In answer to your first question, no. In fact, I would say that anything attempting to explain the origin of the existence of things is probably better thought of as an hypothesis, though there is some evidence for a very few of these hypotheses. The hypothesis that god did it is not one of these, and in fact that hypothesis has zero evidence. When you or anyone else indulges in accepting a hypothesis as true, you are engaging in faith. I do not accept any hypothesis about the origin of existence at this time.
In partial answer to your second question: one reason theories are better than faith is because they adjust as new evidence presents itself. They are flexible, where faith is not. If faith were to become flexible, it would no longer be faith, but rather reverts to a hypotheses, tentative, and uncertain. That is one small step in a better direction. A larger step in that direction is when hypotheses are subjected to testing, and a willingness to adjust them according to observable evidence. Yet another step in that direction is a willingness to abandon them when evidence is found which substantially contravenes them.
Theories are also better than faith because they have so much overwhelming evidence which supports them that the only rational course of action is to let them guide a significant part of your thinking and action as if you knew them to be fully proved. Faith has no such overwhelming evidence. Indulging in faith causes people to ignore evidence, twist facts, even causes people to lie to themselves and others. All with the aim of protecting that faith.
As such, theories are better than faith because they allow for and foster the pursuit of objective truth as an ideal, and even foster the pursuit of subjective truth. Despite people's notions otherwise, faith does the opposite, because it causes people to prematurely accept as true things which have zero evidence. Again, Faith, in other words, is the act of accepting an hypothesis as if it were true, before it is tested for evidence. And yet again, faith is anathema to truth, objective or otherwise.
There is no reason to accept a hypothesis as true, to engage in faith. In fact this would be slightly or greatly foolish, depending on the hypothesis.
So, what I have answered, actually, is why it is better to engage in evidence based acceptance of things, rather than faith based acceptance of things. I answered this question instead of the one you asked because you would have misunderstood my position if I had answered your question as if it were about accepting science's hypothesis on the origin as opposed to one of the myriad faith based hypotheses.
But, now to answer that question, it is indeed better to hold the scientific hypotheses in higher regard because they do have at least some evidence, whereas hypotheses about god doing it, and these are accepted on faith, do not.
As to why scientific hypotheses are better for science classes than faith based hypotheses: Scientific ones are falsifiable, faith based ones are not. Science demands a falsifiable hypothesis.
Finally, I will say this: just because you don't have an evidence based explanation for something you are not compelled to accept whatever explanation you prefer because it suits your taste or your sentiments. When people ask me, or I ask myself, "what is the origin of things?" I answer "we don't know". And we don't, neither you nor I do, nor does anyone else that we know of. You may believe something about the matter, but belief is not 'knowing'.
Well that's nothing new ask two yes or no questions get a 9 paragraph speech.
Bottom line you got no proof
Second answer what it's better to be an athiest cause are explanation is longer?
As far as how God works I do not know.
Once I suggested that perhaps God started evolution planted some ideas and sent the human race on it's way.
This idea was met with some greivous from bothe organized religion and athiest as well as agnostic.
The idea that this could happen according to organized religion God would have to have something to do with science that we can not tolerate.
The atheist and some agnostic said that this could never happen since science would have to be connected to God this we can not allow
Yet ask organized religion on the basis of the orgin of things they make a speech but have no proof but it can't b have anything to do with science.
Ask a faith believer they say I have faith but no proof
Ask an athiest they say we don't know but it can't be God or intellectual design.
If you truely don't know how do you know you can exclude anything??eace
You do know that each of your umm Hypotheses ends with the word theory do you not?
Flexible yet unproven?
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
I think you're confusing theories and hypotheses... again.
Read through their differences: Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method
Verified and accepted by who to be true.
Sorry but according to Websters, theory is plan, scheme, fomula, analysis, doctrine hypotheseis, speculation supposition contempllation, no where does iit say fact or proven fact.
Of course that was copyright 1983.
Perhaps you've changed the meaning since then, when were you going to start burning these books with the old meaning?
