(March 29, 2018 at 7:44 am)Khemikal Wrote: To the religious, everything seems like a religion.

I think some people can't think in any other way, and others need everything to be a religion so they can consider theirs on even footing.

(March 29, 2018 at 3:04 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "have faith in our senses". I could be insane or dreaming right now, but scientific techniques work within the structure of whatever this is. That's the point of science, it comes up with models that work. And it's the repeatable evidence of them working that shows that they work. My personal conclusions, or scientific theories, are not supposed to apply to all reality or to be completely accurate. They are meant to be our best attempt to model "reality", whatever it may be. They are always open to new information, and will be reconsidered if they are found not to fit it. Of course, reality could be totally different to how we perceive it. But what we're really modeling is our perception of reality, if you want to get technical. We can't model actual reality because we have no data about it.

So I don't get what you mean that we can only draw conclusions by having faith in our senses. If I am in some deluded state, then my conclusions still make sense and work within the delusion, and that's all they need to do. No one would suggest that any models created for one kind of reality would automatically apply to a different one.

Edit: also, if the approaches were wrong, the results wouldn't work. We wouldn't be building computers and flying planes if our methodology was too flawed to produce workable conclusions. So what is the alternative? The methodology is in fact flawed but we've just been extremely lucky over and over again? I'm not suggesting any methodology we have is perfect. Just that it's good enough for purpose, and that's all we could ever achieve. The conclusions can be tested, unlike any religious ideas.

Not to mention if our senses and thinking  were perfect we would have use for intellectual pursuits . We don't have faith in our senses because in fact science and philosophy are a result of us being skeptical of our senses .

(March 29, 2018 at 1:41 am)stretch3172 Wrote:

(March 28, 2018 at 5:10 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: How are we missing such an easy point here?  Big Bang, Evolution, Black Holes, etc., -- a lot of measurable data exists for all of it.  
Theory - basic scientific definition:  A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Theories are respectable science that is ongoing.  There is no "belief" required, just study.  
I don't need to "believe" that the Big Bang happened, and if our knowledge of it was updated tomorrow, great, but it doesn't affect my daily life.  I don't need to "believe" evolution happened, I accept the large volume of archaeological, biological, geological, migration, development, DNA, and other types of data that have been collected supporting it.
"Belief" is not necessary, we have data.   The concepts of "belief" and "faith" are not welcome in my world.

I agree completely with this. That said, the scientific process by which we develop theories is founded on some key assumptions. For one, we are assuming that our means of observing the world (i.e. the natural senses, measuring instruments, etc.) are accurate and reliable in the information they convey. Also, the realm of phenomena that can actually be studied empirically could very well be infinitesimally small compared to all of reality. We are limited by our senses and the sensitivity of our own scientific instruments. On some level, then, we must have faith in our own senses and methodological approaches or it wouldn't be possible to draw any scientific conclusions.

Yes.  We are limited by our senses.  There COULD be more out there that we may never be able to measure. And if you're a theist/christian, what you are implying by that big "it's possible" is that souls do exist, and an afterlife exists, and a god exists.
Fine.  Thank you for making that implication in a manner that does not also assert that I am foolish/stupid for not trying to telepathically connect to these invisible beings.  
But if there is a lot "more" - the existence of "more" does not affect me in any way.  
And we do not have "faith" in data and method - we understand how and why these techniques work and constantly strive to improve them.

Quote:I agree completely with this. That said, the scientific process by which we develop theories is founded on some key assumptions. For one, we are assuming that our means of observing the world (i.e. the natural senses, measuring instruments, etc.) are accurate and reliable in the information they convey. Also, the realm of phenomena that can actually be studied empirically could very well be infinitesimally small compared to all of reality. We are limited by our senses and the sensitivity of our own scientific instruments. On some level, then, we must have faith in our own senses and methodological approaches or it wouldn't be possible to draw any scientific conclusions.

1. Nope the opposite .we don't assume all that we put it to the test .

2. We stick with the empirical rather then daydream other realms that may or may not exist.Such speculation is worthless .

---

(March 29, 2018 at 8:00 am)robvalue Wrote:

(March 29, 2018 at 7:44 am)Khemikal Wrote: To the religious, everything seems like a religion.

I think some people can't think in any other way, and others need everything to be a religion so they can consider theirs on even footing.

Yup they can't raise the standards of religion . So they must lower the standards of everything else .

(March 28, 2018 at 5:10 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(March 28, 2018 at 4:33 pm)Drich Wrote:

---

why not?

can you explain every scientific aspect in which you believe?

or is there a measure of faith involved to accept that the whole universe was condensed down to the size of a basket ball before the big bang?

Faith is faith when it comes to God/not religion. (The faith religion calls for is bunk.) God said all we need is the smallest amount and we can move mountains of doubt with what He will show/do for us.

