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.
Does the 14th Amendment of the Constitution grant citizenship to all people born in the U.S.?
Is eugenics immoral?
Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor?
Should I have married my Highschool sweetheart?
There are lots of questions the SM isn't suited to answer. Sometimes it's more appropriate to do things like legal research, philosophical thought experiments, Historical Research, or just go with your best hunch.
I'd say the main problem area as it relates to this particular forum (and how it's used in such forums) is that these things only deal with natural and/or repeatable phenomena.
Probably because there is no evidence that anything other than natural, repeatable results have any scientific validity.
Probably because there is no evidence that anything other than natural, repeatable results have any scientific validity.
So you're admitting that the idea of a naturalistic origin for the universe has no scientific validity, since it's not something which is testable by the SM?
So you're admitting that the idea of a naturalistic origin for the universe has no scientific validity, since it's not something which is testable by the SM?
Why would anyone admit something that you're just making up out of thin air?
So you're admitting that the idea of a naturalistic origin for the universe has no scientific validity, since it's not something which is testable by the SM?
Good point.
May I expand a bit. As the Creation/Formation/Construction of the universe is not observable and can not be replicated. I agree some other method other than the SM is required to prove how it came into being.
May I expand a bit. As the Creation/Formation/Construction of the universe is not observable and can not be replicated. I agree some other method other than the SM is required to prove how it came into being.
The creation of the universe is not directly observable or measurable, but artifacts of the creation are. From those artifacts one may logically make inferences about the creation of the universe via the scientific method.
But it may be, and probably is, not solely a question for science. In some respects it is probably a mixed question of science and philosophy. Both of which have tools of rational inquery.
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.
i think i do. however we dont practice it here for sure.
the science community stopped using SM a long time ago.
you pick what evidence you agree with and throw the rest away.
the science community says these are nothing more than lime stone configurations http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phike...an/japan2.html
So are you seriously saying it IS testable by the SM? How so?
The creation is not directly testable, but the artifacts of it are testable, and from those test results logical inferences can be draw.
How do you think the theory of the Big Bang came about? Purely by speculation? Surely you must understand that inferences were logically drawn about the data uncovered via the SM.
The creation of the universe is not directly observable or measurable, but artifacts of the creation are. From those artifacts one may logically make inferences about the creation of the universe via the scientific method.
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.
Quote:
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.
Ancient texts aren't worthless sources, though. They can be at times, but they aren't always. For example, we use ancient texts as our sources for what we know about Julius Caesar's assassination, and there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I find the accounts of Jesus' resurrection to be convincing, though I can see why others do not (especially if they automatically reject the possibility of miracles). It's certainly not a case of "the Bible says it, so I believe it", but my perception that the Gospels' authors and/or their sources were close enough to the events that they most likely knew whether Jesus was resurrected or not, and they clearly believed that He was.
But for the record, my belief in God is not based on the Bible, since I came to believe in God before I even bothered with the Bible. I was a deist for about seven years before I became a Christian.
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.
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.