However bottom line you got no proof, nothing iron clad.eace
welcome back to the circus, tim. i started a response to this earlier... lost my connection. I am gonna respond in separate posts to the separate issues, if you have no objections. it will help to avoid the "kid's toybox" effect
the statement "The universe is perfect, God is perfect" does nothing to define either God or perfection or the universe.
your initial statement is true, but says nothing
the car cannot be blue. the car is red because it cannot be any color but red and STILL be red. any imperfection in a creation by a consistent being is an illusion.... it must be 'perfect' if it is consistent WITH that being- it cannot be otherwise... there is no otherwise to be
now, this does not exclude God (of any description) from reason. it does not negate the premise of a designed universe - as you can see, a universe without God has the same qualifications. i only mention it to keep us aligned with a+b=c, avoiding the a=a=a pseudo-syllogism.
a die does NOT produce a random number in the sense that there is no cause for it. there IS a cause. the numbers were placed on the die. the die was caused to tumble. how it finally settles is determined by the laws of Newtonian physics. it is random only in the sense that it is unpredictable. it is unpredictable for the same reason that the weather is... the process is far too complicated for anyone to anticipate all the micro-causes within it. but that does not mean that the causes are not there. it was this sorta thing that produced Chaos and Complexity theories in physics
well, as a colloquial usage, i suppose, and yes it is a step in evolution at work. but no, it is not natural selection.
Natural selection is a mechanism that produces changes in the gene frequency from one generation to the next. As a result, organisms become better adapted to their environment. It is important to keep in mind . . . that natural selection does not act on individuals; it acts on populations. Individual organisms cannot become better-adapted to their environment.
Evolution is fact, can and has been shown. Is evolution the ONLY process going on in predicating the form of every living thing? THAT is unproven as unprovable, but it is certainly the prevailing opinion among scientists.
of course it is. that is the whole point of ID. but in saying so, proponents are putting the horse before the cart - you are coming to a conclusion based on something OTHER than evidence, then looking for evidence to show that you conclusion is "right". that is not really how science works.
we are OF the universe. so are rocks. rocks are NOT intelligent. so the universe is and is not intelligent. sorry, tim, but this just doesn't seem to carry a lot of meaning.
exactly. existence IS meaningless. "meaning" is meaningless. (OK... NOW i am in for it).
again, there seems a lack of connective tissue between premise A: a rock is not intelligent and premise B: the solar system is intelligent. if it seems a reasonable extrapolation that 'intelligence' cannot come from nowhere (which is what it sounds as if you are saying) and so must exist 'of itself'.... i think we might want to examine what we mean by 'intelligence'.
I mentioned it because he also draws parallels between the bizarre phenomena that QM proposes and much of Eastern philosophical thinking. in that, i think there a suggestion of corollary between pure science and pure philosophy that might suggest an intelligence behind it
I don't know what you mean when you say I "don't support aliens." I've mentioned in other threads that extraterrestrial life is no more likely to exist, absent evidence, than the flying spaghetti monster. But if aliens did exist, and I see no reason to think the cannot exist in principle, nothing I'm speaking of would change. Their subjective experience would have value as well.
Let's analyze what you are really saying here. You aren't making a scientific argument, because you are not basing any of this on data. You are philosophizing as to where to place value. You have an intuition that tells you there must be something greater than our mundane experiences here on earth, but you can't put your finger on what. Despite dressing it up in scientific terminology, you are basically talking about the religious impulse.
And I think that's great if people can use science to achieve religious ends. But what's happening to you is that science, while underlying the religious questions you are asking, is also serving as an impediment to your achieving any understanding or resolution of them. You're so caught up in filling in the gaps left by science that your imagination fills in those gaps with sciencey sounding stuff that has no basis in data. It's not only depressing, it's fundamentally illogical. You need to just let go and allow yourself to be happy.
Hello, just seeing what everyone's thoughts are on intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that life and the universe were created by a highly sophisticated entity known as the intelligent designer, or intelligent agent. This intelligent designer then created the universe to it's own specifications and created life in it. It's a non-religious view on creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution and natural selection. What are your thoughts on intelligent design?
More Info: Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well that's nothing new ask two yes or no questions get a 9 paragraph speech.
Bottom line you got no proof
Second answer what it's better to be an athiest cause are explanation is longer?
As far as how God works I do not know.
Once I suggested that perhaps God started evolution planted some ideas and sent the human race on it's way.