---

---

so big bang... evolution... black holes (as gravity wells) and a whole host of other theoretical science... you don't believe in any of it?

How are we missing such an easy point here?  Big Bang, Evolution, Black Holes, etc., -- a lot of measurable data exists for all of it.  
Theory - basic scientific definition:  A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Theories are respectable science that is ongoing.  There is no "belief" required, just study.  
I don't need to "believe" that the Big Bang happened, and if our knowledge of it was updated tomorrow, great, but it doesn't affect my daily life.  I don't need to "believe" evolution happened, I accept the large volume of archaeological, biological, geological, migration, development, DNA, and other types of data that have been collected supporting it.
"Belief" is not necessary, we have data.   The concepts of "belief" and "faith" are not welcome in my world.

Actually none of those things are absolutes/measurable we have used those things to describe what we believe to be evidences to those theories, but even in the confines of science those very same evidences are used simply by changing the narrative to support other theories. Which theory is correct? that is where your faith comes in. as you do not personally know which one is correct. you believe in Darwinism simply because it is the most popular.

This is evidenced by your faith in pop science when it pertains to other things as well, for instance when we were facing global warming, then global cooling then global climate change when God kept changing the thermostat settings on you all to dispel "the sky is falling" mentality you all were trying to spread.

Then the cfc hole in the Ozone.. that was the first of the sky is falling money makers. I can say what you believed because you all are condition to blindly accept anything 'science' tells you. otherwise name one major scientific discovery that you discount or deny.

You simply and blindly identify with pop science. for you there is no faith in that as it is been programmed into you to be automatic. however the truth is if you took the time to understand all of the competing theories in science on things like the big bang and evolution you'd see that some of it makes more sense as it is a more modern understanding of the evidence or facts that what was postulated several hundred years ago. So again if you understood or acknoweledged anything else not pop science had to offer you could see your own faith in your brand of science.

---

(March 29, 2018 at 1:11 am)robvalue Wrote: Right. Science is falsifiable. Theories are falsifiable. So the alternative explanation is one of these:

1) No one has noticed these theories are not falsifiable

2) No has noticed that data falsifies these theories

3) There's some worldwide scientific conspiracy that silences people who notice that theories are not falsifiable, or can be falsified by data

How likely are these scenarios? In my estimation, these are so incredibly unlikely that they can be safely discounted. It's more likely that I'm actually crazy/asleep/hallucinating all this, and science makes sense only within the context of this experience. Even if that's the case, it still makes sense internally, and these figments of my imagination aren't doing a good job of persuading me otherwise within my virtual reality. Bad figments.

why would you approach religion as you would approach science?

would it not be more 'fair'/make more sense to approach religion as you would a trial or a court case and process evidences as you would in a legal proceeding?

After all if there is a promise to meet God in this life and people have claimed to have done this, then shouldn't the path to God be examined through the lenses of testimony and verification? rather than try and make God bend or kneel to our scientific understanding/put God in a box.

(March 29, 2018 at 9:53 am)Drich Wrote: You simply and blindly identify with pop science. for you there is no faith in that as it is been programmed into you to be automatic. however the truth is if you took the time to understand all of the competing theories in science on things like the big bang and evolution you'd see that some of it makes more sense as it is a more modern understanding of the evidence or facts that what was postulated several hundred years ago. So again if you understood or acknoweledged anything else not pop science had to offer you could see your own faith in your brand of science.

Rinse and repeat, regardless of what anyone says to your inane questions. Do you really need us to hear this internal dialogue? Why do you engage people with this nonsense and then clearly ignore every point they make only to look for an opening to repeat one of your mantras. You're not really ready to interact with people having different ideas from your own.

(March 29, 2018 at 9:53 am)Drich Wrote:

(March 29, 2018 at 1:11 am)robvalue Wrote: Right. Science is falsifiable. Theories are falsifiable. So the alternative explanation is one of these:

1) No one has noticed these theories are not falsifiable

2) No has noticed that data falsifies these theories

3) There's some worldwide scientific conspiracy that silences people who notice that theories are not falsifiable, or can be falsified by data

How likely are these scenarios? In my estimation, these are so incredibly unlikely that they can be safely discounted. It's more likely that I'm actually crazy/asleep/hallucinating all this, and science makes sense only within the context of this experience. Even if that's the case, it still makes sense internally, and these figments of my imagination aren't doing a good job of persuading me otherwise within my virtual reality. Bad figments.

why would you approach religion as you would approach science?

would it not be more 'fair'/make more sense to approach religion as you would a trial or a court case and process evidences as you would in a legal proceeding?

I don't approach religious proselytizing with the methodology of either science or law. I merely go on believing what I have the best reason to think is true. Speculation is a different matter, and I have my own which at least does not conflict with what I have reason to think is true. Why would I be interested in trading that for something as ridiculous as a biblical narrative?

