203
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 119:
Line 119: + + Line 138:
Line 140: + + Line 146:
Line 150: + + Line 159:
Line 165: + + + + +
→'Weak Atheism'
:::::::: You've got it almost right in your last sentence - they should, indeed, be free to consider any explanation that fits the observations, but they base those possible explanations on those observations. To 'rule in' any explanation before examining the evidence is filtering science through a 'world view'. Otherwise we have the situation of the invisible pink unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Great Snozuflu being solid science, as there is nothing conclusively proving them wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: You've got it almost right in your last sentence - they should, indeed, be free to consider any explanation that fits the observations, but they base those possible explanations on those observations. To 'rule in' any explanation before examining the evidence is filtering science through a 'world view'. Otherwise we have the situation of the invisible pink unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Great Snozuflu being solid science, as there is nothing conclusively proving them wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: What do you think "rule in" means? To me it simply means not "ruling out". Atheists ''rule out'' God as a possible explanation before considering the evidence: that's not science. And you are making an almighty leap to suggest that ''allowing for the possibility of'' the invisible pink unicorn, etc. amounts to them being "solid science". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: What do you think "rule in" means? To me it simply means not "ruling out". Atheists ''rule out'' God as a possible explanation before considering the evidence: that's not science. And you are making an almighty leap to suggest that ''allowing for the possibility of'' the invisible pink unicorn, etc. amounts to them being "solid science". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::If you 'rule out' something, this means it was 'on the table', so to speak, as a possibility, then something made you reject it as a possibility. If something is 'ruled in', it means it was not 'on the table', but something made you start to consider it as a possibility. In science, as I have said, you start with nothing 'on the table' and use evidence to rule possibilities in. As for comment about the invisible pink unicorn, if you're not considering it as solid science, why would you base absolutely anything on that idea, then? This lesson is told in the Bible, so you should know it, but is true of science as well - anything is only as solid as what it's built on. Any 'science' that is built on anything that is not solid science is itself not solid science. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 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 despite putting this in the article and saying it here several times, you still don't get it. Science hasn't 'ruled out' God, and neither has 'weak atheism'. It has, basically, failed to 'rule in' God as <u>there is no solid objective evidence of God</u>. I should also point out that, if you now admit that following the evidence is scientific, then the edit you made to the article, which started this whole discussion off, is wrong - 'weak atheism' follows the evidence, as does science. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: And despite putting this in the article and saying it here several times, you still don't get it. Science hasn't 'ruled out' God, and neither has 'weak atheism'. It has, basically, failed to 'rule in' God as <u>there is no solid objective evidence of God</u>. I should also point out that, if you now admit that following the evidence is scientific, then the edit you made to the article, which started this whole discussion off, is wrong - 'weak atheism' follows the evidence, as does science. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You say that "Science hasn't 'ruled out' God", yet according to your version of the article, "science is done on the basis of there being no God". ''That'' is "ruling out" God. Yes you do qualify it by saying "unless His existence becomes objectively proven", but all that says is that ''if'' at some future time, God's existence is proven, ''then'' you can consider Him a possible explanation. (Which is tantamount to saying, if weak atheism ceases to be atheistic...!). Until then, however, He is ''ruled out'' as a possible explanation. "Weak atheism", if it does science on the basis of there being no God, is ''not'' following the evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You say that "Science hasn't 'ruled out' God", yet according to your version of the article, "science is done on the basis of there being no God". ''That'' is "ruling out" God. Yes you do qualify it by saying "unless His existence becomes objectively proven", but all that says is that ''if'' at some future time, God's existence is proven, ''then'' you can consider Him a possible explanation. (Which is tantamount to saying, if weak atheism ceases to be atheistic...!). Until then, however, He is ''ruled out'' as a possible explanation. "Weak atheism", if it does science on the basis of there being no God, is ''not'' following the evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::The science is based on the idea there is no God as there is no evidence of God, as I have stated repeatedly. So, according to your argument, it is scientific to totally disregard the evidence and base your conclusions on imagination. This only confirms to me that you do not have the slightest clue about even the basics of scientific practice. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 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)
