I want to believe in evolution

[Aeson]

If God is omnipotent he doesn't have to have been created.

That's sorta the whole point of why the analogies fall apart.

Science assumes that everything is created, which doesn't make sense. Something has to have created everything.

Science has some theories. If they were ever provable perhaps we could make a substantive claim like that. There's a certain point before where science doesn't have anything approaching a good answer though. Science doesn't assume. (People misusing science may do so of course ... )

[Aeson]

If God is omnipotent he doesn't have to have been created.

That's sorta the whole point of why the analogies fall apart.

Science assumes that everything is created, which doesn't make sense. Something has to have created everything.

Science has some theories. If they were ever provable perhaps we could make a substantive claim like that. There's a certain point before where science doesn't have anything approaching a good answer though. Science doesn't assume. (People misusing science may do so of course ... )

[Kidlicious]

That's sorta the whole point of why the analogies fall apart.



Science has some theories. If they were ever provable perhaps we could make a substantive claim like that. There's a certain point before where science doesn't have anything approaching a good answer though. Science doesn't assume. (People misusing science may do so of course ... )

Materialists assume. I don't think it's good science though. But anyway, what are the good theories? How would you judge whether it's a good theory or not when it can't be verified scientifically?

[Aeson]

Materialists assume. I don't think it's good science though. But anyway, what are the good theories?

I'm not an astrophysicist and haven't even spent much time reading up on it in general. As such, my opinion about what the good theories in this regard wouldn't be worth much.

How would you judge whether it's a good theory or not when it can't be verified scientifically?

If (a hypothetical theory) really can't be verified, it's not a good theory. Falsifiability is a good thing in a theory.

[Jon Miller]

I think you are confusing philosophy and science, Aeson.

JM
(edit: there is no point in going over what Kid is confusing)

[Aeson]

At which point(s) are you suggesting that confusion occurs, and why?

[Jon Miller]

For example "Science does not assume".

It definitely does make assumptions, important assumptions, and those really define the subset of philosophy known as science.

JM

[Aeson]

You are taking the statement out of context. I was not saying that there are no assumptions made in science (or the development of scientific method). Kid said "Science assumes that everything is created", and I quoted that specifically. It was his use of "assumes" that I was addressing, and specifically the (hypothetical) assumption about the creation of the universe. I do not think that science assumes (in the way Kid is using the term) anything about the creation of the universe. I remember KH addressing this previously:

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/160182-The-Big-Bang-time-paradox?p=4691326&viewfull=1#post4691326

Cosmology says nothing about the origin of the pre-expansion Universe. Maybe it was there forever. Maybe not. Maybe it had already expanded and contracted before. Maybe not. We have no data. We don't even understand the middle step (inflation) very well, so postulating about anything further back is pretty useless.

Also, I am confused about how could I possibly be confused on that point between science and philosophy? Even if we take the statement out of context, philosophy makes assumptions as well.

[Jon Miller]

Science is a branch of (natural) philosophy. (Different) (types of) philosophies make (different) (types of) assumptions. Philosophy (in general) has the means to investigate the assumptions, science (generally) does not.

One thing science does assume is 'there exists a natural explanation'. This is a good thing, if we didn't make this assumption then possibly our understanding of natural philosophy would never have gotten past 'lightening strikes is from angry gods'.

BTW, observational science is heavily dependent on assumptions, more so than experimental science.

JM

[Aeson]

Yes Jon, I know all that.

That doesn't explain how taking "science does not assume" out of context could possibly result in an interpretation that the statement is confusing philosophy and science. Both of them make assumptions. Thus by (hypothetically) saying one does not assume, it can't be confused with the other which does assume.

For instance, take tomatoes and apples. Both fruits. If someone says tomatoes aren't fruits, they aren't confusing tomatoes with apples. Even if they've also said apples aren't fruits (which didn't have an analog in this case) ... there's still no reason to assume they are confusing tomatoes and apples.

[Jon Miller]

Your response to Kid was about how science does not assume/etc when he was talking about materialists/etc.

You were confusing science and philosophy, you needed to make a 'philosophy of science response' and not a 'science response'.

JM

[Aeson]

Your response to Kid was about how science does not assume/etc when he was talking about materialists/etc.

You were confusing science and philosophy, you needed to make a 'philosophy of science response' and not a 'science response'.

JM

You are the one confused here Jon. Kid used the term "science" in the claims I addressed, in response to and quoting my use of the term "science". Kid had not even mentioned the term "materialist" until later posts. I certainly was not using "science" to mean "materialist". If Kid was meaning "materialist" when he made claims about "science", that would be his misuse of terms and mistake in addressing them to me. (I do not make the assumption that Kid was confusing the terms. There is not yet any evidence that it was the case.)

It was perfectly reasonable on my part to assume that his response to my post which used the term "science", his response using the term "science", was actually about science.

[Jon Miller]

Kid was obviously confused.

You had an opportunity to clear things up. I commented because I expect you to do so.

Philosophically materialism and science are very related.

JM

[Proteus_MST]

... Science assumes that everything is created, which doesn't make sense. ...

Uhm nope...
Creationism asumes that everything is created ...
Science assumes that the universe as we know it is the result of natural laws as well as a lot of random events (like, for example, Supernovae whose explosions create clouds of heavier elements which then hit somewhere else a star in being which finally forms planets ... or mass extinctions which make the way free for some species to become dominant.

Science doesnt´need a creator

[Jon Miller]

Sigh.

JM