OwlJacket Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:LOTD? I know a number of highly esteemed scientists who respect Hugh Ross.

That's fine. But "we don't understand, therefore it must be magic" does not meet any of the standards of the scientific discipline.

Although it does make it easier to explain....

blah Wrote:

OwlJacket Wrote:That's fine. But "we don't understand, therefore it must be magic" does not meet any of the standards of the scientific discipline.

Although it does make it easier to explain....

I am kinda stumped on parts of my dissertation. Maybe I'll try that approach and see if that will fly.

Something tells me it won't.

OwlJacket Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:LOTD? I know a number of highly esteemed scientists who respect Hugh Ross.

That's fine. But "we don't understand, therefore it must be magic" does not meet any of the standards of the scientific discipline.

Assuming a purely materialistic universe, and giving scientific names to phenomena does not either. However, this is the approach taken by most who study origins.

I'm not sure how you read "it must be magic" in the document that was presented. I confess I only skimmed the few pages explicitly mentioned, but it seemed to be a reasonable approach to the likelihood of extraterrestrials. Frankly, if the logical conclusion IS that there is a 'supernatural', then that most emphatically IS science.

DrTorch Wrote:Frankly, if the logical conclusion IS that there is a 'supernatural', then that most emphatically IS science.

You have ten postulates to explain an observation. Nine postulates are demonstrated to be false. Does this mean the tenth postulate must therefore automatically be true?

OwlJacket Wrote:

blah Wrote:

OwlJacket Wrote:That's fine. But "we don't understand, therefore it must be magic" does not meet any of the standards of the scientific discipline.

Although it does make it easier to explain....

I am kinda stumped on parts of my dissertation. Maybe I'll try that approach and see if that will fly.

Something tells me it won't.

What you need is Joe Pesci.....

Or does he only work at Harvard?

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:And in case nobody noticed, I brought religion into this initially, albeit humorously.

That point escaped me (not the sarcasm, but your fsm reference). Incidentally, since this thread has all but lost, I found this article - by way of a book review - pretty informative, and in line with my own observations on many of the discussions here (scroll down to "In the Beginning"). I am accustomed to viewing Faith and Reason as irreconcilable basically by mutual agreement, but that doesn't really work with those like Dr. Torch, since he makes no concessions on the point, and it's unwise to assume he does.

I45owl Wrote:I am accustomed to viewing Faith and Reason as irreconcilable basically by mutual agreement, but that doesn't really work with those like Dr. Torch, since he makes no concessions on the point, and it's unwise to assume he does.

Viewing Faith and Reason as irroconcilable is a 19th and 20th C construct; and even then it has not been universally held even by the most rigorous scholars for each regime. It is not necessarily true, nor is it particularly wise to assume so; although in all fairness it is largely dependent on the definition of "Faith" which tends to vary widely.

In writing about old books, C. S. Lewis noted, ?Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.?

I would suggest that holds true for many areas of study. I wouldn't hold fast to the notion of Faith and Reason being irreconcilable until I had investigated much more than a few decades of thought from a handful of persons, most of whom push a specific agenda.

I don't read 'Skeptic' magazine. The founder of the magazine has no training in science and his logic is consistently flawed to the point of severe irony. I never know whether to be bemused or disgusted. Being a hothead, I usually just get steamed.

DrTorch Wrote:Frankly, if the logical conclusion IS that there is a 'supernatural', then that most emphatically IS science.

And what does the supernatural tell us? What predictions can be made about what the supernatural does? How can it be tested?

If these questions don't have solid answers than how is it that science is supposed to study the supernatual?

Like I said above we can speculate and draw up a bunch of numbers and come up with probabilities for life. But all those numbers are guesses. And while they may be important for making hypotheses, in practice if you cannot test them what good are they?

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:Frankly, if the logical conclusion IS that there is a 'supernatural', then that most emphatically IS science.

And what does the supernatural tell us? What predictions can be made about what the supernatural does? How can it be tested?

If these questions don't have solid answers than how is it that science is supposed to study the supernatual?

Who said it is? I didn't. To recognize that a supernatural exists does not expect that it can be studied fully by science.

