Quote from: BADecker on November 05, 2014, 11:57:17 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 11:52:45 PM

Quote from: BADecker on November 05, 2014, 11:40:33 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 11:32:13 PM

Quote from: BADecker on November 05, 2014, 11:07:59 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 05, 2014, 11:00:29 PM

...thereby further implying that changing the method by which you interpret the Universe, knowledge will be more readily available to us.

Accordingly, you better get another cup of coffee to get focused enough to keep up with me here Wink

The science that uses the "if"s, when promoted as truth, shows that the promoter is either ignorant, or a propagandist. Play with the meanings of words if you want. But stay focused on the point.

I got a glass of milk this time. But I'll probably go back to coffee when the milk is gone.

Science as a method doesn't use ifs. Ever. We always know exactly what to do next.

Again, you are talking about science in the context of being a body of knowledge, i.e. the conclusions, and even then you're really stretching it. There's something called a margin-of-error in science, and it's always utilized. And for that very reason, we never say "prove" in science, and even if we do, there's an unspoken "within such-and-such margin-of-error" footnote attached to it. Specifically, the reason we can never say "prove" is because we would need to evidence all cases prior to our observations and also all cases that ever could arise in the future.

The problem is that religions are faith-based systems. I'm not necessarily saying faith is the problem, but in this debate, it's a huge problem for you and your argument. You're dissing science because you're essentially complaining that one can always formulate more questions after a scientific conclusion, even with something as seemingly concrete as a scientific law (e.g. "Is it possible that Universal laws can change over time?"). But, in contrast, you defer to and advocate for a religious view (by the way, you invoke a false dichotomy, here -- a fallacy in its own right) by basically claiming that it gives you all the answers so that you don't need to ask any more questions.

And so, getting to the root of your problem, you completely gloss over the relationship between faith and reason, where one uses evidence to justify faithfulness. Accordingly, even with faith, you depend on reason and evidence, and by undermining an inductive process like the scientific method, you are undermining your own inductive reasoning that leads you to live with a religious world view.

Here, I'll defer to the Bible, and remind you that Jesus advised to have faith "the size of a mustard seed." And, as you know, while capable of growing, mustard seeds are very, very small.

The so-called "margin-of-error" in Evolution is so gigantic that the only people who could ever believe in Evolution are those who are to simple to understand, those who haven't investigated but simply believe, and those who are compulsively hopeful. The last group have very strong faith in their religion. If they had the same kind of faith in Christianity, they would be some of the top missionaries in the world.

Looking at the science that has the "if"s as a religion, is the only way that it can be viewed when people believe it to be true.

As far as what Jesus advised, you are ignorant or you are twisting it intentionally. Jesus was simply suggesting that if you have even this small amount or faith, nothing will be impossible for you. Problem is, that it won't work for faith-science believers, even though their faith is extremely strong. Why not? Because God's faith is way stronger.

Tongue

You didn't read or comprehend anything I said until I mentioned Jesus, did you?

You use inductive reasoning every day of your waking life. If you didn't you wouldn't be able to survive. Science utilizes inductive reasoning. Do you know what else requires inductive reasoning? Here's a list:

Cooking a meal; constructing a house; putting on clothes; wiping your ass; having manners and learning to be sociable, reading a map; reading a book; understanding a movie; etc.

Basically, inductive reasoning is the reason why every life-enhancing technology exists, why people adapt to social and other environmental conditions, and heck, it even made the paper and the ink that your Bible is made of.

And you want people to convert away from that? All of that is a product of science (you keep calling it science; its a product of science in this context).

TL;DR: You already do what science does all the time. You're taking a hypocritical position.

Why do you keep talking away from the "if"s science? The "if"s are the only thing I am talking about. Where do you find the "if"s in science? In the papers that talk about Evolution and old-age universe. Most of the things that you are speaking about, above, are things that science sees clearly, and I would agree with, if it didn't entangle me in some of the "if"s.

Why do you ask "Why...the 'ifs'...?" I literally just explained it.

Here:

Quote

You're dissing science because you're essentially complaining that one can always formulate more questions after a scientific conclusion, even with something as seemingly concrete as a scientific law (e.g. "Is it possible that Universal laws can change over time?"). But, in contrast, you defer to and advocate for a religious view (by the way, you invoke a false dichotomy, here -- a fallacy in its own right) by basically claiming that it gives you all the answers so that you don't need to ask any more questions.

And so, getting to the root of your problem, you completely gloss over the relationship between faith and reason, where one uses evidence to justify faithfulness. Accordingly, even with faith, you depend on reason and evidence, and by undermining an inductive process like the scientific method, you are undermining your own inductive reasoning that leads you to live with a religious world view.