So...guess I'm the new guy

[greneknight]

Hey all, want to pop in and say hello.

"Hello"

*sigh of relief* glad that's over.

So I'm guessing I'm one of your few Christian posters? I look forward to talking with some of you. I was wondering what you folks think of Alvin Plantinga?

[/font]

Hi,

I'm a Christian. I think Alvin Plantinga is a fool. I totally disagree with him. He's in the fringe of mainstream philosophy. One of the extremely few Christians in a sea of atheists. Just like scientists. Kurt Wise, the guy who refused to believe in science and evidence because he insisted on a literal interpretation of Genesis, well, he still considers himself a scientist and if we are charitable enough to consider him one, we have to say he'd be one of the very few Christians who are scientists in a sea of atheists.

Welcome but I'm new too.

[Reforged]

Vinny isn't an idiot. He is raising legitimate questions that aren't answered by talking about having any number of chestnuts (how are we ever gonna prove the mathematical concept of infinity with chestnuts? Seriously, this is getting silly). I think they are answerable questions (for someone who thinks that all our knowledge must somehow be grounded in science - something I couldn't give a shit about), and I have said why.

The concept of infinity? Well the clue is in the title. Its a concept. Theres branches of mathematical theory devoted to it but again, the clue is in the title. I don't think anyone here was attempting to prove it.

His questions are only legitimate if you think mathematics has no physical evidence proving its relevance to the physical world around us. Thats the only example of "metaphysical assumption" he provided.
Now, do you think that?

Oh and when I backed him into a corner he tried to outright claim intuition was more valuable to mankind than rational thinking. Brilliant.

Also, who here was outright claiming everything in the universe can be explained by science? We haven't even seen that far past our own solar system. Could whoever made that claim raise their hands for all to see? Anyone? No? Ok then.
All I saw was someone claiming it definitely couldn't and I find that alittle arrogant considering we haven't yet encountered a circumstance immune to scientific process.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Vinny isn't an idiot.

In the clinical sense,no of course he isn't. If he were, allowances would be made. Allowances are not made because his posts show an undereducated, recalcitrant, ignoramus. THAT makes him seem 'an idiot ' (fool) in the vernacular. I doubt he is as big a dick in person.--If that were the case, somebody would have killed him by now.

[Cyberman]

Like everyone else, I can only go by what a person chooses to present here. I keep my own counsel as to who I may label an idiot or whatever the case may be, were I actually to indulge in such things.

[Reforged]

Like everyone else, I can only go by what a person chooses to present here. I keep my own counsel as to who I may label an idiot or whatever the case may be, were I actually to indulge in such things.

Well isn't that the standard by which to judge an idiot? Its not like we can look inside his head and go "Yep, dumbass". His exposition is what we must look at and so far his exposition puts him firmly within that category in my humble opinion.

[jonb]

His exposition is what we must look at and so far his exposition puts him firmly within that category in my humble opinion.

For me that definition is not right what flew in and landed on the carpet smells, an idiot is just daft 'vinny the poo' comes under a category beginning with a 'Sh' sound.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I'm not saying mathematical truths cannot be confirmed or supported by science. Or more properly, a posteriori knowledge or empirical observation (is science isotropic to empirical observation? I don't think so, but that's another subject).

But so far as "proving numbers and mathematical relations are valid through science", as Hoodie wants to prove, there has to be a hypothesis first. And you cannot make this hypothesis simply by observing the world. Numbers and mathematical relations don't exist in the world in the same way as the objects of scientific inquiry exist.

From this it's almost commonsensical to say that "proving math" lies outside the realm of science, because science, at least hard science, is fundamentally physical, and mathematical quantities and relations are non-physical.

I thought this was fundamental, commonsense knowledge. I can't believe it's being denied that science makes assumptions it cannot prove.

Thing is, your view of the way science works is wrong. Our scientific knowledge is not a set of individual hypotheses which face the tribunal of experience alone. It is a complex network of beliefs, including all that outlying auxillary seemingly non-empirical stuff like maths, logic and metaphysical assumptions. Anything that feeds in to science is indirectly tested by the success or failure of science as a whole. The success of science is thereby an indirect confirmation of those mathematical assumptions you mention. Or so the argument goes. It's called epistemological holism. I don't actually buy it myself (well, not the maths and logic part anyway), but, like much of common sense, the idea that these things are "unprovable" by science is not at all certain.

This is a serious point. I have to concede that the way I understand your point, I agree that "anything that feeds into science is tested". But properly, scientifically tested? No, of course not. This claim is about as valid as "paper is valid because it works when used as intended in scientific experiments". But it never was, properly the subject of scientific inquiry in the first place.

Do computers carry philosophical validity because many journal articles are written using computers? Or calculators carry mathematical validity because mathematicians use them? Seeing as they don't even meet the criteria of of being the subject of inquiry in the relevant field, this is a highly tenuous claim that only epistemological holism can assess, seeing as it turns all assumptions into mini-hypotheses that themselves are tested.

I can see the value in e-h given some limited situations where it would be useful, but to use it to justify the validity or rational justification of using math in science, I don't think so. The validity of extant assumptions will never be as well-examined, or even properly examined under e-h as if it were the subject of inquiry itself, ie the focus of testing.

Using epistemological holism to validate or justify mathematics would be an abuse of the theory, in my opinion.

edit: PS- I'm aware that there are some people going around calling me an idiot. It's an unfortunate part and parcel of the situation, when atheism has become more of a religious dogma, and skepticism expressed towards some foundational beliefs of atheists can make them very offended.

I'm of the opinion that skepticism should be equally applicable to all sides.

[Cyberman]

Like everyone else, I can only go by what a person chooses to present here. I keep my own counsel as to who I may label an idiot or whatever the case may be, were I actually to indulge in such things.

Well isn't that the standard by which to judge an idiot? Its not like we can look inside his head and go "Yep, dumbass". His exposition is what we must look at and so far his exposition puts him firmly within that category in my humble opinion.

Yay, I finally get the chance to use my Neil "Never in Monty Python's Flying Circus whatever people think" Innes reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ9EWcaS7II?rel=0

[Anomalocaris]

Vinny isn't an idiot.

In the clinical sense,no of course he isn't. If he were, allowances would be made.

Only because he is too much of an idiot to seek a clinical diagnosis, so as to avail himself of the allowance.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Lots of personal attacks in this thread.

It's a little disappointing that so many atheists hate being rational.

But oh well.

There's always that bottom 10%.