It is the ASSUMPTION of science that all in the universe can be studied by it. That is an untestable hypothesis as well, BTW.

I also find it ironic that you bring in requisites for science that evolutionists and cosmologists decline b/c their work does not fit either.

Yes, belief in the supernatural can be misused, the natrual can be misnamed as supernatrual, and it can be set as a hinderance to the study of science...but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

Quote:Like I said above we can speculate and draw up a bunch of numbers and come up with probabilities for life. But all those numbers are guesses. And while they may be important for making hypotheses, in practice if you cannot test them what good are they?

They are useful for refining your hypothesis, and for coming up w/ experiments to test your hypothesis.

But, since this thread was based on conjecture, why get upset over this? There is no scientific proof for the evidence of ETs, you're not going to get anything more than conjecture.

Dr. Torch Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:If these questions don't have solid answers than how is it that science is supposed to study the supernatual?

Who said it is? I didn't.

I thought that you did, when you said:

Dr. Torch Wrote:Frankly, if the logical conclusion IS that there is a 'supernatural', then that most emphatically IS science.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying?

Dr. Torch Wrote:you bring in requisites for science that evolutionists and cosmologists decline b/c their work does not fit either.

Can you show me where they decline these things?

Dr. Torch Wrote:They are useful for refining your hypothesis, and for coming up w/ experiments to test your hypothesis.

I thought that's what I said.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:And while they may be important for making hypotheses, in practice if you cannot test them what good are they?

DrTorch Wrote:

I45owl Wrote:I am accustomed to viewing Faith and Reason as irreconcilable basically by mutual agreement, but that doesn't really work with those like Dr. Torch, since he makes no concessions on the point, and it's unwise to assume he does.

My reading of the Bible led me to the understanding that the adherents to this viewpoint include God and Jesus - other noted men to have made statements to this effect include Martin Luther, and other sources representing the other side of the issue are numerous.

DrTorch Wrote:I don't read 'Skeptic' magazine. The founder of the magazine has no training in science and his logic is consistently flawed to the point of severe irony. I never know whether to be bemused or disgusted. Being a hothead, I usually just get steamed.

Curious statement. From Meet Michael Shermer

Quote:Dr. Shermer received his B.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University, M.A. in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate School.

I wouldn't recommend psychology as the greatest way to build a background in science, but nevertheless your criticism rings hollow. Needless to say, I disagree with your assessment and submit that your worldview - metaphysics and the like - affects your reaction probably more than you realize. I would concede that he occasionally makes jumps in logic but view his logic as far superior to Charles Coulson, to name one. It is clear that each writes to a specific audience, and genuine persuasion is not their primary goal.

I do take exception to the following statements

DrTorch Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:And what does the supernatural tell us? What predictions can be made about what the supernatural does? How can it be tested?

I also find it ironic that you bring in requisites for science that evolutionists and cosmologists decline b/c their work does not fit either.

Whilst no-one gets to throw out 10^57 hydrogen atoms in a vaccuum and see what happens, the assertion that cosmology is not testable and that it does not make predictions rings absurd. Is that what you really said?

Nevertheless, in prior arguments about ID (which, it is worth stating is merely Christian Creation Science relabelled, a point that is now a matter of US Court record), you've challenged the notion that Science is the study of Natural Phenomena. That is the wedge that the Kansas Board of Science (whatever its name) used when it rejected the recommendation from the members of the Kansas Board of Science and opened the door for Creation Science to be taught in Kansas Schools. This wedge is necessary in order to introduce the possibility of supernatural involvement in the universe.

Even if you accept that proposition, though, when is it appropriate to invoke proof of supernatural? Historically, this has been a moving line. In the era of this nation's founding fathers, ether and phenomena like electricity were sufficient cause to justify belief of god. Dismissing the obvious bias of the ID vs. Science paper linked previously (it does declare the Bible to be true without any basis for that specific conclusion), if you show that the odds of humans being here to raise such questions in a purely materiallistic universe are 1:10^100000, is this sufficient to prove supernatural involvement?