This idea was met with some greivous from bothe organized religion and athiest as well as agnostic.
The idea that this could happen according to organized religion God would have to have something to do with science that we can not tolerate.
The atheist and some agnostic said that this could never happen since science would have to be connected to God this we can not allow
Yet ask organized religion on the basis of the orgin of things they make a speech but have no proof but it can't b have anything to do with science.
Ask a faith believer they say I have faith but no proof
Ask an athiest they say we don't know but it can't be God or intellectual design.
If you truely don't know how do you know you can exclude anything??eace
You do know that each of your umm Hypotheses ends with the word theory do you not?
Flexible yet unproven?
There is no physical proof that a species has evolved from another species. Just ideas and theories and nothing more.
Non religious view on creationism... that's kind of contradictory
I already did explain it. What does evolution do to refute intelligent design?
Tim-
I honestly have no idea how anyone could work it out to be anything but at least theistic, so I concur with your assessment. It is a religious view, even if not specific to any particular creation myth. It is, in the end, a speculation which postulates that at least one of the creation myths is in fact true.
Conform to known fact.
Yes, but it has no forward-looking predictive value. Einstien's theory of relativity predicted numerous things, and we have discovered some of them. Among them is gravitational lensing, and phenomenon recently proven. Many others..
Tim-
Not necessarily. Keeping in mind the axiom that any science significantly advanced will seem like magic to a lesser advanced level of science, then we can take that to a further extreme and postulate, in the ID theory, that the universe was indeed created by design, but said designer is not the omniscient, omnipotent entity we typically refer to as God. In other words, this creator or creators (as it could be a team) are outside our universe and are conducting an experiment. Time flow for them could be hours to our eons.
How about increased mutation rates in more dynamic environments upon which we base our seasonal flu vaccinations and predict antibiotic resistance?
Ok, I thought of that. But, how could these creators be different from actual gods?
And as for this speculation, which is what it is, how would we verify it? How would we study it? If we cannot, it does not belong in a science class.
Tim, thanks for returning. given the rather minor, even picky, distinction between 'making predictions, and "predicting", the above seems true, yeah... annoying, innit?"Perfect" . . .could be defined as simply understanding at a fundamental level that the universe seems . . .to have some direction. Consider. We can get from there to here, but we cannot go from here to back to there.
We can predict the future, and direct our resources to that location, but what we can't do is know how to get back here, once we get there. This implies a forward momentum, or some "directional movement" that cannot return along its original path.
again, cannot dispute that. what physicists would say is everything DOES follow that rule. We are simply incapable of experiencing it intellectually. they would have it that time as a unidirectional dimension is a product of our consciousness, not of time itself. Our awareness of events occurs as events (points in time) become observable. now, I personally do not pretend to understand this vary well (though i find the idea fascinating) and so will not pretend to explain it.This does not mean it is a perfect thing (The universe), but if there is one rule that would remain consistent in spite of our presence, it would be that EVERYTHING in the universe would follow this rule. All of the energy, and all its matter cannot get back there, from here.
i still think the 'universe is perfect' statement to be essentially empty and essentially inessential to the meat of the argument. the red car and such... is an example of "begging the question" ("a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true") - in this case, of the meaning of perfection. the universe is perfect because it cannot be imperfect.I know of nothing more perfect outside the inconceivable boundaries that is the universe.
arguable. complexity seems to demonstrate intelligence. that is why we came up with 'weather gods'... the planet's weather systems certain seem to be alive, to act willfully. complexity and emergence is where these same sorta questions have driven many physicists (and science philosophers). i love playing in that field myself. The book Complexity by M. Mitchell Waldrop is one of the most amazing books i have ever read. there is a new edition out... i still have my old one, but maybe i will get the new one, too.Most would agree there are aspects of the universe that are intelligent systems, (Mechanics if you will) but those same people would argue that these systems were not, nor could they have been designed, correct?
again, an assumption, WE are intelligent systems. I would argue that, if WE have a purpose, i cannot discover it.All intelligent systems. . . were designed with purpose.
random only as a synonym of unpredictable, but that unpredictability is a limitation in our intellectual powers, not a trait of the die OR of the process [the newtonian physics) of tossing them.The purpose, and the indication of intelligence is in recognition of that design.
