Everything That is Wrong With Modern Science

[webolife]

Alton in bold, then me:
I still don't even know what your "conclusions" are.
You know that I conclude that the "appearance of design" is an evidence of design, therefore of a designer,
just as you conclude that the absence of a scientific mechanism for a creator indicates the absence of a creator.
An intelligent anthropomorphic entity pushed C, H, P, O, etc. atoms together until It had a cell?
Possibly.
Did the same entity wave Its wand and the universe appeared?
Possibly.
Is the universe eternal?
Apparently not.
Is God eternal?
I'd say so.
What are you even saying? What exactly is your stance and your conclusions?
Return to top of entry.

[Plasmatic]

Web,
What conditions make "god" qualify for uncreated/eternal life/existence, status and not the existents that are the universe? Whats the criteria?

[Plasmatic]

Web if Ive asked before I apologize. But could you please give me your definition of faith?

[webolife]

For purposes of science discussion, I define "faith" as a synonym of assumptions, presuppositions, worldview, paradigm, premises, et.al. For other intents and purposes of "faith", I never have "believed" in anything without having some evidence.

[altonhare]

Alton in bold, then me:
I still don't even know what your "conclusions" are.
You know that I conclude that the "appearance of design" is an evidence of design, therefore of a designer,
just as you conclude that the absence of a scientific mechanism for a creator indicates the absence of a creator.
An intelligent anthropomorphic entity pushed C, H, P, O, etc. atoms together until It had a cell?
Possibly.
Did the same entity wave Its wand and the universe appeared?
Possibly.
Is the universe eternal?
Apparently not.
Is God eternal?
I'd say so.
What are you even saying? What exactly is your stance and your conclusions?
Return to top of entry.

This is why I don't know what your conclusions are. You say "possibly" twice, which is another way of saying "I don't have a stance on this issue". You believe in a "Designer", fine. A word is not a theory or a philosophy. What IS your Designer? An entity like a superintelligent organism from another planet? Or a concept like altruism? Which? This is the hypothesis step, you ask me to assume X exists, in this case X=Designer. I cannot even get past the word "Designer" until you tell me if it is an object or a concept.

After that, is the theory part. What did your Designer actually do? If It pushed together atoms until It had a cell, fine.

The last step is where you actually try to convince me. Look, Alton, at how complex life is: example 1, example 2... etc.

If you can't do one or both of the first steps, it doesn't mean your belief in a Designer is Wrong or whatever, it just means you don't have a scientific theory yet. Note I am not asking for you to tell me every detail of every little thing the Designer did, just the general mechanism. Did It combine atoms individually? Did It synthesize cells in a beaker? Did It just waves its hands and transpose dirt into cells? etc.

The analogous situation with me, I point to a cell, this is my hypothesis. Just as your Designer is eternal, so is the cell in my theory. My theory is basically all of evolutionary biology, which I admittedly am not 100% conversed in. I might illustrate mitosis, microevolution/adaptation, mutation, etc. The last step is the convincing. Look, Web, I've never seen a Designer, have you? So far, we haven't been able to show intelligence has the ability to build life from the inanimate, this and the complexity of life seems to be indicative that it cannot be built "from the ground up". Rather, it seems it must be a pervasive/eternal phenomenon. Etc. etc.

[Plasmatic]

For purposes of science discussion, I define "faith" as a synonym of assumptions,, presuppositions, worldview, paradigm, premises et.al. For other intents and purposes of "faith", I never have "believed" in anything without having some evidence.

UGHHHH! hehe Ah man this happened last time. Theres so many equivocations here its hard to no where to start.

Lets do this. Please tell we what contrast "faith" from "reason" for you.Whats the essentially differentiating charachteristic?

I think this statement gives us a clue.

For other intents and purposes of "faith", I never have "believed" in anything without having some evidence

[webolife]

I have reasons for my faith, and I build my reasons upon faith.
If you think this is equivocating, you fail to realize that you do the same thing, just starting with a different faith base:
There is no god... therefore any observations/experiences of him/her must just be illusory concepts.
Apparent design in nature is just a fluke... things just are what they are and always have been [Alton says this].
There is no such thing as "immaterial" ... since god is "immaterial" therefore he/she/it doesn't exist.
etc.

[Plasmatic]

1.I have reasons for my faith, and I build my reasons upon faith.
If you think this is equivocating, you fail to realize that you do the same thing, just starting with a different faith base:

2.There is no god... therefore any observations/experiences of him/her must just be illusory concepts.
Apparent design in nature is just a fluke... things just are what they are and always have been [Alton says this].
There is no such thing as "immaterial" ... since god is "immaterial" therefore he/she/it doesn't exist.
etc.

O.K Web, If your not inclined to continue discourse right now its o.k. But you did not answer my question. You've used the 2 words I asked you to contrast. Until i know how you contrast them I have no way to answer your comments.

Also we've been through the second part and you've made the same misrepresentation. I start with observation.

[altonhare]

There is no god... therefore any observations/experiences of him/her must just be illusory concepts.
Apparent design in nature is just a fluke... things just are what they are and always have been [Alton says this].
There is no such thing as "immaterial" ... since god is "immaterial" therefore he/she/it doesn't exist.
etc.

