Neither of you are seeing the point - science cannot explain the order of nature. Given the order of nature, then science can explain many things, but it doesn't explain the order. It can't, for example, see 'before the singularity'. So natural theology can argue that the Big Bang developed in just the way it did, because God made it so; you may choose not to believe that, but science can't help make your case. It's out of scope. — Wayfarer
you denied that you committing a fallacy and then just repeated the fallacy. T — DingoJones
I did an undergraduate unit in A J Ayer, Language Truth and Logic. And you're singing from that hymnsheet, even if you don't understand that you are. — Wayfarer
It's not 'an argument from ignorance', it's an argument from a matter of principle. As a matter of principle, science has nothing to say on 'first causes', or whatever, because that is not how science proceeds. This is a philosophy forum, and this is Philosophy 101. — Wayfarer
A lot of popular atheism says that science 'proves' or 'shows' that God doesn't exist, but it's no more true than an ID exponent saying that it 'proves' that God does exist. Both are incorrect, for very similar reasons, which is, not understanding the nature of the question. — Wayfarer
It's a daft argument: — S
Do you know what a fallacy is? You have made a fallacy here, and have failed a third time to understand that you did... — DingoJones
Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.
Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. It includes both in a particular way. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations. Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical. Hans Reichenbach summarizes the connection: “Observation informs us about the past and the present, reason foretells the future.”
Im not going to do that. Maybe I wasnt clear...I was asking if you thought you didn't understand the arguments or if you thought you might be ignoring them because you do not like S... — DingoJones
there is still wisdom in religious texts if you are open to receiving it. — Noah Te Stroete
No, you've *claimed* I'm arguing from a fallacy, and I have *refuted* your claim. it's not 'an argument from ignorance' — Wayfarer
I already told you Im not going to do that. Did you miss that? Im really not going to do it. — DingoJones
. You have merely declared it not to be the case. — DingoJones
I understand your criticism, and it is no more a valid criticism of science than criticising mathematics for not having any input on the latest fashion trends.
— S
Would you say fashion trends are therefore incompatible with mathematics? — AJJ
It was an example of a religion — S
I cannot keep track, do you have a personal beef with S? I observe he has provided arguments, good ones that have not been refuted. I can see for myself that what you just accused of S is not true. Either you do not understand those arguments or you have some personal reason to ignore them and pretend he has said nothing of substance... — DingoJones
I'm saying, science can't, in principle, determine if there is a 'first cause' or higher intelligence. It's simply not equipped to discover that, it's out of scope for scientific method. — Wayfarer
Would you say fashion trends are therefore incompatible with mathematics? — AJJ
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.