nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 115:
Line 115: + Line 122:
Line 123: + Line 129:
Line 131: + + Line 141:
Line 145: +
→'Weak Atheism': Follow the evidence: even if it leads to God.
::::::So you ''a priori'' rule in the possibility of God existing BEFORE looking at the evidence. THAT is doing science based on a 'world view'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::So you ''a priori'' rule in the possibility of God existing BEFORE looking at the evidence. THAT is doing science based on a 'world view'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, that is proper science. Science doesn't (shouldn't) limit possible answers by having to "rule in" certain answers first. When an explanation for something is required, scientists don't have to consult a list of "ruled in" explanations to see what they are allowed to consider as possible explanations. And neither should they have to consult a list of "ruled out" explanations. They should be free to consider any explanation that fits the observations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 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)
::: "''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)
::::::And the reason you believe that is, apparantly, discounting the possibility that God exists due to a lack of evidence is down to a 'world view', not science. Unfortunately, you haven't explained your reasoning as to how you came to the conclusion that following the evidence is not scientific, considering that examining the evidence is the whole basis of scientific enquiry. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::And the reason you believe that is, apparantly, discounting the possibility that God exists due to a lack of evidence is down to a 'world view', not science. Unfortunately, you haven't explained your reasoning as to how you came to the conclusion that following the evidence is not scientific, considering that examining the evidence is the whole basis of scientific enquiry. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Following the evidence ''is'' scientific. And if the evidence ''points to an intelligent creator'', scientists should be free to consider that explanation. Ruling that explanation out ''a priori'' is imposing ideology on the science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 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)
::: "''...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)
::::::But you were originally arguing that it is unscientific to follow the evidence, basically. You did not actually reference that essay until well into this discussion. Does this mean I should have already read this essay, so that I knew what you were apparantly arguing wasn't what you were REALLY arguing? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::But you were originally arguing that it is unscientific to follow the evidence, basically. You did not actually reference that essay until well into this discussion. Does this mean I should have already read this essay, so that I knew what you were apparantly arguing wasn't what you were REALLY arguing? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I have never said that following the evidence is unscientific. On the contrary, I believe that science means following the evidence, even if that leads to God being the explanation. Which you can't do if you've already ruled God out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: How do you ''scientifically test'' that there were people in England capable of building Stonehenge at the time that it was supposed to be built? You can't. But does that therefore mean that you can't propose such people as builders of the monument? Of course not. But you would argue (if you are being consistent with your arguments about God) that you can't propose that people built Stonehenge because you can't scientifically prove the existence of such people! Instead, you are forced to conclude that Stonehenge is a natural phenomenon, presumably carved by the wind and rain over thousands of years! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: How do you ''scientifically test'' that there were people in England capable of building Stonehenge at the time that it was supposed to be built? You can't. But does that therefore mean that you can't propose such people as builders of the monument? Of course not. But you would argue (if you are being consistent with your arguments about God) that you can't propose that people built Stonehenge because you can't scientifically prove the existence of such people! Instead, you are forced to conclude that Stonehenge is a natural phenomenon, presumably carved by the wind and rain over thousands of years! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, where this argument falls to pieces is that there is pretty damn clear-cut evidence of the existence of man in Britain at the time. If you were saying hypothetically what if there was no evidence of man in Britain, then yes, you would be correct - we couldn't scientifically test it. However, from the evidence we actually have, if man didn't exist in Britain at the time, neither would Stonehenge. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, where this argument falls to pieces is that there is pretty damn clear-cut evidence of the existence of man in Britain at the time. If you were saying hypothetically what if there was no evidence of man in Britain, then yes, you would be correct - we couldn't scientifically test it. However, from the evidence we actually have, if man didn't exist in Britain at the time, neither would Stonehenge. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Yes, I was being hypothetical, as I said. And yes, if man didn't exist in Britain at the time, then neither would Stonehenge. But that's putting things back to front. If you ''didn't know'' that men existed in Britain at the time, but you ''did know'' that Stonehenge exists, would you (a) conclude that men must have existed at the time, or (b) ruled out that men could have made Stonehenge because you don't have evidence that men existed in Britain at the time? Your methodology in regard to God is the latter: you are saying that God couldn't have made the world because you don't have evidence that God exists. Instead, you could, like choice (a), conclude that the evidence leads you to conclude that God does exist, because that's a more reasonable explanation than saying that the universe popped into existence from nothing for no reason. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 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.
::::::You missed the part about proposing solutions <u>based on evidence</u>. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::You missed the part about proposing solutions <u>based on evidence</u>. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I didn't miss it at all. I agree with that part, which is why I said "yes". I've also now expanded on that above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)