Absolutely not. You don't get to stand with one foot on each die and declare that because it came up snake eyes and declare that it god made the dice come up that way. If you can prove that there is only one possible universe and that there is (a) no possibility that any other universe could exist, and (b) this universe could be created with any possibility of values for arbitrary constants, (g, pi, etc), then you have my attention. With the evidence that supports virtual particles and the Big Bang theory, it is reasonable to posit the possibility that there are many possible universes. Statistical arguments for supernaturalism are then unpersuasive.

I45owl Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

I45owl Wrote:I am accustomed to viewing Faith and Reason as irreconcilable basically by mutual agreement, but that doesn't really work with those like Dr. Torch, since he makes no concessions on the point, and it's unwise to assume he does.

My reading of the Bible led me to the understanding that the adherents to this viewpoint include God and Jesus - other noted men to have made statements to this effect include Martin Luther, and other sources representing the other side of the issue are numerous.

A long conversation no doubt. But, I submit that Abraham and Moses asked for evidence for their Faith, and God himself invited such inquiry in the book of Micah. Additionally, a running theme in the Book of John is that Jesus provides evidence of His divine nature.

Quote:I wouldn't recommend psychology as the greatest way to build a background in science, but nevertheless your criticism rings hollow.

Then we disagree. Psychology is not much of a science. Neurology, sure.

Quote:Needless to say, I disagree with your assessment and submit that your worldview - metaphysics and the like - affects your reaction probably more than you realize. I would concede that he occasionally makes jumps in logic but view his logic as far superior to Charles Coulson, to name one.

Coulson has his faults at times, no doubt. But, Shermer's are repeated.

Quote: It is clear that each writes to a specific audience, and genuine persuasion is not their primary goal.

Too bad, b/c Shermer is quoted ad nauseum. Perhaps citing a more rigorous logician would be more suitable.

I45owl Wrote:I do take exception to the following statements

DrTorch Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:And what does the supernatural tell us? What predictions can be made about what the supernatural does? How can it be tested?

I also find it ironic that you bring in requisites for science that evolutionists and cosmologists decline b/c their work does not fit either.

Whilst no-one gets to throw out 10^57 hydrogen atoms in a vaccuum and see what happens, the assertion that cosmology is not testable and that it does not make predictions rings absurd. Is that what you really said?

I don't think so. But clearly some of their work is not testable, isn't that the issue here? They make conclusive statements which cannot, nor ever will be tested.

Quote:Nevertheless, in prior arguments about ID (which, it is worth stating is merely Christian Creation Science relabelled, a point that is now a matter of US Court record),

Why is that worth stating?

Quote:Even if you accept that proposition, though, when is it appropriate to invoke proof of supernatural?

An excellent and fair question.

Quote:if you show that the odds of humans being here to raise such questions in a purely materiallistic universe are 1:10^100000, is this sufficient to prove supernatural involvement?

Absolutely not. You don't get to stand with one foot on each die and declare that because it came up snake eyes and declare that it god made the dice come up that way.

I'm not sure I go in that direction, but why not? That's what evidence means. I think it's comical that you throw out statistical evidence when in fact all experimental science is based on such inductive reasoning.

Quote:If you can prove that there is only one possible universe and that there is (a) no possibility that any other universe could exist,

Excuse me? Why should I have to prove this? It's not my assertion. A true skeptic would ask for proof that there are other universes. What observables are at hand!? Talk about your leaps of faith. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Quote:With the evidence that supports virtual particles and the Big Bang theory, it is reasonable to posit the possibility that there are many possible universes. Statistical arguments for supernaturalism are then unpersuasive.

Even more comical since your virtual particles come from a statistical argument (quantum mechanics), you then define it as "reasonable to posit this" based on a statistical argument. Moreover, you have no empirical evidence of applying quantum phenomena to such a large scale as the Big Bang, it is simply a mathematical construct. Yet you take this on faith that it could be...

Moreover, you then keep the door open for what the natural world includes. You too bring in some subtle logical fallacies. Sorry to indict your world view...

DrTorch Wrote:

I45owl Wrote:I do take exception to the following statements

DrTorch Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:And what does the supernatural tell us? What predictions can be made about what the supernatural does? How can it be tested?

I also find it ironic that you bring in requisites for science that evolutionists and cosmologists decline b/c their work does not fit either.

