The Scientific Method (The SM) (myth, heaven, witness, morality)

[KingDavid8]

Originally Posted by rifleman

So yeah, the BB is just a probability, but when we consider all the background facts in evidence, we can begin to come to some strong liklihoods,and again, that's all the DM can provide us.Ut becomes even more likely if we, as Christians tend to do, day it's "either your pseudo-scientific nutball BB theory, or our Godly Insta-Poof Creation event, which is just so nice sounding, and since it's also written in the bible, and they didn't mention anything about no Big Bang, why... that must be how it happened! Obviously."

Well maybe to you.

How many times do I have to tell you that I believe in the Big Bang before you'll stop pretending that I'm arguing against it?

Completely assumptive. We currently have NO IDEA (which means, let me remind: NO idea. Not you, not me. Not this or that conceptual idea, but NO IDEA, as to what happened or existed before the singularity, be it Creation or the BB.

While it's true that we don't know for certain, your statement that no one has any "conceptual idea" as to what happened or existed before the creation of the universe is proven false by this very forum. A lot of people, myself included, have ideas of what existed before the universe was created. We just can't prove them to be true, is all.

Fact. Ut does not require a Godly entitty or some other force or cause.

"Require"? I agree. It doesn't "require" a God or some other force in order to exist. But that doesn't mean that having a cause isn't the more rational hypothesis.

You cannot apply the very limited IQs of us recently tree-freed primates to the likes of the BB Singularity, frankly.

So if we don't know for certain what, if anything, caused the Big Bang, then we shouldn't come up with likely hypotheses? If you want to give up thinking about it, feel free. If you want to be totally agnostic towards it, that's your right. But that doesn't mean that the rest of us can't think about it and discuss it if we'd like to.

I accept that and can eat my dinner and go to bed in total peace without knowing all the answers right now. But Christians? I think not. I.e.: without an adequate peace-generating and Godly [I'm taking care of you, my son!!] full explanation, they just can't quite sleep right, so they inevitably "Go with God" and nod off.

The amusing thing is that I think you honestly believe what you just said to be true. I've seen people say such ridiculous things in order to get some kind of response, despite their knowing it's total hogwash, but I think you actually mean it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

A completely unfinished and still very "eruptive" and formative universe? One that is fundamentally unfit for life,

Yes, totally unfit for life. Despite the fact that life has been existing in it for billions of years without being swallowed up by chaos, here and almost certainly elsewhere.

The stark Creationist's version, lacks the dinosaurs we do know existed, and absent the now-established DNA genome linkages that so clearly lead us all back to a rimate origin in Africa. Oh and all that geological evidence. Really now! "The hypothesis that makes the most sense"?

You do know that I'm not a young-earth Creationist, right? You're responding to me as if I'm saying YEC is the hypothesis that makes the most sense and that I've been somehow arguing against the Big Bang. It's very difficult discussing things with someone who totally ignores what you're saying and pretends that you're saying something totally different instead.

Remember: we keep finding ever more convincing, oh and BTW, fully PREDICTED by our hypothesis; BB answers & conclusions. You do know that, right?

Yes, which is why I believe in the Big Bang. How many times do I have to tell you this before you'll catch on?

Well OK. Your repetition approach is not a valid debating tool. But I may be wrong. Here: let me try it:

Apparently not, since no matter how many times I repeat the fact that I believe in the Big Bang, you somehow keep concluding that I'm arguing against it.

Here's one more just to be on the safe side: I believe in the Big Bang.

I think I just told you it clearly was naturalistic, by the evidence in both directions.

Interesting. So, according to you, "We currently have NO IDEA (which means, let me remind: NO idea. Not you, not me. Not this or that conceptual idea, but NO IDEA, as to what happened or existed before the singularity, be it Creation or the BB." Yet it was clearly and undeniably a naturalistic cause that created the universe. Gotcha.

Q: what is "naturalism" in your head?

The idea that purposeless forces, not guided by any sentient, intelligent being, ultimately caused the universe to exist.

Next Q: which scientific evidence does the BB theory conflict with, that hasen't been explained by reasonable hypotheses under test at present? Which one completely excludes it?

Absolutely none, which is why I believe in the Big Bang theory.

