U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-17-2011, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 12,517,003 times
Reputation: 7377

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post

The problem with religion is not just what it believes, but how it believes. In most cases it doesn't even pretend to be a tool of rational inquery, but instead rest primarily on the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. Ancient text and elders are held up as the reason why one should believe, and they reject the usefulness of a logical or rational basis for their beliefs.
You are correct. Us theists do often make those errors. Also many of us have a nagging thought that to find proof of something, somehow lessens our Faith. We forget that blind faith is blind.

We do need to understand that our belief is intangible. We do need to investigage why we believe what we believe. We do need to show rational, logical reasons for our beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2011, 10:45 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,570,594 times
Reputation: 1760
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
True, but we would have to clarify why we would expect these artifacts to appear in one case but not the other, if we were to use them to draw conclusions about how it was created. A lot of people try to use the universe's background radiation as evidence for naturalist creation, but can't explain why the background radiation wouldn't be there if it was purposely created. It's certainly evidence for an old and expanding universe, but it's not evidence for a naturalistically-created one.

.

I agree with what you are saying. The SM, at least at this time, will only get us so far in understanding the origins of everything. At some point, philosophy takes over. (Religion admittedly being a subset of philosophy, even if I disagree with it's methodolgy.)

I of course disagree that ancient religious text, particularly those included in the bible, depict a historically accurate account of events. But that is a discussion for several other threads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 02:17 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,570,594 times
Reputation: 1760
I think Drummerboy also misses the point that many people, religious and non-religious, in fact do not understand the scientific process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 02:19 PM
 
5,187 posts, read 5,418,800 times
Reputation: 1612
Science is admittingly not one of my best subjects, however God has given me other talents and skills in other curriculums that others probably would struggle with as we are not all made to understand amd be scientists. Be happy for what the Lord has given you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,692 posts, read 11,427,422 times
Reputation: 3684
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Uhhh, where are the insults that offended you to the point of resorting to this crazy emotional rant? I fail to see any at all.
He did sign it with "peace" so I am sure it was intended in the kindest of ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Toronto, ON
2,333 posts, read 2,442,916 times
Reputation: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
I agree with what you are saying. The SM, at least at this time, will only get us so far in understanding the origins of everything. At some point, philosophy takes over. (Religion admittedly being a subset of philosophy, even if I disagree with it's methodolgy.)

I of course disagree that ancient religious text, particularly those included in the bible, depict a historically accurate account of events. But that is a discussion for several other threads.
The purpose of life is Philosophy? I personally never understood much from the scientific method; it only furnished a concept for the understanding per the Image of something somewhat in my mind. The mind instead was for SM. And hence this Purpose of Life was leading me on towards the Science which was Good Science for the trust in Mankind.


Come on; can we really put our trust in Mankind for the next year in watching the calendar?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Austin, Texas
2,756 posts, read 5,261,688 times
Reputation: 4606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
I think Drummerboy also misses the point that many people, religious and non-religious, in fact do not understand the scientific process.
I'm not missing any point. I'm fully aware that some people don't understand the empirical process. What I'm objecting to is the "attitude" of the OP; the pedantic tone. As if we in some way owed it to him to prove our knowledge on the subject. Rifleman has instigated hostile convos with Christians before, and I simply felt this was yet another attempt.
But hey, I was just trying to defend some of you guys. If you felt I jumped the gun or was over-zealous, forget it. I'll shut-up now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 06:45 PM
 
Location: Toronto, ON
2,333 posts, read 2,442,916 times
Reputation: 258
The question of the thread says SM. Pedantic, or not pedantic, that is the eternally ongoing process. How does the science approach life has SM for the undeniable truth, then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 06:45 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,202,214 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
I'm not a scientist, but I think I have a better-than-average understanding of the scientific method.

Hypothesis = a proposed, though unproven (and often unprovable), explanation.
Null hypothesis = Okay, not quite sure. I think it's sort of like instead of the hypothesis being "a causes b", it's more of a "a doesn't cause b" kind of hypothesis. You're trying to prove a lack of correlation, rather than a correlation.
Theory = Kind of like a hypothesis that's grown up, a hypothesis that is, so far, consistent with the evidence. While hypotheses may or may not be taken seriously, theories always should be.
Evidence = That which tends to convince people whether something is true or not.
This is one of my favorite links addressing some of these terms.
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
That depends on the nature of the hypothesis. Not every hypothesis lends itself to testing or confirmation via the SM.
As far as hypotheses go, I'm not following. "Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation."

I'm not sure why hypotheses are most often unprovable, or at least the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. Either way you go, you should be able to get some kind of answer. Further, I would think that most would lend to measurement. A scientific hypothesis can only be confirmed by the scientific method. If it cannot be tested by the scientific method than it's not a scientific hypothesis. If that's not the case, perhaps one of you can explain to me why.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 06:52 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,570,594 times
Reputation: 1760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
This is one of my favorite links addressing some of these terms.
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm


As far as hypotheses go, I'm not following. "Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation."

I'm not sure why hypotheses are most often unprovable, or at least the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. Either way you go, you should be able to get some kind of answer. Further, I would think that most would lend to measurement. A scientific hypothesis can only be confirmed by the scientific method. If it cannot be tested by the scientific method than it's not a scientific hypothesis. If that's not the case, perhaps one of you can explain to me why.
He said that not all hypothesis lends itself to testing by the scientific method. It's just a recognition that the scientific method isn't well suited to all types of questions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top