::::::::Sorry, in absence of solid evidence, to follow scientific practice, I would have to conclude (b), in your hypothetical situation, which would leave the question of 'who built Stonehenge?' unsanswered. I could maybe propose (a) as an unproven hypothesis, or even a pure conjecture, but it would face major problems to be overcome before it could even remotely be called a 'theory'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Sorry, in absence of solid evidence, to follow scientific practice, I would have to conclude (b), in your hypothetical situation, which would leave the question of 'who built Stonehenge?' unsanswered. I could maybe propose (a) as an unproven hypothesis, or even a pure conjecture, but it would face major problems to be overcome before it could even remotely be called a 'theory'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: It's just as well you're not a scientists then (or at least I hope you're not), if you are willing to ignore the evidence that there must have been men in Britain at the time Stonehenge was built (the evidence being Stonehenge itself) simply because there's no ''independent'' evidence that men were in Britain at the time. This debate has gone on long enough, and I'm restoring the article, because you have argued yourself into a corner. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: It's just as well you're not a scientists then (or at least I hope you're not), if you are willing to ignore the evidence that there must have been men in Britain at the time Stonehenge was built (the evidence being Stonehenge itself) simply because there's no ''independent'' evidence that men were in Britain at the time. This debate has gone on long enough, and I'm restoring the article, because you have argued yourself into a corner. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::If the only evidence of the existence of man in Britain at the time Stonehenge was built was the simple fact that Stonehenge existed, you can, at best, state that man built Stonehenge as an unproven hypothesis. In the case of direct experimentation to test the hypothesis being impossible, a hypothesis becomes a solid scientific theory through independant evidence conforming to that hypothesis. Again, this is basic scientific practice. The fact you don't know this is more evidence, quite frankly, of your ignorance of science. As for 'arguing myself into a corner', sorry, from my point of view, it is you who have argued yourself into one - by your argument, the only way that you can revert that article and actually think it's accurate is if you genuinely think the invisible pink unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Snozuflu and the idea that we were created by Zmopugvf of the plant Xijtfbvj (just to make another one up on the spot) is, in any way, solid science. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 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.
:::::::::Having read this whole fascinating correspondence I have to say that Urushnor is correct. The point "Weak Atheism" makes is that there is no evidence that God exists. It goes on to suggest that - given this - we have no obligation, need, or reason to to believe in Him.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:11, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Having read this whole fascinating correspondence I have to say that Urushnor is correct. The point "Weak Atheism" makes is that there is no evidence that God exists. It goes on to suggest that - given this - we have no obligation, need, or reason to to believe in Him.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:11, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: I'm ''not'' considering possible explanations before looking at the evidence! I'm considering possible explanations ''for'' the evidence, without rejecting any because they have not been independently ''proven''.
:::::::::: I'm ''not'' considering possible explanations before looking at the evidence! I'm considering possible explanations ''for'' the evidence, without rejecting any because they have not been independently ''proven''.
:::::::::::For <u>what</u> evidence? You haven't looked at any yet. You look at the evidence <u>first</u>. Once you do that, you come up with explanations <u>based on that evidence</u>, then, essentially, try to disprove them by experimentation, if possible. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: Furthermore (and this is answering both of you), it is absolute nonsense to suggest that there is no evidence for God's existence. The very fact that we exist is evidence!
:::::::::: Furthermore (and this is answering both of you), it is absolute nonsense to suggest that there is no evidence for God's existence. The very fact that we exist is evidence!
:::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for Allah. It's also evidence for Jehovah. It's also evidence for YHWH. It's also evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. It's also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's also evidence for the Great Snozuflu. It's also evidence for anything and everything that my imagination can conjure up to explain the beginnings of life generally, or the beginnings of man specifically. And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)