Funny! In fact, astro-physicists test for key components of the BB all the time, and when we go look for predictable components, we usually find them, and with no impossible conundra to overcome as of yet.

That's because the Big Bang theory is most likely true. Which is why I haven't been arguing against it, despite your pretending that I have.

Oh lord. The reverse logic here is indeed trying. Life is not "allowed" by a naturalistic universe.

Of course it is. At worst, we're just using "allowed" in different ways. All I mean is that the state of the universe makes it so that it's possible for life to exist and thrive.

As well, life advanced simply because of the unique characteristics of the DNA molecule, By chance but still, once there, the rest was "simple".

No, it's not just because of the characteristics of the DNA molecule, but also because it exists in a place where life is able to be created in the first place and also thrive. If the universe was totally random and chaotic, life wouldn't have the chance to advance in the first place, no matter how advantageous the characteristics of the DNA molecule were.

"Thriving", as you put it, may have been, in fact hanging on by the skin of their as yet to be evolved teeth.

Hanging on by the skin of their teeth for billions of years? I'd say that if life itself was always on the verge of annihilation, it probably would have been annihilated by now.

[Blue Hue]

What Came Before the "Big Bang?" | Katie Freese | Big Think

[Boxcar Overkill]

This is the craziest thing I've seen in a long time.

For pages and pages Kingdavid has posted that he does believe in the big bang theory.
He believes in every fact produced by mainstream science.
His only disagreement comes from the unanswered question of what kicked everything in the universe off.


Yet here we have pages and pages of pointless discussions regarding the big bang theory, creationism, DNA, etc. None of that is relevant to the distinction between Deism and atheism.

I have absolutely no idea why that has not been crystal clear for several pages.

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

Nothing in Deism is contingent upon personal revelation. Personal revelation plays no part in Deism.

Fair enough, but many other religions do.

Proof - Noun; Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

While the word "proof" can be used in the mathmatical sense, I am clearly using it in the everyday plain meaning sense of the word. Sorry if there is any confusion there.

Science proves things all the time.

But we are, after all talking about the scientific method, so the plain everyday meaning of the word is not relevant.

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

Orogenicman,

I have no problems with the scientific evidence you provide. My only problem is the philosophical analysis that you derive from that evidence.

Here are some quotes of yours to illustrate my point.




Your use of the word "natural" seems fallacious to me.

The supernatural to you is problematic because there is no evidence that it exist. But that is circular reasoning, because your definition of natural is "something which is detectable." All you are saying is that the only things that have been detected are things that are detectable.

You claim that if there were explainations for the universe that weren't natural, we wouldn't see natural evidence. Yet again, this is circular, because you will describe any evidence you find as natural by definition simply because it is detectable. How would one scientifically prove an unnatural explaination of the universe, if that very proof you would cause it to be classified as natural?

Your constructs have created a logical impossibility to find any evidence of anything but the natural. If in fact you detected a god, the god would immediately be classified as natural, simply because it was detectable.

So it seems to me that every claim you have made regarding natural evidence and the lack of unnatural evidence is circular. Because "detectability" is your root definition of natural, and therefore claiming that no unnatural evidence has been detected is a vacuous statement.

But feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken or have accidently took you out of context.

The point is that if it is not detectable, even indirectly, then the question is does it actually exist (i.e., as a part of the natural world that we know exists). Supernatural "phenomenon" are almost always described by individuals and small groups, usually under questionable circumstances and usually with the subjects under heightened emotional states (such as finding themselves alone or otherwise islated from others, often in a dark place), and as such we have to rely on anecdotal evidence of their existence. The imagination can run wild in such instances. But anecdotal evidence is not scientiific. Oh, people have for many years tried to test for these sorts of things, and even conduct experiements. And I am happy to report that not a single peer-reviewed paper that I am aware of has ever shown unambiguously that anything "supernatural".exists.

Supernatural is defined as "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil".

And since there is no unambigous emperic evidence that anything exists beyond the visible observable universe (dark matter and energy not withstanding), from an emperical point of view, there is no reasonable scientific argument that supports the notion that the word supernatural actually describes anything real and tangible.

