unless it can be validated, ..

Now you're confusing me. I was basically looking for your personal definition of "evidence" and you've indicated that you consider evidence to be that which is fact. But now you're saying that evidence can't be trusted until it is validated? You'll have to state the definition of "evidence" for me to understand what you've said here.

So far you haven't been that clear on what evidence is. Science deals with observations, the results of which are called "scientific data." Not all such data can be reproduced in the manner which you've indicated. For example; There is an instrument in orbit which are designed to observe gamma ray bursts. This instrument can only record observations of such bursts. The nature of gamma ray bursts are of such a nature as to be reproducible. And its doubtful that anyone else has observed the same bursts that the instrument records. The data collected is a series of gamma rays from a certain region of space. While the instrument can keep taking observations and record new data it cannot record the same data twice to validate it as you suggest. Since it can't be validated I take it that you don't believe scientists don't trust this data?

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.

Quote:I could do the same: "There exists outside of everything, a giant pink rabbit named George". Go on, prove me wrong.

Theists don't in general claim that we can prove anything. But in this case there's no reason to postulate the existance of a pink rabbit. That cannot be said of God. Although atheists would have us believe that. Even when we explain why we postulate the existance of God the atheists deny that we have done so because what we consider to be a reason the atheist actully defines themselves as those people who do not accept these things as actuall being valid reasons. But you already know that, right?

Quote: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.

Most Christians and Jews don't believe that the universe is that young so how does that prove anything?

Quote:You've changed the question here from a "why" to a "how".

The question may have been phrased differently but the essence of the question remains the same.
[qupte]
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?
[/quote]
I'm referring to the neccesary conditions for life, not the sufficient conditions for life. Very reasonable assumptions have been made regarding the existance of life. Since you don't seem to know about this I offered to point you to that research. But I guess you're not intersted in it so I won't ask again. And yes. They're assumptions. But they're very basic ones and very reasonable ones. Two examples of the kind of assumptions that I'm referring to that have been made concerning the existance of life are

(1) atoms and molecules must exist - requires a certain range for the permittivity of free space
(2) the universe must exist long enough for life to form - requires a certain range for the gravitational constant

Quote:Possibly because we haven't sent probes to hardly any other planets???

I was responding to your comment It is vastly empty, and only a few worlds have formed that could support life out of the billions we have discovered. I assumed that you were claiming that worlds have actually been found which can support life. I take if from your response that this is not what you meant?

Quote: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.

I'm no sure that's worth responding to since its a terrible terrible analogy. There are so many obvious flaws that I assumed you were jpoking. After all Adams writes sci-fi comedy. Nobody makes such sloppy arguements as the kinds in the examples you gave. At least not serious scientists.

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

So you're saying that you've studied astrobiology and cosmology? What is it that you are encouraging me to do?

It sounds like you think that I'm speaking from the standpoint of a creationist. If so then I'd like to ask you not to confuse me with those idiots. Thanks.

---

(September 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm)Brick-top Wrote: Yes, but you're wrong becase......oh wait whoops!

lol

Why the snide remark? All I meant was that if I responded to all comments/objections to things I posted then I'd have little time for the important things that require my attention and concentration.

(September 7, 2008 at 7:34 pm)Pete Wrote: Consider the following example; Einstein's theory of special relativity is based on the following two postulates (1) The Principle of Relativity - The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference and (2) Invariance of the Speed of Light - The speed of light has the same value in all inertial frames of reference. What would you consider evidence of this theory?

I have absolutely no idea but then I've never delved into special relativity. As far as I am aware though, both postulates have ample evidence to count them as proof, so yes they would be evidence of his theory.

Quote:Nope. Not at all. I haven't indicated any personal opinion on evidence. I've tried not to. I'm here only to learn what you folks mean when you use the term "evidence". I'm also hear to learn about your views on epistemology. Sources of knowledge in everyday life are not all confinded to science. From what I've seen so far from the responses in this thread it appears that you folks don't use the term "evidence" oustide the field of science.

Well I just used the term "evidence" outside of science when I referred to social evidence. There are many different types of evidence. When we talk about evidence in relation to science we are probably talking about scientific evidence.

Quote:Now you're confusing me. I was basically looking for your personal definition of "evidence" and you've indicated that you consider evidence to be that which is fact. But now you're saying that evidence can't be trusted until it is validated? You'll have to state the definition of "evidence" for me to understand what you've said here.

So far you haven't been that clear on what evidence is. Science deals with observations, the results of which are called "scientific data." Not all such data can be reproduced in the manner which you've indicated. For example; There is an instrument in orbit which are designed to observe gamma ray bursts. This instrument can only record observations of such bursts. The nature of gamma ray bursts are of such a nature as to be reproducible. And its doubtful that anyone else has observed the same bursts that the instrument records. The data collected is a series of gamma rays from a certain region of space. While the instrument can keep taking observations and record new data it cannot record the same data twice to validate it as you suggest. Since it can't be validated I take it that you don't believe scientists don't trust this data?

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.

