Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
November 9, 2017 at 8:07 am (This post was last modified: November 9, 2017 at 8:07 am by Jehanne.)
(November 8, 2017 at 11:28 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Consider the reference previously, to Karl Popper and using falsification for the demarcation of science. I am willing to state, that I believe there is a 100% probability that Earth orbits around the Sun, along with a number of other planets and satellites.
No one in Science claims that it is 100% true that the Earth orbits the Sun, because the idea that the Universe itself is, in fact, a simulation is taken seriously within Science:
(November 8, 2017 at 11:28 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Consider the reference previously, to Karl Popper and using falsification for the demarcation of science. I am willing to state, that I believe there is a 100% probability that Earth orbits around the Sun, along with a number of other planets and satellites.
No one in Science claims that it is 100% true that the Earth orbits the Sun, because the idea that the Universe itself is, in fact, a simulation is taken seriously within Science:
And, so, unlike the theism of WLC, all scientific knowledge is provisional knowledge, not absolute.
Did we move away from the falsfiability thing; can I consider that resolved?
As to the 100% thing, verses someone saying 99.9%.... I would be hesitant to make any long conclusions on the matter, unless they are specifically talking about the concerns you are raising. I suspect a good many may be intending the same thing. (I did notice that you did not quote Craig on this part, so I don't know the context.)
I do agree, that we can be mistaken, that we may misunderstand or not observe what we think that we did. I also think that we can have essentially 100% certainty in some things. I am doubtful that solipsism is taken very seriously by any large number of scientist and even then it is a metaphysical matter any way. Similarly I am also skeptical that simulation theory is the reason behind very many who won't state 100% certainty. It seems to me, that there needs to be quite a bit of certainty that observations and tests are true, in order to study science.
Your last comment is interesting as well. I find this an curious part of the false dilemma between science and religion, which I believe is the result of atheists group think. Something that is repeated often among the group, but not really thought about or reasoned through. Theism does not require any such thing, nor does science make any dictations in such a manner. I have talked to advocates of evolution who are quite dogmatic, and theists who are very liberal.
I fear that you may be trying to make quite a lot out of nothing.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
November 9, 2017 at 9:13 pm (This post was last modified: November 9, 2017 at 9:13 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
You know . . . I find the fact that theists who rely on faith and emotionality to believe in God really quite unsurprising. It's the theists who actually think there are logical arguments that prove God that I find most surprising. But then I'm constantly surprised by both theists and atheists who fail to differentiate between valid and invalid arguments. It's not hard. At least for me, valid argumentation seems extremely easy. But then I suck at a lot of other things so maybe that's just genetics.
(November 9, 2017 at 8:07 am)Jehanne Wrote: No one in Science claims that it is 100% true that the Earth orbits the Sun, because the idea that the Universe itself is, in fact, a simulation is taken seriously within Science:
And, so, unlike the theism of WLC, all scientific knowledge is provisional knowledge, not absolute.
Did we move away from the falsfiability thing; can I consider that resolved?
As to the 100% thing, verses someone saying 99.9%.... I would be hesitant to make any long conclusions on the matter, unless they are specifically talking about the concerns you are raising. I suspect a good many may be intending the same thing. (I did notice that you did not quote Craig on this part, so I don't know the context.)
I do agree, that we can be mistaken, that we may misunderstand or not observe what we think that we did. I also think that we can have essentially 100% certainty in some things. I am doubtful that solipsism is taken very seriously by any large number of scientist and even then it is a metaphysical matter any way. Similarly I am also skeptical that simulation theory is the reason behind very many who won't state 100% certainty. It seems to me, that there needs to be quite a bit of certainty that observations and tests are true, in order to study science.
Your last comment is interesting as well. I find this an curious part of the false dilemma between science and religion, which I believe is the result of atheists group think. Something that is repeated often among the group, but not really thought about or reasoned through. Theism does not require any such thing, nor does science make any dictations in such a manner. I have talked to advocates of evolution who are quite dogmatic, and theists who are very liberal.
I fear that you may be trying to make quite a lot out of nothing.
There's not one "theism", there are many. Wide disagreements exist of the meaning of the word "god". Is he (or, "she") omnipotent, for instance? But, I digress. But, no, I have not at all changed my mind regarding my OP. I think that WLC has contradicted himself, as he does often.
The conflict between science (of which, there is only really one), and religion (of which there are an infinite number of) is intractable. Science makes testable predictions; religion does not; scientific claims are falsifiable, religious claims are not; science is universal (or, nearly so), religions are not; in science, strangers can agree, in religion, they don't; science is well-defined, religion is ill-defined, or in many cases, undefined; science reaches firm conclusions, religion is always changing, always evolving, etc.
(November 9, 2017 at 9:07 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Did we move away from the falsfiability thing; can I consider that resolved?
As to the 100% thing, verses someone saying 99.9%.... I would be hesitant to make any long conclusions on the matter, unless they are specifically talking about the concerns you are raising. I suspect a good many may be intending the same thing. (I did notice that you did not quote Craig on this part, so I don't know the context.)
I do agree, that we can be mistaken, that we may misunderstand or not observe what we think that we did. I also think that we can have essentially 100% certainty in some things. I am doubtful that solipsism is taken very seriously by any large number of scientist and even then it is a metaphysical matter any way. Similarly I am also skeptical that simulation theory is the reason behind very many who won't state 100% certainty. It seems to me, that there needs to be quite a bit of certainty that observations and tests are true, in order to study science.