[rifleman]

I stand corrected, and offer my apologies. I jumped past quite few posts and obviously misunderstood some of your statements. I think my heartburn is/was that you still seem to place equal, no I'd say, more weight to a cause with an originator with one that did not, when we have all the evidence of initial chaos I talk of. Your continuously stated position that we have absolutely no evidence of my version of the BB flys in the face of all we see.

As well, we don't have to have literally every piece of evidence of an event to absolutely say it happened: we find (just like CSI on TV!) all those forensic remnants which can, for the most part, only be explained by the event we posit. And, to boot, such an event doesn't necessarily require a God, In fact, His participation is simply a complication hat then requires i's on set of add-on explanations.

To that little problem (for you) we have ongoing and relentless evidence, proof in fact, of the absolute lack of any need for your God in all the more mundane events of life on this planet to date (Evolution's been essentially proven by careful application of the SM, for example. The existence of Jesus as the son of a non-existent God versus being just a wandering minstrel, is another little problem of simple logic, well addressed by the SM (event dating, local anthropology and paleontology.)

Well, we press on. Again, I will continue to claim now that your personal understanding of the SM is somewhat faulty, since you don't see how it's worked to date, and yet it's SO DURNED LOGICAL!

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

(1) No, it's not just because of the characteristics of the DNA molecule, but also because it exists in a place where life is able to be created in the first place and also thrive. If the universe was totally random and chaotic, life wouldn't have the chance to advance in the first place, no matter how advantageous the characteristics of the DNA molecule were.

(2) Hanging on by the skin of their teeth for billions of years? I'd say that if life itself was always on the verge of annihilation, it probably would have been annihilated by now.

Re: (1); You disallow anything as ever happening by pure chance? Wow! S: no-one will ever win the lottery, or be narrowly missed by that speeding bus which ran a red light? Given the simple precursors of amino acids, they will form up (been proven now, in the last year). Then, for those to "arbitrarily" link up into DNA "by chance"? Sorry, but also proven. Then, Venter (the inventor of the human DNA Mapping Project, BTW, and not an intellectual lightweight) did that little study last year where he inserted some "chancy" DNA into a lipid ballon (lifeless and darned if it didn't close up the cell walls and start reproducing. Wow, huh? And all "chaotic" according to you. Nope; directed by molecular interaction rules, and once established, DNA does an admirable job of retaining whatever it's learned, and by reproduction and testing, a simple-enough process, it tests and learns. Chaos? Nope.

(2): Yep; we know (again, sorry 'bout that...) these simple organisms did continue to exist and survive to this day. That basic simplicity is the reason they could achieve this stability and durability.

Finally, as to my OP's original point: all these facts-in-evidence are all achieved by the SM's singular and directed approach: it eliminates a mystical supernatural rationale as non-functioning, and it also provides all the probable Godless alternatives you seem (or need?) to so dislike.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

This is the craziest thing I've seen in a long time.

Yet here we have pages and pages of pointless discussions regarding the big bang theory, creationism, DNA, etc. None of that is relevant to the distinction between Deism and atheism.

I have absolutely no idea why that has not been crystal clear for several pages.

Uhmmm.. Boxcar my old pal; check out the OP, which I started. It's actually about the Scientific Method and it's understanding and acceptance by the community at large. It's relevant that this poster, KD, seems to deny it's functional relevance and strengths, versus his version, which relies on supernatural events with no evidence in hand.

Did I miss a complete re-direction of my thread somewhere in here, mutating into your claimed debate about Deism & theism? I had no idea myself!

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

Which is my point. The idea that sience will "close the gaps" on deism is not well founded.

Sure, because there are no gaps created by deism in the first place. It's just adding an unevidenced and unnecessary "god did it" right before the first event in however science explains the universe.

Not that I am a deist, but if one understands deism, as you appear to do, they will hesitate to argue that science will eventually prove it untrue.

Sure, instead it should be dismissed because it is unnecessary and adds nothing to our knowledge. It's truly meaningless even if it is true - and we can never know if it is true or not. It's basically a totally useless and completely interchangeable with "I don't know". So the problem is not with science that it can't be disproved - the problem is with deists in showing us why it's worth worrying about at all.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

Stictly speaking, a "probablity" doesn't have a range and distribution.

Sorry, math disagrees with you : Probability distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.