(March 29, 2018 at 9:53 am)Drich Wrote: After all if there is a promise to meet God in this life and people have claimed to have done this, then shouldn't the path to God be examined through the lenses of testimony and verification? rather than try and make God bend or kneel to our scientific understanding/put God in a box.

And so you stand in your corner babbling your nonsense to yourself after ignoring everyone's points. Boring.

(March 29, 2018 at 9:40 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:I agree completely with this. That said, the scientific process by which we develop theories is founded on some key assumptions. For one, we are assuming that our means of observing the world (i.e. the natural senses, measuring instruments, etc.) are accurate and reliable in the information they convey. Also, the realm of phenomena that can actually be studied empirically could very well be infinitesimally small compared to all of reality. We are limited by our senses and the sensitivity of our own scientific instruments. On some level, then, we must have faith in our own senses and methodological approaches or it wouldn't be possible to draw any scientific conclusions.

1. Nope the opposite .we don't assume all that we put it to the test .

2. We stick with the empirical rather then daydream other realms that may or may not exist.Such speculation is worthless .

---

Wrong. Any such "test" is meaningless unless you assume (1) that said test is reliable in the results it yields, and (2) that the observer's senses are reliable in their observation of those results.

---

(March 29, 2018 at 9:12 am)drfuzzy Wrote: Yes.  We are limited by our senses.  There COULD be more out there that we may never be able to measure. And if you're a theist/christian, what you are implying by that big "it's possible" is that souls do exist, and an afterlife exists, and a god exists.
Fine.  Thank you for making that implication in a manner that does not also assert that I am foolish/stupid for not trying to telepathically connect to these invisible beings.  
But if there is a lot "more" - the existence of "more" does not affect me in any way.  
And we do not have "faith" in data and method - we understand how and why these techniques work and constantly strive to improve them.

Unless that "more" includes a being who maintains the universe and is capable of changing your entire life for the better, in which case it could affect you greatly. Also, I didn't say that scientists have faith in data. Data is objective. Our perception of that data, however, is filtered through our own senses and means of measurement, which we must assume to be correct.

You haven't explained why we must assume it is correct, or even what it means to be correct. Our observations are what they are, and are used to model future observations. If we were failing to do this, we would fail. It's surprisingly circular.

Can you give an example of what you're talking about, alongside what we might be getting "wrong"?

By the by, modeling "natural" things isn't the same as announcing no non-natural things exist (whatever that even means).

(March 29, 2018 at 10:38 am)stretch3172 Wrote:

(March 29, 2018 at 9:40 am)Tizheruk Wrote: 1. Nope the opposite .we don't assume all that we put it to the test .

2. We stick with the empirical rather then daydream other realms that may or may not exist.Such speculation is worthless .

---

Wrong. Any such "test" is meaningless unless you assume (1) that said test is reliable in the results it yields, and (2) that the observer's senses are reliable in their observation of those results.

---

(March 29, 2018 at 9:12 am)drfuzzy Wrote: Yes.  We are limited by our senses.  There COULD be more out there that we may never be able to measure. And if you're a theist/christian, what you are implying by that big "it's possible" is that souls do exist, and an afterlife exists, and a god exists.
Fine.  Thank you for making that implication in a manner that does not also assert that I am foolish/stupid for not trying to telepathically connect to these invisible beings.  
But if there is a lot "more" - the existence of "more" does not affect me in any way.  
And we do not have "faith" in data and method - we understand how and why these techniques work and constantly strive to improve them.

Unless that "more" includes a being who maintains the universe and is capable of changing your entire life for the better, in which case it could affect you greatly. Also, I didn't say that scientists have faith in data. Data is objective. Our perception of that data, however, is filtered through our own senses and means of measurement, which we must assume to be correct.

You could save a lot of time and just start making your presuppositionalist case, since that's where you're heading anyway.

*yawn*

Quote:Wrong. Any such "test" is meaningless unless you assume (1) that said test is reliable in the results it yields, and (2) that the observer's senses are reliable in their observation of those results.

Nope it's you who is wrong .And for the same reason as before . 

Your presup nonsense will not fly here .

---

(March 29, 2018 at 11:18 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(March 29, 2018 at 10:38 am)stretch3172 Wrote: Wrong. Any such "test" is meaningless unless you assume (1) that said test is reliable in the results it yields, and (2) that the observer's senses are reliable in their observation of those results.

---

Unless that "more" includes a being who maintains the universe and is capable of changing your entire life for the better, in which case it could affect you greatly. Also, I didn't say that scientists have faith in data. Data is objective. Our perception of that data, however, is filtered through our own senses and means of measurement, which we must assume to be correct.

You could save a lot of time and just start making your presuppositionalist case, since that's where you're heading anyway.

*yawn*

Indeed someone is just parroting sye ten bruggencate apologist tract .