I do NOT start with the assumption "there is no God".

"Apparent design" or complexity in life and Nature is NOT a fluke. There are NO random events, no accidents.

I do NOT start with "there is no such thing as immaterial". I simply define the word material based on my observation. The definition is derived directly from ubiquitous observation (I have never seen nor imagined 'something' without shape). It is not faith or dogma. I am open to changing this completely the day I see 'something' without shape.

[webolife]

I think we have come to the bottom of the barrel in this discussion. Thhis thread is indistinguishable from the "materialism" thread at this point, but I would make a last attempt at a connection to [post]mosern science... we might even agree on this point... modern science has passed the boundary of evidenciary logic and built a universe of fantasies and contradiction.
Maybe definitions do matter, but to what extent can we trust them?
Beginning with the premise that material is incapable of giving rise to itself, we have two options:
1. It arose from something immaterial.
2. It has always existed, and you would likely add that it has always been complex and utterly interdependently functional.
You define the "immaterial" out of existence so you can avoid the issue of faith... you don't observe it, therefore you have no reason to believe it or not. For things you define as material, you invent shapes to describe what you can't see, then say these can exist because you have defined their shape. I say you are working very hard to convince yourself of something you do not wish to "believe" by rigorously defining the universe in ways that help you to avoid your own presuppositions.
You said this is not dogma, yet you capitalized "NO" and "NOT".
I have no problem with #1 above because my definition of the universe involves both material and immaterial.
You say you start with observations, but I will never bend on this point: Your presuppositions determine your conclusions; where observations fail, this is all you have. Things like time, gravity, electrons, atoms, space, even transverse light, are all invisible. Ropes are conceivable but not observable. Vectors are conceivable, and measurable [both in direction and magnitude]. Both are invisible, so we must depend on our premises, plus logic, to make a sensible conclusion.

[altonhare]

Beginning with the premise that material is incapable of giving rise to itself, we have two options:
1. It arose from something immaterial.
2. It has always existed, and you would likely add that it has always been complex and utterly interdependently functional.

The problem with (1) is that it is a contradiction (material from immaterial).

You define the "immaterial" out of existence so you can avoid the issue of faith...

Wrong, I define object/physical/material/etc. so I can use these words consistently at all times. It has nothing to do with personal opinion or bias.

For things you define as material, you invent shapes to describe what you can't see, then say these can exist because you have defined their shape.

Wrong, I do not say they "can exist". I ask you to assume they exist for the purposes of the ensuing discussion. Whether you believe it exists or not is up to you. I simply define the word "object" and the word "exist" so I can use them consistently and unambiguously.

I say you are working very hard to convince yourself of something you do not wish to "believe" by rigorously defining the universe in ways that help you to avoid your own presuppositions.

Rigorous? Define? What horror in science!

Avoid which of my presuppositions?

I have no problem with #1 above because my definition of the universe involves both material and immaterial.

Define "material"?

You say you start with observations, but I will never bend on this point: Your presuppositions determine your conclusions; where observations fail, this is all you have.

I do start with observation. I have never seen 'anything' without shape. There are no presuppositions here. If I happen to observe 'something' without shape one day, I will immediately alter my conclusion.

Vectors are conceivable, and measurable [both in direction and magnitude]. Both are invisible, so we must depend on our premises, plus logic, to make a sensible conclusion.

Where is this vector 'thing' that you measure? Here on earth we can only measure objects, what planet are you from?

[webolife]

For me material from immaterial is inevitable, based upon my premise of a beginning.
For you eternal complex material is inevitable based upon your premise of no beginning.
Sorry, you cannot avoid the presupposition.
All your observations will follow from there.

[altonhare]

For me material from immaterial is inevitable, based upon my premise of a beginning.
For you eternal complex material is inevitable based upon your premise of no beginning.
Sorry, you cannot avoid the presupposition.
All your observations will follow from there.

Observation precedes the premise of "no beginning". I have never observed something to "come from" 'nothing'. If I ever observe such an event I will immediately admit I was wrong and change my premises.

[Plasmatic]

but I will never bend on this point:

O.K. since you wont define/contrast the words your using,I cant begin to communicate as to their meaning. And given the above refusal to keep an active mind,there's nothing left to say.

[StevenO]

Define "material"?

You say you start with observations, but I will never bend on this point: Your presuppositions determine your conclusions; where observations fail, this is all you have.

I do start with observation. I have never seen 'anything' without shape. There are no presuppositions here. If I happen to observe 'something' without shape one day, I will immediately alter my conclusion.

Vectors are conceivable, and measurable [both in direction and magnitude]. Both are invisible, so we must depend on our premises, plus logic, to make a sensible conclusion.

Where is this vector 'thing' that you measure? Here on earth we can only measure objects, what planet are you from?

So, what would you say about the movement of a compass needle in the Earth's magnetic field? Is that "immaterial"? Or just an example of a magnetic field vector? Or an even simpler example: the wind blowing in your face. Since you can't see it's shape it does not exist? What about heat or cold, smell or sound?