Quote:But in this case there's no reason to postulate the existance of a pink rabbit.

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.

Quote:Most Christians and Jews don't believe that the universe is that young so how does that prove anything?

You asked me to give examples of how the Bible has been proved wrong by science. I did so. 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. Just because some people don't believe certain parts of the Bible doesn't mean that they cannot be said to have been proven false...in fact that is precisely why you don't believe them...so what are you complaining about?

Quote:The question may have been phrased differently but the essence of the question remains the same.

I'm sorry, but "how" is very different to "why". One is a method, the other is a reason. We have seen from observation that nature has no reason for doing anything, other than obeying the laws of the universe.

Quote:I'm referring to the neccesary conditions for life, not the sufficient conditions for life. Very reasonable assumptions have been made regarding the existance of life. Since you don't seem to know about this I offered to point you to that research. But I guess you're not intersted in it so I won't ask again. And yes. They're assumptions. But they're very basic ones and very reasonable ones. Two examples of the kind of assumptions that I'm referring to that have been made concerning the existance of life are

(1) atoms and molecules must exist - requires a certain range for the permittivity of free space
(2) the universe must exist long enough for life to form - requires a certain range for the gravitational constant

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. Changing these results by even large amounts does not neccesarily deny life emerging. As has been already stated, the universe is very empty, so (1) can be increased by a very large amount, as can (2) since life on Earth alone started 75% into the universe's current age. Whether it emerged on other planets even earlier than this has yet to be seen.

Quote:I was responding to your comment It is vastly empty, and only a few worlds have formed that could support life out of the billions we have discovered. I assumed that you were claiming that worlds have actually been found which can support life. I take if from your response that this is not what you meant?

We know worlds have been found that could support life. You even mentioned the two others in our current solar system in your last response. Of course, we have discovered billions of others that cannot support life (to our knowledge), but up until a few years ago it was thought that Europa couldn't support life. Now we reckon it can. What other planets have we deeded "unsuitable" that could support life are there? Possibly millions.

Quote:I'm no sure that's worth responding to since its a terrible terrible analogy. There are so many obvious flaws that I assumed you were jpoking. After all Adams writes sci-fi comedy. Nobody makes such sloppy arguements as the kinds in the examples you gave. At least not serious scientists.

If there are so many obvious flaws then please highlight them. If you think it is a terrible analogy then surely you should respond to it instead of ignoring it altogether. Adams' might have been a sci-fi writer, but he had a keen interest in science, and his analogy was admired by Richard Dawkins, who as you probably know is an evolutionary biologist. Anyway, it is more of a philosophical argument about science and religion.

Quote:So you're saying that you've studied astrobiology and cosmology? What is it that you are encouraging me to do?

It sounds like you think that I'm speaking from the standpoint of a creationist. If so then I'd like to ask you not to confuse me with those idiots. Thanks.

I have briefly studied them yes, in my spare time they are the subjects that most interest me. I much prefer philosophy. 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. Evidently you think that anything we say that objects to your view deems you a "creationist". This is not the case.

(September 7, 2008 at 7:34 pm)Pete Wrote:

(September 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm)Brick-top Wrote: Yes, but you're wrong becase......oh wait whoops!

lol

Why the snide remark? All I meant was that if I responded to all comments/objections to things I posted then I'd have little time for the important things that require my attention and concentration.

It's a joke.

Tiberius Wrote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: 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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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?

Quote: 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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Haven't defined evidence??? I defined it in my first post!

"Evidence is anything material that can be observed or tested under scientific conditions."

It's you who keeps insisting that all our definitions are wrong or don't cover everything. I've defined evidence over and over and you keep going back and back to it for no apparent reason.

Even if the Bible does state that "days of God are not the days of man", the genesis story is till very very wrong. The Earth wasn't created before light, the moon is not a light source, birds did not emerge at the same time as fish, and certainly not before land animals emerged, and the entire human race does not go back to 2 original parents. Genesis is not scientifically compatible at all. To suppose that each was a billion years or so does not help either.

Michael Shermer is a science writer, he has degrees primarily in biology, but that doesn't stop one from reading and understanding reports written by physicists. His book briefly touches on the subject, but it shows how the claim that minute changes would cause no life at all is ridiculous. The constant that defines how much matter there is in the universe for example, is very very very low in this universe. Less than 0.00000001% of the universe is matter. You could easily increase this value without any negative affects on the chances of life arising. Likewise with the gravity constant.

Quote: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.

*speechless* Ever heard of a metaphor??? Adams' metaphor is exactly how we view ourselves! We fit amazingly well into this universe, as if this universe were indeed created for us. However, as with the puddle, we now know that we fit into this universe because we have to abide by laws of nature. Just as the puddle only fits the hole perfectly because of gravity, we fit our environment because of evolution.

Quote:I've used counter examples on this discussion board which have gone totally ignored.

We ignored your point, you commented on mine. Ignoring it means that either we agree or that we have no opinion on the point to give. You commented saying "I hope you don't expect me to take your puddle idea seriously?". Such a comment requires explanation, which I asked for.