Argument against atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

The "line of proof" had nothing to do with science all of a sudden. That's an issue with the questions you asked and nothing more. It didn't have anything to do with science when you opened either.

I'd have to say it is it's own field. It has very specific rules and practices, it is designed for a very specific purpose. I would also say it deserves it's own little "field" due to it being the greatest single contributor to our well-being and knowledge.

Scientific assertions verified by evidence determine the most likely explanation of observed phenomena with a considerable amount of provisional certainty. Science and scientific assertions make no further claims. It is not the search for "truth" in any sense but the poetic. It is the business of attempting to explain the unknown (or better explain what is known).

[Perhaps]

Yes to every questions. But why didn't you use "theory" instead of "assertion"?

I suppose either works. I chose assertion in this instance simply because things that are true are generally not considered theories, unless one has an open perspective and understands relative truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yet many theories are "true"..see, fuzzy word.

[5thHorseman]

evolution and relativity for example.

[Perhaps]

The "line of proof" had nothing to do with science all of a sudden. That's an issue with the questions you asked and nothing more. It didn't have anything to do with science when you opened either.

I'd have to say it is it's own field. It has very specific rules and practices, it is designed for a very specific purpose. I would also say it deserves it's own little "field" due to it being the greatest single contributor to our well-being and knowledge.

Scientific assertions verified by evidence determine the most likely explanation of observed phenomena with a considerable amount of provisional certainty. Science and scientific assertions make no further claims. It is not the search for "truth" in any sense but the poetic. It is the business of attempting to explain the unknown (or better explain what is known).

I don't think you're recognizing the scale of reason and logic. Can science conduct an illogical or unreasonable experiment? Perhaps. Do the results of that experiment hold any weight within the field of science? No. I am not down playing the usefulness or efficiency of science. I am simply stating that it is in-fact contained within a much larger field.



If we can agree that science does not determine truth (in any sense other than that which pertains to our current understanding), then I feel we can agree on your definition of scientific assertions verified by evidence and what they determine. The only problem arises when science begins to attempt to determine truths by stating that it has falsified a claim outside of science (axiom). Science needs to realize its limit, which is effectively the knowledge of the current time.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, unreasonable and illogical experiments are conducted all the time ( a huge gripe within the grant funded research community), and if they produced results they would have weight (they haven't yet).

I'm not looking to agree on a definition, the definition of what science is, what it does, and what it does not do is not an argument, or an area that can be negotiated. These aren't my definitions, they are the definitions.

Is that the trouble? Try inverting the objects in your statement. No axiom that makes a claim to reality or the material world is outside of science. Science cannot "realize it's limits" because we haven't found those limits yet. The limitations based upon available knowledge are not limitations of science, but limitations in our knowledge. Limitations or gaps, if you will, that are constantly being filled by guess what...science. Please don't insinuate that science should give way to the ramblings of it's predecessors when those predecessors failed to produce the results achieved by our current methods, and when many of the results of those predecessors were annihilated by the same. This is something that can only be asked for in service of wish fulfillment. "Please stop tearing down my walls, if I have any left".......

[Perhaps]

Yes, unreasonable and illogical experiments are conducted all the time ( a huge gripe within the grant funded research community), and if they produced results they would have weight (they haven't yet).

I'm not looking to agree on a definition, the definition of what science is, what it does, and what it does not do is not an argument, or an area that can be negotiated. These aren't my definitions, they are the definitions.

Is that the trouble? Try inverting the objects in your statement. No axiom that makes a claim to reality or the material world is outside of science. Science cannot "realize it's limits" because we haven't found those limits yet. The limitations based upon available knowledge are not limitations of science, but limitations in our knowledge. Limitations or gaps, if you will, that are constantly being filled by guess what...science. Please don't insinuate that science should give way to the ramblings of it's predecessors when those predecessors failed to produce the results achieved by our current methods, and when many of the results of those predecessors were annihilated by the same.

What is needed for science to exist?

[The Grand Nudger]

People, observations, and the scientific method.

(Trying to be spartan without losing it)

[Perhaps]

People, observations, and the scientific method.

(Trying to be spartan without losing it)

Then it must be assumed, outside of science, that people, observations, and the scientific method exist. This is the axiom I am referring to, which cannot be proven, it is assumed to be true.

If science disproves that one of its prerequisites for existence actual exists then it disproves its own existence, which is impossible.

Sorry for the late response, was eating dinner.

[amkerman]

I hope you realize the gravity (pun intended) of your own assertions of what must exist (namely that consciousness must be inherently true outside of our ideas of them, since our all observations are made within the framework of consciousness) rhythm. You are supporting my original argument (at least the argument I intended, even if I did so poorly) with such statements. (please note my argument was never about what actually existed but what one necessarily must believe exists to believe objective reality exists). You state observations and therefore consciousness must exist for science to exist, which, if one adds "belief in" before "observations" and "science" in this sentence was basically the conclusion of my argument.

I know you don't want to admit this. And likely won't.