203
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 96:
Line 96: + + Line 101:
Line 103: − + + + + − + − + − + + + + + + + + + + + +
→'Weak Atheism'
::::::::::::No, doing science that way follows the most basic of basic of scientific principles - that being that you do work based on evidence. I also refer you to my comments below. Why can't scientists do work on the basis that there ''might be'' an invisible pink unicorn? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::No, doing science that way follows the most basic of basic of scientific principles - that being that you do work based on evidence. I also refer you to my comments below. Why can't scientists do work on the basis that there ''might be'' an invisible pink unicorn? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: No, true science will not rule out a possible explanation ''a priori''. Good question: why ''can't'' scientists work on the basis that there might be an invisible pink unicorn? That is, why rule out a possible explanation in advance? If the evidence is consistent with there being an invisible pink unicorn, why should scientists say "no, we can't accept that answer, even if it's true"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: No, true science will not rule out a possible explanation ''a priori''. Good question: why ''can't'' scientists work on the basis that there might be an invisible pink unicorn? That is, why rule out a possible explanation in advance? If the evidence is consistent with there being an invisible pink unicorn, why should scientists say "no, we can't accept that answer, even if it's true"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Simple - with enough imagination (and that's not much), people can make up, on the spot, patently absurd possibilities that are impossible to disprove. Look up Flying Spaghetti Monster for a classic example - it is a completely made-up 'religion' that, according to your argument, is a solid bit of science, as no-one has yet conclusively disproven it. Similarly, the invisible pink unicorn is a solid bit of science, as is the idea that the universe was created by being sneezed out of the nostril of the Great Snozuflu. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) So, to summarise what appears to be your entire argument, what you are basically saying is that you are free to propose anything you like, and, if people cannot definitively prove you wrong, that is a solid scientific theory. OK, I'll do this myself. The universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn which cannot be seen or detected by any known method. Prove me wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:22, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) So, to summarise what appears to be your entire argument, what you are basically saying is that you are free to propose anything you like, and, if people cannot definitively prove you wrong, that is a solid scientific theory. OK, I'll do this myself. The universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn which cannot be seen or detected by any known method. Prove me wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:22, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry, so far, you have argued on the basis that there is no absolute proof that God does not exist (in much the same way as there is no absolute proof that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist), and you are using that to try to say that to do science on the basis of there being no God is unscientific. Indeed, that is how this whole discussion started - you making an edit to the effect that failing to reinterpret evidence to account for the existence of God due to a lack of evidence for God existing is down to a 'world view', not science. Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is, you now seem to be changing the argument to 'scientifically testing the existence of God is impossible, even if He does exist'. Well, that may or may not be true, but, if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, even if the reason is that it is impossible to scientifically test it, that is still unscientific. Unless, of course, you're referring to the rest of that section of your essay, in which case you appear to be saying, more or less, 'because the 'evidence' is enough to convince <u>some people</u> of the existence of God, regardless of whether that evidence is solid, objective or anything else, it is unscientific to base anything on the idea God does not exist.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry, so far, you have argued on the basis that there is no absolute proof that God does not exist (in much the same way as there is no absolute proof that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist), and you are using that to try to say that to do science on the basis of there being no God is unscientific. Indeed, that is how this whole discussion started - you making an edit to the effect that failing to reinterpret evidence to account for the existence of God due to a lack of evidence for God existing is down to a 'world view', not science. Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is, you now seem to be changing the argument to 'scientifically testing the existence of God is impossible, even if He does exist'. Well, that may or may not be true, but, if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, even if the reason is that it is impossible to scientifically test it, that is still unscientific. Unless, of course, you're referring to the rest of that section of your essay, in which case you appear to be saying, more or less, 'because the 'evidence' is enough to convince <u>some people</u> of the existence of God, regardless of whether that evidence is solid, objective or anything else, it is unscientific to base anything on the idea God does not exist.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''... so far, you have argued on the basis that there is no absolute proof that God does not exist...''": I don't think I've put my argument in quite that way, but I'll grant that this would be inferred from what I've said as ''one'' of my points, but not the key or only point of my argument.
::: "''... so far, you have argued on the basis that there is no absolute proof that God does not exist...''": I don't think I've put my argument in quite that way, but I'll grant that this would be inferred from what I've said as ''one'' of my points, but not the key or only point of my argument.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, sorry, I 'infer' that from pretty much everything you have said above, so, if that is not the 'key or only point of your argument', you need to learn to express yourself better. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...you are using that to try to say that to do science on the basis of there being no God is unscientific.''": Again, that could be ''inferred'', but my point really was that one shouldn't rule out a possible explanation in ''a priori''.
::: "''...you are using that to try to say that to do science on the basis of there being no God is unscientific.''": Again, that could be ''inferred'', but my point really was that one shouldn't rule out a possible explanation in ''a priori''.
::: "''...failing to reinterpret evidence to account for the existence of God due to a lack of evidence for God existing is down to a 'world view', not science.''": No, ruling out a possible explanation ''a priori'' is down to a worldview, not science.
::: "''...failing to reinterpret evidence to account for the existence of God due to a lack of evidence for God existing is down to a 'world view', not science.''": No, ruling out a possible explanation ''a priori'' is down to a worldview, not science.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is...''": Given that that wasn't my argument, you've only demolished a straw-man.
::: "''...you now seem to be changing the argument to 'scientifically testing the existence of God is impossible, even if He does exist'''": No, I've ''acknowledged that'' all along (that is in [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]), but I'm not "changing the argument".
::::Actually, that's not quite correct - you use the evidence to, in effect, 'rule in' possibilities. You start from the basis of nothing at all. Starting from the idea that God exists is not doing that. Starting from nothing means that you have to see solid evidence of the existence of God before you accept that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is...''": Given that that wasn't my argument, you've only demolished a straw-man.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Then it's a 'straw man' you constructed yourself. What is your actual argument, then, given that everything you have stated above seems to be concerned with the idea that there is no absolute proof of the non-existence of God? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...you now seem to be changing the argument to 'scientifically testing the existence of God is impossible, even if He does exist'''": No, I've ''acknowledged that'' all along (that is in [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]), but I'm not "changing the argument".[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Ah, right, so I'm supposed to have read all your essays, and rely on them rather than what you say here if the two seem to be advancing different arguments. Sorry about that(!) Of course, the other point is that if, as you say, it is utterly impossible to scientifically test if God exists or not, I fail to see how you can argue that it is scientific to base anything on the idea that God exists. Yes, you can have a religious faith this is so, and you can say that this might be so from a philiosophical point of view, but you simply cannot say this from a scientific point of view. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, ... that is still unscientific''": Not at all. You seem to be saying that the solutions have to be proved before they can be proposed. Science is about ''proposing'' solutions then trying to determine if they are correct. Sometimes you are unable to prove them one way or the other, which means that (in a scientific sense) the solution remains tentative. But you don't rule out a solution/explanation ''a priori'' on the basis that the solution/explanation hasn't (yet) been proved.
::: "''...if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, ... that is still unscientific''": Not at all. You seem to be saying that the solutions have to be proved before they can be proposed. Science is about ''proposing'' solutions then trying to determine if they are correct. Sometimes you are unable to prove them one way or the other, which means that (in a scientific sense) the solution remains tentative. But you don't rule out a solution/explanation ''a priori'' on the basis that the solution/explanation hasn't (yet) been proved.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::You almost got that correct. Science is about proposing solutions <u>based on evidence</u>, then trying to determine if they are correct. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)