Whilst no-one gets to throw out 10^57 hydrogen atoms in a vaccuum and see what happens, the assertion that cosmology is not testable and that it does not make predictions rings absurd. Is that what you really said?

I don't think so. But clearly some of their work is not testable, isn't that the issue here?

No the issue was that you said that cosmologists decline predictions and testing. Now it's some of their work? That's called moving the goalposts.

Quote:They make conclusive statements which cannot, nor ever will be tested.

More than likely, many of the models proposed for the early universe will not be tested in the manner that you want (going back in time and watching what the universe does from the earliest nanoseconds), but experiements are being done at the subatomic and cosmological level which tell us a lot about the state of the universe right now. Models are proposed and as new technology is created to look deeper into space and "back in time" these models can be either strengthened by the new evidence, or proven wrong. There is certainly much scientific controversy about what the early universe was like, and to imply that the statements scientists are making are totally conclusive is absurd. But I'm guessing that you knew all of this.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

I45owl Wrote:I do take exception to the following statements

DrTorch Wrote:[quote="Bourgeois_Rage"]And what does the supernatural tell us? What predictions can be made about what the supernatural does? How can it be tested?

I also find it ironic that you bring in requisites for science that evolutionists and cosmologists decline b/c their work does not fit either.

Whilst no-one gets to throw out 10^57 hydrogen atoms in a vaccuum and see what happens, the assertion that cosmology is not testable and that it does not make predictions rings absurd. Is that what you really said?

I don't think so. But clearly some of their work is not testable, isn't that the issue here?

No the issue was that you said that cosmologists decline predictions and testing. Now it's some of their work? That's called moving the goalposts.

[quote]

On the contrary. According to your statement, any work that precludes testing is not science.

DrTorch Wrote:On the contrary. According to your statement, any work that precludes testing is not science.

Great, that I agree with, now show me an example of a science that does not test. Please don't just say [insert discipline here]. Show me an example of a scientist saying such and such hypothesis doesn't need testing.

The overarching models are not be accepted as fact, they are constantly being tested to the best ability that they can. I would be shocked if Steven Hawking came out and said, "My model of the universe is correct, it does not need testing." What he does say is, "My model is correct. Go ahead, test it, prove me wrong."

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:On the contrary. According to your statement, any work that precludes testing is not science.

Great, that I agree with, now show me an example of a science that does not test. Please don't just say [insert discipline here]. Show me an example of a scientist saying such and such hypothesis doesn't need testing.

The overarching models are not be accepted as fact, they are constantly being tested to the best ability that they can. I would be shocked if Steven Hawking came out and said, "My model of the universe is correct, it does not need testing." What he does say is, "My model is correct. Go ahead, test it, prove me wrong."

Isn't that what Christians are saying too? Luckily for them an omnipotent, omnipresent, all-knowing God makes it hard to disprove. ;-)

DrTorch Wrote:

Quote:Whilst no-one gets to throw out 10^57 hydrogen atoms in a vaccuum and see what happens, the assertion that cosmology is not testable and that it does not make predictions rings absurd. Is that what you really said?

I don't think so. But clearly some of their work is not testable, isn't that the issue here? They make conclusive statements which cannot, nor ever will be tested.

So, you mean this in a very limited scope then. Perhaps with an example, I'd be able to accept that.

DrTorch Wrote:Why is that worth stating?

Well, you and others have stated that ID is not just Creation Science renamed. I've been waiting since Christmas to say that (didn't want to post it then). It's mostly worth stating just to get it out of my system.

DrTorch Wrote:

Quote:if you show that the odds of humans being here to raise such questions in a purely materiallistic universe are 1:10^100000, is this sufficient to prove supernatural involvement?

Absolutely not. You don't get to stand with one foot on each die and declare that because it came up snake eyes and declare that it god made the dice come up that way.

I'm not sure I go in that direction, but why not? That's what evidence means. I think it's comical that you throw out statistical evidence when in fact all experimental science is based on such inductive reasoning.

