Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Open-minded Science?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Etritonakin
Joined: 7/10/2014
Msg: 59
Open-minded Science?Page 4 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
Also -Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things not seen -just as most have never actually seen an electron, but know it exists.
True faith is NOT blind.
 Etritonakin
Joined: 7/10/2014
Msg: 60
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/16/2014 12:10:51 PM
Who is "them"? People 'of faith'? I do not speak for anyone else -but was merely saying that people's ideas about faith aren't necessarily biblical. Many people who could be considered 'of faith' don't actually have real faith. Faith -even according to the bible -is not simply taking even the bible's word for something -though many see it as such. Few -'of faith' or not -actually read the bible.

I understand that a "purely mechanistic view of nature omits such concepts as consciousness, self-awareness and a priori intent." I'm saying that such a view is inadequate for a complete understanding.

A purely mechanistic view of nature credits nature with the eventual existence of "consciousness, self-awareness and a priori intent" (even if not preceding "nature") -so such things should be considered. Such a view would be that which would blind us to the existence of an intent (prior to or other than man) which may have preceded our known universe -even initiated it -or altered its (or our) course after it was initiated. Our own consciousness and intent alters the course of nature -so intent cannot be completely ruled out at any point (though it can be ruled out for specific occurrences).
I understand the aversion to God and religion -but what about an intelligence/intent parallel to man or which preceded man on another planet, for example? A purely mechanistic view of nature could very well blind us to evidence of their activities.

If the course of our development was altered by some other intelligence, what sort of evidence would be left behind? If , let's say, changes were made to human DNA by another intelligence -we may only see a lack of direct evolution/transition -which we would not easily attribute to another intelligence -especially if we were not interested in the concept whatsoever.
 abroncs
Joined: 7/6/2014
Msg: 61
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/16/2014 12:58:10 PM

There are excellent scientists who do see evidence of a designer -but they are usually not accepted.


Yes, that's true. The seeings of these excellent scientists are not accepted, because they fail in showing empirical evidence in what they "see".
 abroncs
Joined: 7/6/2014
Msg: 62
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/16/2014 1:10:33 PM

I do not speak for anyone else -but was merely saying that people's ideas about faith aren't necessarily biblical.


I do not wish to appear as a nitpicker, or as someone who split hairs. However, you contradicted yourself in the very first nominative sentence you used.

We can consider supernatural forces, or pre-creation forces, but it's all in vain as far as science is concerned. Science deals with empirical observations, it builds its theories only on those.

You are serving the same argument -- faith is possibly right -- in a different dish. This is fine, but not scientific. NO evidence, no science. This is painful to some, liberating to some others.

Aversion to god or religion is immaterial. No evidence, not scientific. This is what you must consider when you talk science. Mere possibility without evidence is not science. It's fiction or else matter of faith.

Your text was replete with "if", "may", etc. These are sentences you constructed that are fine, except they point at possibilities without any extant evidence.

This is what it is:

Science deals with evidenced observation. Any potentally true but non-evidenced thing is not scientific.

------------------

You say scientists are not looking for "evidence of a designer".

Well, scientists are not looking for anything, in the classical sense. Most scientific discoveries -- electricity, gravity, microwaves, and many others -- have been made because of a chance observation that nobody was "looking" for. Many of these we call technical or technological inventions, discoveries. Photogrpahic paper, muscle contraction with electric current, sugar dissolving in water, fire burning on dry wood, eating when hungry making people feel full.

So you say that scientists are not looking for the evidence of a designer. The many fine and excellent scientists who see the evidence of the designer, however, did look for it, no doubt. They found it? Did they publish the results?

Those who look for it, those who can't be bothered to look for it, are both at a loss of finding evidence, scientific evidence, of a desinger.
 abroncs
Joined: 7/6/2014
Msg: 63
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/16/2014 1:14:58 PM

Creativity comes through inspiration. How can science methodically work towards an objective which it doesn't know exists as yet. Einstein would be a perfect example of that, he wasn't doing any kind of research at the time, he was working as a clerk in a patent office. The big ideas always come in a blinding flash of inspiration. Something which you currently have zero knowledge of cannot be approached methodically.
The scientific methodology comes afterwards, to create order and make sense of it, to give meaning (that word again).

This is also totally true.

However, Einstein and others do not create physical laws, they do not create scientific discoveries. They are not designers.

Einstein made a theory, which was not scientific. It became scientific when future events predicted by his theory were observed. Einstein's theory prior to physical evidencing was philosophy, not science. Just saying.

The point to consider is that scientists don't create physical laws. A designer of nature may, but there is no evidence for such a unit in existence.
 abroncs
Joined: 7/6/2014
Msg: 64
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/16/2014 1:21:50 PM

Also -Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things not seen -just as most have never actually seen an electron, but know it exists.
True faith is NOT blind.


Well. Evidence does not involve only man's eyes that see. Hearing, touching feeling the heat, etc. are also valid methods of evidencing.

There are other valid methods, which involve sensating by machine power, and interpreted by knowing how the machine senses. Electrons are sensed, they are not seen with the naked eye, but their existence has plenty of physical evidence, evidence which goes beyond the mere faith in their existence.

