Epistemology

[Pete]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.