I don't think that's a fair representation of what I did at all - I wasn't rejecting the significance of some purported probability, but challenging the conclusion one could make from it. I was addressing a line of reasoning that basically says that the probability of life is 1:n, therefore god exists. All that we really know is that life happened. If you only get one try at building the universe, then the argument can be compelling. If you get 3n or 100n or unlimited chances at building a universe, then this cosmological argument for god is vacuous. We don't know which is the case, yet this is the foundation for one cosmological argument for god. All I really said was that for the argument "the probability of life is 1:n, therefore god exists" to be credible, then one has to at least argue that you don't get multiple chances to build a universe.

DrTorch Wrote:

Quote:If you can prove that there is only one possible universe and that there is (a) no possibility that any other universe could exist,

Excuse me? Why should I have to prove this? It's not my assertion. A true skeptic would ask for proof that there are other universes. What observables are at hand!? Talk about your leaps of faith. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Excuse the proverbial usage of the word "you". Your point regarding asking for proof of other universes is of interest. Note that because my previous post was perhaps poorly stated, I don't think your comments are necessarily valid.

However, if you accept as a premise that the odds of various physical constants being conducive to life are very low then we are left to speculate as to how this came to be. Among the possibilities of which I can conceive are:

• (a) Supernatural god
• (b) One spontaneous event wherein the physical constants are not in fact random
• © There are many such spontaneous events where the physical constants are random, but we exist only in the one that happens to be conducive to life
  [/list:u]
  
  You apparently believe that I've asserted the last of these options to be true, but that was not my intention. Rather, it was to say that one should be required to disproove the last two before asserting proof for the first. Otherwise, one is left to arbitrarily choose amongst these options by assigning probabilities to each.
  
  So, does one have to offer proof of (b) or © to demonstrate that (a) is not proven? No, but you do have to either disprove (b) and © or demonstrate they are not worthy of consideration in order to consider (a) proven.
  
  This does go to (1) when does one claim proof of supernaturalism, and (2) what is considered part of the natural world (you make a good point below).
  
  Now, does this put belief in multiple universes on the same level as belief in god? I would argue that with our current understanding of the universe yes, it does - at least, the belief in a Deistic god. Specifically, I consider it unlikely that we will be able to say "the way that you create a universe is to take a u particle and crash it in to a v particle with sufficient energy.
  
  

  DrTorch Wrote:

  Quote:With the evidence that supports virtual particles and the Big Bang theory, it is reasonable to posit the possibility that there are many possible universes. Statistical arguments for supernaturalism are then unpersuasive.

  
  Even more comical since your virtual particles come from a statistical argument (quantum mechanics), you then define it as "reasonable to posit this" based on a statistical argument. Moreover, you have no empirical evidence of applying quantum phenomena to such a large scale as the Big Bang, it is simply a mathematical construct. Yet you take this on faith that it could be...
  
  Moreover, you then keep the door open for what the natural world includes. You too bring in some subtle logical fallacies. Sorry to indict your world view...

  
  The virtual particle observation is predicted by statistical argument, but it is tested and verified by observation. QM permits these particles, but theoriticians said "look if this happens, then you should expect to see a certain type of radiation emitted from the event horizon of black holes".
  
  I'm not sure what you'd call "taking something on faith that it could be".
  
  BTW - I meant no offense my the world view comment - it's just an observation based on my reactions to what you and others (Dembski, for one) have said or written.

blah Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:On the contrary. According to your statement, any work that precludes testing is not science.

Great, that I agree with, now show me an example of a science that does not test. Please don't just say [insert discipline here]. Show me an example of a scientist saying such and such hypothesis doesn't need testing.

The overarching models are not be accepted as fact, they are constantly being tested to the best ability that they can. I would be shocked if Steven Hawking came out and said, "My model of the universe is correct, it does not need testing." What he does say is, "My model is correct. Go ahead, test it, prove me wrong."

Isn't that what Christians are saying too? Luckily for them an omnipotent, omnipresent, all-knowing God makes it hard to disprove. ;-)

Hmm. As he said, provide an example of one....

My understanding is that the Christian God is testable - after all, that's what they were saying about Katrina, withdrawal from the West Bank, etc. I offer up tests in that spirit all the time, and haven't seen any convincing response to date. Be careful with this... (You do live in Dallas, don't you?)