Why I am not a Christian

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
here is the deffinition of emperical

" 1.
1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

Notice--observation OR experiment. We can't do experiments to prove the evolution of dinosaurs into birds, but we can observe fossils and physiological similarities.

If god is in any way relevant, we would be able to observe something about it. But you claim we can't. How you know this, I don't know--seems to me it's a complete unscientific guess on your part to claim god is absolutely untestable. You know this how--divine revelation to you?

If god is untestable/unobservable, then god doesn't matter.

[Whaleboy]

1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

as you can see, it relies upon there being an experiment

Ummm no, observation, in terms of testing a theory against it's premises is the core of experiment, namely what makes it useful. Either you accept that experiment is not the core of science, or you expand your definition of experiment to include qualitative analysis too. Consider the Webster definition:

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=empirical

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
4 : of or relating to empiricism
- em·pir·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

it wasn't until science came along, and required experimental observations, that we began to make the advances as technological acheivements that we did

No-one has denied that science is better at scientific endeavors, the fact that before technology got so advanced to render qualitative logic useless at invention philosophers and scientists were considered one and the same indicates my argument!

if you had studied your math (which I have, as I have a degree in math) you would know that some hard mathematicians like to base everything on logic, and some areas (especially analysis) fail it (you are correct that some consider induction to be logic also, however not all hold this view)

No, mathematicians like to base everything on deductive logic, which is quantatively stronger than qualitative logic, i.e. Hume's "Is-Ought" gap of deduction-induction.

and if you have done physics, you would know that all the time you do things that math tells you is wrong, or that you can't do, you do them and because you like the answer you roll with it and publish it

basically it seems like everyone but you says that science is emperical

What? That's a complete misrepresentation and a strawman. I hold science to be empirical at its core, hence my definitions, indeed that is a lynchpin of my argument. I cannot comment on human failures, one assumes competence and intellectual honesty in scientists, so differentiate between the scientist and his concept.

I would of course ask you why you bring the notion of "success" into this? Are these fields to be measured by the degree and nature of consequence they have for mankind? If so, you're asking the question of philosophy "why do it at all?", which is of course irrelevant to this debate, though I'm perfectly willing to answer if you want to pursue it.

your statement, which is that it does not need to be emperical, is a backwards movement back to the time before the enlightenment

I never said that, I'm saying that science is logic tested against empirical observation. Science is empirical, philosophy need not be, but that does not stop the two from bleeding into each other, since fundamentally the distinction between quantitative and qualitative logic is an artifical one.

(you appear to not be using the same definition of logic as everyone else also, somehow I am not surprised, you will find that it is easier to discuss things with people, and understand them, if you use the commonly held definitions)

I am . You will find it easier to discuss things with people if you try to understand the arguments, instead of arguing for the sake of it and not engaging, and using strawmen againt them .

I would ask you now to show me where I said that science need not be empirical?

[Jon Miller]

actually yes, you are correct, science says nothing about invisible undetectable little elves who dance on electrons

it does says something about electron size (currently electrons are point particles and so there is nothing for them to dance on) and spin and as such those particular elves are unscientific (or at least, we know something about them)

now I would maintain that invisible, undetectable little elves that dance on electrons are illogical

but that is a different discussion

I am just saying that currently god(s) are undetectable, I am not saying that there will never be a time when they are detectable

I will point out that you could postulate a god who turns rocks blue, than you could watch millions upon millions of rocks for a long length of time (you would also need a model like that god turns the rocks blue randomly or something), you could than come up with evidence for or against such a god (but it wouldn't be conclusive)

there is no difference, right now, between 'm-theory' and god, as far as what science says (a lot of smart people are both for and against both ideas) (I am sorry, there doesn't seem to be many people who hold with your little elf theory)

now you might argue that those who beleive in god are being illogical, while those who beleive in string theory are being logical (these ideas are not mutually inconsistant btw, I know string theorists (M-theorists) who beleive in God)

basically, looking at your post, have you read and understood anything I have posted?

Jon Miller
(just as it would be possible to get evidence against my hypothetical rock painting god, so would it be possible to get evidence against the Christian God, however you woul dneed a time machine I believe because you would need to go back and look at Jesus)

[Jon Miller]

guys

observation is experiment

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Notice--observation OR experiment. We can't do experiments to prove the evolution of dinosaurs into birds, but we can observe fossils and physiological similarities.

If god is in any way relevant, we would be able to observe something about it. But you claim we can't. How you know this, I don't know--seems to me it's a complete unscientific guess on your part to claim god is absolutely untestable. You know this how--divine revelation to you?

If god is untestable/unobservable, then god doesn't matter.

I never said god(s) were untestable. Ijust said that they aren't currently testable (and I don't see them being for the forseeable future).

Think about the situation before we had many of the apparatuses we have today. There was no way that we could test to see if an atom could be broken down. But did it still affect us? yes

things that are untestable can still affect us

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

you guys seriously need to do some reading

you lack very basic understanding into what empericism is

by obsevation it means physical observation

and science is repeatable, otherwise ghosts and angels would be scientific because people claim to have seen them/interacted with them

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


What? That's a complete misrepresentation and a strawman. I hold science to be empirical at its core, hence my definitions, indeed that is a lynchpin of my argument. I cannot comment on human failures, one assumes competence and intellectual honesty in scientists, so differentiate between the scientist and his concept.