[ . . . . when the dice are caused to move, the number they finally settle on, regardless of how many sides, or numbers, will always be random!
well, this is an instance of your choosing you definition over theirs. but... that an indvidual within a population MAY in fact, be individually better able to exploit the benefits of his environment still does not equate to evolution. that may make him a detriment to his environment (as humans frequently are).The offspring of two organisms can become better adapted to their environment, than the previous generation. Evolutionary theorists don't like this truism because it represents an important gap in their logic. Natural selection simply cannot be observed in a single individual offspring, and the only way to measure evolution is by what populations do, but the predictive power is only retrodictive.
evolution has no sight whatsoever.What I am suggesting is that you should also consider that natural selection as a mechanism, is only retrodictive. For instance, NS has hindsight, it has no foresight.
nicely summarized. yes, you can conceive...so could the ancients... hebrews, greeks, celts... and it makes for fine philosophy. it does not make for science.retrodictive powers need not invoke any defining purpose, only cause. . . . [ID's] central theory demands that design have purpose. I've argued just how we can conceive, and attribute purpose from design, but you're not buying it. I respect that, but it doesn't make me wrong.
order is observable, intelligence as a cause of that order is an unsupported assumption. look closely at the following extract summary:I don't agree with you that I have drawn a conclusion and then searched for the premises. I observe that there is an intelligence, and order in the universe
systems are designed as far as I know . . . leads me to believe . . . .if it is true, . . . the universe must also be . . .and if so
I think that applied philosophy bridges the gap between direction, and science, when science shows no direction. (Stuck in the mud) You might argue that science doesn't have a direction, but if we stipulate that the universe, in terms of time, has direction, then, yeah science has a direction, and it is away from the past!
For webster, scientific theory is 5) "5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> "
I mean, the theory of gravity, no proof, nothing iron clad, right?
Verified and accepted to be true by scientists, experts in their fields.
A scientific theory is not a regular theory.
Come on , man you can do better than that.
Verified and accepted by scientist please you are talking natural law here if they hadn't verified or accepted it what we would all just float away??? lol
We both know that gravity was not invented or proven , gravity was around long before the word gravity was used .
Gravity has been proven time and again where there is no gravity what happens you float right, where there is gravity you don't that's proof enough for me.
Some scientific theories can be proven aka the spliting of an atom, DNA map.and the list goes on.
Perhaps one day alternitive fuel as well as space travel to distant solar sytemes will be scientific theories that can be proven.
These are theories that can and should be worked on harder instead of trying to theorize on the creation got started.
Which every theory that has been presented by scientist about the creation of the universe as holes in it so wide you could drive a truck through.
I can understand people questioning me having faith in someone that I can not prove but some of these scientific theories make my faith look pretty good.eace
I am not excluding anything. Give me evidence that god did it, and I will consider it. Give me overwhelming evidence that god did it, and I will accept that god did. I do know that some are going to find this next bit offensive, but I really don't know any other way to make the same argument clearly, so here goes: Give me evidence pink unicorns did it, and I will consider it. Give me overwhelming evidence that pink unicorns did it, and I will accept it.
Can't you see where we are at here? You accuse atheists of excluding god from the set of explanations, and yet it is you that excludes an infinite number of alternate explanations. If you have evidence, real evidence, for why you choose to consider that god did it as opposed to considering that pink unicorns did it, atheists will take your evidence seriously. Really, they will, trust me on that. But you don't, or at least, you have not presented it. And in years and years of discussing these matters, never has any believer presented to me any evidence whatsoever that god did it.
So, atheists consign "god did it" to the bin containing the magical pink unicorn hypotheses, along with an infinite number of imaginative other speculations. We are ready and willing to retrieve any of those speculations out of the bin. Just give us evidence.
And just for the record, my descriptions of hypotheses did not turn into me calling them theories. I was talking about two separate but related matters, and contrasting hypotheses with theories. I am sorry you didn't understand that. I even oversimplified the matter a bit in order not to bring unnecessary confusion into it. You really do need to gain a firm grasp of speculation, hypothesizing and theories. In science, not Websters. If you do not do this, you will continue to fail to understand what people are talking about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?