I don't understand what you mean by what substance of things is. This is esoterical, and frankly, I am not interested in what you mean with it; I am merely saying that your use of the word is completely foreign to this discussion, so please realize that. Of course you may want to continue along that line, and I won't stop you, but then it's not science (topic of this thread) but philosophy, which is an allowed topic of this forum, so please, go ahead, use it, but I shan't have an opinion on your using it and I will reject all your arguments built on this presupposition as invalid. *for this discussion on science* but allowing that it may be valid for other discussions.
 abroncs
Joined: 7/6/2014
Msg: 65
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/16/2014 1:30:43 PM

Scientists do understand many facets of evolution -which I do understand is a term which -to most scientists -does not allow for an intelligent, creative influence at any stage.

This is absolutely false. Science does allow for supernatural, intelligent, creative influence at any stage of evolution.

It's just that science does not even consider that, becasue there has never been any evidence of that happening.

Once that happens, and evidence points to it, scientists will not only allow, but accept the existence of a designer.



My point (one of them) was that it is in no way scientific to simply assume that there was no -or could not have been - intelligent creative influence which brought evolution itself into existence -and all that inevitably happened after the big bang which led to the emergence of life -or even to assume that there was no -or could not have been -intelligent creative influence at various stages in the process or preceding it.


You are right about that. It is no way scientific to assume that there was no, or could not have beene intelligent being which designed evolution. It is the same way not scientific to assume that there was, or could have beene intelligent being which designed evolution.

We agree on that, although you only mentioned one half of the possibilities.

Science has no assumption on that, either way. Absolutely correct.
 abroncs
Joined: 7/6/2014
Msg: 66
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/16/2014 1:35:33 PM

but practice and empirical knowledge shows no evidence of a designer.
I do not agree -- etc.


You are disputing facts, observations.

You can only dispute that if you have an observation to report to the contrary.

Please publish that. What you said here is incredibly heavy-weight. You may change the history of science. You have compelling, observational evidence, not only the allowance for the potential existence, of a designer.


Please please please publish your empirical finding. You can be bigger in a flash than Jesus or Einstein or John Lennon.
 Etritonakin
Joined: 7/10/2014
Msg: 67
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/16/2014 5:01:49 PM
"Science" itself may at least allow for supernatural creative influence -but I was speaking of most scientISTS (or perhaps the power-wielding part of the scientific community) -though I do not actually have statistics, so I should have said some rather than most. Some scientISTS are not open to the idea of a supernatural, intelligent, creative influence -which is, in part, due to ridiculous claims by the religious.
I am a religious person -yet cringe when I hear someone make ridiculous statements based on a skewed understanding of scripture. Scientists are also human -and can be just as closed-minded as others at times.
 Etritonakin
Joined: 7/10/2014
Msg: 68
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/16/2014 5:20:02 PM

I don't understand what you mean by what substance of things is. This is esoterical, and frankly, I am not interested in what you mean with it; I am merely saying that your use of the word is completely foreign to this discussion, so please realize that.

I did not bring up the subject of faith or first use the word in this discussion -but merely attempted to explain that my use of the word is not dissimilar to scientific method -it just involves subject matter not normally investigated by the scientific community. Substance essentially means evidence or proof. Faith begins with one truth and builds on it.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

For example, you are not Saul (who was eventually known as Paul) -so you would not have experienced what Saul experienced. There is no reason you should simply believe that he experienced what is written. However, if you were Saul and were struck down blind and told what to do to regain your sight, you would have had a very real experience which would likely change your perspective about what was true or possible -which in turn could cause you investigate what sort of being or power could have caused such a thing.

This is very different than blind belief. In Saul's case -he thought he had faith -thought he was acting on God's behalf -but actually had blind belief, until God gave him very real reason to begin to believe otherwise.

I understand that some are not interested in that which they have not experienced or that for which they have no evidence.
 Etritonakin
Joined: 7/10/2014
Msg: 69
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/16/2014 5:24:16 PM

that theory make as much sense as any other I suppose, you can neither prove or disprove it, it all comes down to faith once more.


In a sense, yes -but it may yet be possible to find proof that such is true or false.
 Etritonakin
Joined: 7/10/2014
Msg: 70
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/16/2014 5:27:52 PM

Please please please publish your empirical finding.


No -I am disputing conclusions based on incomplete observations and a lack of evidence.

Still investigating -though I may yet publish my empirical findings!
 Etritonakin
Joined: 7/10/2014
Msg: 71
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/16/2014 5:36:15 PM
Anyway -I'm out -before things start to get unfriendly -time brings more evidence -we'll see what we see -laters all!
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/17/2014 10:17:08 AM

The point to consider is that scientists don't create physical laws. A designer of nature may, but there is no evidence for such a unit in existence.


What you say raises an awkward question, physical laws do exist, something must have formed them or you'd be left with the primordial soup.

This response ^^^ is a non-sequitur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)



I think it's the same for any endeavour, it's all just opinion in the end, som opinions are more reasonable than others, that's all. Most don't read or study anything to gain their opinions, only believe what they've been told, all comes down to faith in the end.