I would of course ask you why you bring the notion of "success" into this? Are these fields to be measured by the degree and nature of consequence they have for mankind? If so, you're asking the question of philosophy "why do it at all?", which is of course irrelevant to this debate, though I'm perfectly willing to answer if you want to pursue it.

you show more and more that you don't understand anything about science

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Boris, I am taking out my frustrations with Whaleboy on you. I am sorry. Obviously you are missing a bit of what I am saying, if you care, please go back and read it again.

Jon Miller

[Odin]

Phopsophers telling scientists what science is (yes, I'm talking about you, Whaleboy).

[Whaleboy]

now I would maintain that invisible, undetectable little elves that dance on electrons are illogical

But what of the cause?

basically, looking at your post, have you read and understood anything I have posted?

You're starting to attack posters now, I would ask you to desist.

observation is experiment

No, observation is, to take it literally, the core of what makes an experiment useful to science, that we can observe effects and consequences of given dependent and independent variables.

I never said god(s) were untestable. Ijust said that they aren't currently testable (and I don't see them being for the forseeable future).

I think you're limiting yourself in terms of what we can do for no reason other than what you could call an historical political correctness, whereby atheists are encouraged to say "well we'll never be able to prove or disprove..." etc, which to me begs the question "why not?".

by obsevation it means physical observation

On what grounds do you hold that experiment and observation are the same?

you show more and more that you don't understand anything about science

Charming. Please answer the points and the questions asked of you. This thread has been good and civil so far and I don't want it to turn into personal insults, so if you don't want to answer the questions I suggest you either leave the thread, or in this case at least explain *why* I don't understand anything about science .

(just as it would be possible to get evidence against my hypothetical rock painting god, so would it be possible to get evidence against the Christian God, however you woul dneed a time machine I believe because you would need to go back and look at Jesus)

Such could be said of any character from history, ficticious or not, however that we cannot invent a time-machine leaves us with certain problems that are resolved by such as Occams razor.

I am just saying that currently god(s) are undetectable, I am not saying that there will never be a time when they are detectable

Which would devalue and denigrate the very notion of a god.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=observation

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=experiment

Boris, I am taking out my frustrations with Whaleboy on you. I am sorry. Obviously you are missing a bit of what I am saying, if you care, please go back and read it again.

What frustrations? If you're having an emotional reaction to the thread, might be wise to take a break, as I will shortly because I have an appointment at the gym. If not, please keep this free of ad hominem.

Phopsophers telling scientists what science is (yes, I'm talking about you, Whaleboy).

Why not? There is a massive debate about what science actually is in philosophy, whereas scientists are the practitioners of the philosophy that is under discussion. I am not seeking to denegrate one field or the other but I would ask why these artificial barriers between them? The debate itself is what scientists are doing and how they do it, rather than their conclusions, obviously, if someone wants to discuss a theory they need a scientific background not a philosophical one (though there is no stopping anyone having both).

And you may not realise, my qualifications in philosophy are zero, except a D at A-level . Technically i'm more qualified as a scientist so perhaps take that into consideration when calling me a philosopher .

[Jon Miller]

Just to make things straight, my understanding of your positions are thus

Boris agrees with me that science is based upon physical evidence (be it observations or experiment (same thing))

but thinks that the lack of evidence of something means that science suggests it doesn't exist

my answer to that (Besides read back through the arguments) is think about the history of science

there was no evidence (as far as we could see) for electrons or up quarks or down quarks or even hydrogen in the 18th century

but did scientists say that they were not there?

no, they didn't say anything about them (Scientifically) which is the proper thing to do about god (and your little elves)

Whaleboy disagrees with me that science requries physical observations or experiment and insists that logic is the same thing as science

personally, I am really baffled as to how he can say that, and don't see how he can understand anything abotu science at all

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


And you may not realise, my qualifications in philosophy are zero, except a D at A-level . Technically i'm more qualified as a scientist so perhaps take that into consideration when calling me a philosopher .

that would explain your understanding of empericism

so how about this (because I have gotten frustrated with you, as you can probably tell I was a poor teacher), you read something on empericism, and we can continue this later perhaps?

Jon Miller
(I will eat and go see about doing some charity work)

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy disagrees with me that science requries physical observations or experiment and insists that logic is the same thing as science

personally, I am really baffled as to how he can say that, and don't see how he can understand anything abotu science at all

I think anyone who has read my arguments can see that is a blatent misrepresentation, particularly after I have clarified how that interpretation is erroneous three times that I can recall, probably more. I do not say that logic is the same thing as science, rather that science comprises logic, and we evidently need to discuss the nature of logic in that regard since you still seem to hold that it can only be deductive quantitative reasoning. I have also repeatedly said that science and scientific theories require external verifications, namely experiments, and given a basis for that (the hypothesis).

[Jon Miller]

ok, than why did you say that experiment was not needed in all cases?

because every time that I said that physical experiment was needed, you would always say that you didn't see the difference with logic

JM

[Jon Miller]

Also, I only claim that the only deffinition that everyone agrees on is deductive reasoning

that was a note

Jon Miller