Positive Atheism

[rjh4 is back]

Eilonnwy trusts the Scientific method, not the fine details and equations of the science it's self - as a Layman in a particular field that is the best anyone can do because we can't be experts in everything.

I understand and agree, which should be clear from my last post.

Also, considering the methodology of science is so damn effective there is no reason not to trust it, for example the specific theory of general relativity used to calculate astrophysics such as the formation of solar systems is directly responsible for the fact that all Satellite systems work at all, if the science behind the conclusion were not accurate then GPS systems, Television broadcasting etc would simply not be possible, in fact the results from scientific studies are so vast it's simply overwhelming evidence in favor of the effectiveness of the underline methodology.

I agree that the methodology of science is very effective and that one can certainly trust it. Your examples of GPS systems and Television broadcasting are right on point as is all the operational science that we use and observe every day.

But there seems to be a big difference between things like GPS systems and the formation of our solar system as presented in the wiki article. While both may be based on the theory of general relativity and applications of it, the former (GPS systems) is something we can observe in the here and now. It is testable and repeatable. In contrast, applying that same science to the formation of our solar system is taking that same science and extrapolating it back to the unobservable (the impossibility of observing the formation of our solar system should be self evident, unless I am somehow mistaken) and unrepeatable (we cannot duplicate the formation of our solar system) past. It seems to me that to do so and come up with the conclusion that this is how our solar system formed (i.e., that which the wiki article said), one still needs to apply at least two unprovable principles: 1) uniformitarianism (i.e., the key to the past is the present or what we observe today came to be through processes that still are occurring) and 2) materialism (matter/energy are the only thing we deal with, i.e., no supernatural). These uniformitarian and materialistic principles are the assumptions/presuppositions I was talking about in my last post.

Am I correct here, theVoid?

I can assure you that the science behind the conclusion is extremely sound and the Wiki article is well referenced and completely up to date, as is always the case with scientific articles on wikipedia - Scientists HATE misinformation, meaning they will immediately correct any apparent mistakes and always properly reference any point they make.

I really do not doubt what you say here. In other words, I really do not question the science behind the conclusion, I question the uniformitarian and materialistic principles used to extrapolate the science into the past as it relates to origins.