Not necessarily. We all make inferences from inadequate evidence - that our car will start tomorrow, that the sun will rise etc etc etc.
Faith, however, is belief, or conviction, in the absence of evidence.

It doesn't 'all come down to faith in the end'. Some opinions are informed by reality.



I don't think anyone can be under any doubt that something very dramatic happened to humans, the human brain doubled in size in a remarkably short period of time. No one knows why.

What do you mean "very dramatic"?
What do you mean "doubled in size"?
What do you mean by "remarkably short period of time"?
What do you mean by "No one knows why"?

You are just spouting gibberish.


Humans are the only living thing that downloads ideas into three dimensional space, there is no other known life that does that. Again, no one knows why.


More gibberish in the form of a reverse inference with an anthropocentric flavour.


The alien intervention theory is quite popular at the current time..

Is it? With who?


...that theory make as much sense as any other I suppose...

Does it? So it has evidential support then?
Can you cite any papers?


...you can neither prove or disprove it...

You can "neither prove or disprove" that a giant unicorn spewed the universe into existence.
But that doesn't make the 'theory' plausible. Or as good as any other 'theory'.


...it all comes down to faith once more.

Only if you are gullible to the point of being intellectually comatose.
 abroncs
Joined: 7/6/2014
Msg: 73
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/25/2014 2:49:48 AM
"wouldn't know because it is irrelevant"
"it just happened, doesn't matter how, we can't change it now"
"no consensus"

McKinley, you are resorting your arguments to "it does not matter". It does matter. Just because you try to downplay the importance of evidence, in order to upstage your unreasoned (but nevertheless personally justifyable) faith, these things do matter. If you are throwing all evidence out because you want to defend the validity of faith, you have to throw everything out eventually.

That will lead to an absurd worldview. You are already trying to put forth convincing arguments that faith is more important than knowledge. By faith, like lyingcheat said, you "believe without any evidence" in somehting.

You value your faith over everything else. That's a philosophy, all right, and it's hard to convince others to follow your logic or reason. So you are now throwing reason and logic out -- does not matter, just happened, who cares.

This is not right. For you to beleive that, that is actually right; but for you to argue that others should accept that your faith is superior to knowledge of evidenced reality is not right. You can have you faith, all right; but please don't think that your arguments will convince anyone. Your desparation already shows in "who cares" statements.

If you keep dismissing the convincing arguments, then what are we to say to you? You tell us. You won't accept prior evidence, because "it does not matter". What matters then? What is it that matters, outside of your faith in the unevidenced? You tell us, and then we'll go from there.

As far as I am concerned, we've come to an impass. You reject our claims by dismissing their importance. We dismiss your claims as ones that have no prior evidence or any evidence.

I am talking about "claims" here as our and your basic stance, not the details of arguments. The basic claim that I put forth is that evidencial knowledge is more important than purely faith-based knowledge. I put forth the argument that "substance" as you seem to see it, is not part of the world as we know it.

You put forth the argument that there is a designer; you put forth the argument that if something exist, it was created by some intelligent designer, to be just so; your belief is based on faith, and you deem it superior to belief based on evidence.

I think we've come to a point at which it has crystallized which of us believes in what. Let's get back to the basics; your citing anthropological facts or discoveries is a bit meaningless here, while they do serve the proper aim of showing you do your research well and challenging your statements is not to be done lightly. However, I fail to see how the anthropological findings support your claim that faith has precedence over evidenced knowledge, it is superior to it, and that we should all accept that.
 abroncs
Joined: 7/6/2014
Msg: 74
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/25/2014 2:58:42 AM
The point to consider is that scientists don't create physical laws. A designer of nature may, but there is no evidence for such a unit in existence.


What you say raises an awkward question, physical laws do exist, something must have formed them or you'd be left with the primordial soup.


-----------------------

This above is contentious. You assume that if something exists, something else must have formed it. This is not a valid point. Things can form without something forming them. If you can't accept that, then maybe our concept of "forming" is different. Yes, to initiate and execute change, a priorly existing force must be present. In your view it's a something, a body, an entity. In my view the priorly existing force is a force of nature, something that has no will and no mind, no aim and no agenda whatsoever.

Please correct me if I am wrong in the assessment of your stance here. The stance, as I see is yours, (to paraphrase), is that there is an overseer unit which can influence the natural course of events of matter change, or changes in the arrangements in the material world. This overseer is supernatural, and we know about it only through faith which is belief without any evidential substantiation.

If my view of your stance is accurate, please let us know. If my view is false, please correct it intelligeably.
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/25/2014 1:33:11 PM

Humans are the only living thing that downloads ideas into three dimensional space, there is no other known life that does that.


Could you please give me an example of any known lifeforms other than humans which have consciously created anything...Just one example of a life that has consciously created, made it's ideas a reality in three dimensional space.

A bird makes a nest. A primate modifies a stick to use it for something. A prairie dog burrows a complex of tunnels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1zmfTr2d4c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ32_ijdmLo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJgfcOd1R7E
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/26/2014 9:54:00 AM
Last vid - begin at 16:25
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Open-minded Science?