Your last comment is interesting as well. I find this an curious part of the false dilemma between science and religion, which I believe is the result of atheists group think. Something that is repeated often among the group, but not really thought about or reasoned through. Theism does not require any such thing, nor does science make any dictations in such a manner. I have talked to advocates of evolution who are quite dogmatic, and theists who are very liberal.
I fear that you may be trying to make quite a lot out of nothing.
There's not one "theism", there are many. Wide disagreements exist of the meaning of the word "god". Is he (or, "she") omnipotent, for instance? But, I digress. But, no, I have not at all changed my mind regarding my OP. [1] I think that WLC has contradicted himself, as he does often.
The conflict between science (of which, there is only really one), and religion (of which there are an infinite number of) is intractable. [2] Science makes testable predictions; religion does not; scientific claims are falsifiable, religious claims are not; [3]science is universal (or, nearly so), religions are not; in [4]science, strangers can agree, in religion, they don't; [5] science is well-defined, religion is ill-defined, or in many cases, undefined; [6] science reaches firm conclusions, religion is always changing, always evolving, etc.
Ok. Seems like your views are based on an idealized view of science and misunderstandings. Now if you want to say that religion is not science, in the modern sense of the word (meaning the natural sciences) I would tend to agree.
1 - As I explained previously, you have a misconception about falsifiability which leads you to this conclusion. The concept is not subjective, and Craig's or anyone else's confidence level, does not effect it.
2 - Religions can and have made testable and falsifiable claims... this is simply false.
3 - I have no idea what this even means.
4 - Who says who can or cannot agree? You are really grasping at straws here!
5 - Depends on what you are talking about and at what level. Every hear of the demarcation problem of science. Philosophers of science have found that it is not that easy to define. There are also areas and subjects in science which are vaguely defined. Equivocation and varying the meaning of the term evolution is often an issue in discussion. And in religion it is going to depend on what you are talking about as well.
6 - You previously contrasted Criag's theism to science, criticizing it for being absolute and science as always provisional and able to change. Why is this not a contradiction now?
You are sounding more and more like the common mischaracterizations and idealism of the scientism bunch.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
(November 10, 2017 at 10:46 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(November 10, 2017 at 10:13 am)Jehanne Wrote:
There's not one "theism", there are many. Wide disagreements exist of the meaning of the word "god". Is he (or, "she") omnipotent, for instance? But, I digress. But, no, I have not at all changed my mind regarding my OP. [1] I think that WLC has contradicted himself, as he does often.
The conflict between science (of which, there is only really one), and religion (of which there are an infinite number of) is intractable. [2] Science makes testable predictions; religion does not; scientific claims are falsifiable, religious claims are not; [3]science is universal (or, nearly so), religions are not; in [4]science, strangers can agree, in religion, they don't; [5] science is well-defined, religion is ill-defined, or in many cases, undefined; [6] science reaches firm conclusions, religion is always changing, always evolving, etc.
Ok. Seems like your views are based on an idealized view of science and misunderstandings. Now if you want to say that religion is not science, in the modern sense of the word (meaning the natural sciences) I would tend to agree.
1 - As I explained previously, you have a misconception about falsifiability which leads you to this conclusion. The concept is not subjective, and Craig's or anyone else's confidence level, does not effect it.
2 - Religions can and have made testable and falsifiable claims... this is simply false.
3 - I have no idea what this even means.
4 - Who says who can or cannot agree? You are really grasping at straws here!
5 - Depends on what you are talking about and at what level. Every hear of the demarcation problem of science. Philosophers of science have found that it is not that easy to define. There are also areas and subjects in science which are vaguely defined. Equivocation and varying the meaning of the term evolution is often an issue in discussion. And in religion it is going to depend on what you are talking about as well.
6 - You previously contrasted Criag's theism to science, criticizing it for being absolute and science as always provisional and able to change. Why is this not a contradiction now?
You are sounding more and more like the common mischaracterizations and idealism of the scientism bunch.
I am happy and content to debate and discuss any belief with most believers, however, WLC is not worth the effort. When he tried to defend the butchery of children, he lost all possible credibility even from believers.
(November 10, 2017 at 10:46 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 2 - Religions can and have made testable and falsifiable claims... this is simply false.
But none having to do with the supernatural or the existance of a god. This is simply true.
Why not?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
(November 10, 2017 at 11:46 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Why not?
Because the religious know full well that they can present no evidence that ANY god exists, thus they avoid the question.
When Atheists blurt out things they want to be true like your phrase with no knowledge, there is seriously limitations to what a person aware of proofs can do to convince a person who doesn't want to be convinced of God.
I tell you what - either A or B and I will change my mind of Atheists generally being stubborn people who want to hold on to ignorance as proof that God is not known to others.
A. Present well in the best charitable manner all arguments for God by at least five famous philosophers and show they are wrong. Charitable means you ought to look for premises to further their premises and claims, not just debunk them. Show you really tried to see it - fill in hidden premises - and show why it's not true.
B. Present well all the arguments I have brought over the years for God or at least five of what you think are my better or clearer arguments. Do the same as above and show why it's wrong.
I have yet to meet a truly sincerely searching Atheist for the truth with all out resolve. I see people vehement with a passion to remain ignorant. I see some looking for evidence confused, but really a little effort on their part to understand.
