Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    And yet earlier you said.



    So unless your prior statement can be proven through science then who cares? What was the statement?



    If this is an unproven assertion, I have no need to accept it as a fact. If it is a proven one, it defeats itself.

    Must really suck to get scientism destroyed so easily.
    You haven't destroyed anything AP, statements aren't "things" that can be emprically tested as to whether they are true or not. We give the words their meaning and the truth behind those words is in the meaning we give to them. Why is a belief not knowledge of a fact? Because we give the words their meaning, therefore it is a fact that when we say we believe, it means that we do not know.








    Or you could, you know, read him.
    Or since you brought him up as a bolster to your argument you might want to do more than to mention his book.








    I think you overestimate science. Science can never prove what you want it to do. It has to assume it.
    An example please.
    Last edited by JimL; 06-14-2014, 06:29 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Nothing in this statement has been proven by science. If it true, it defeats itself. If it is false, then things can be known without science.

      Dang. That's easy.
      Nothing is ever proven by science. But empirically verified facts can be established beyond reasonable doubt.

      Without scientific methodology nothing can be substantiated; philosophy doesn’t have the means to do so. It consists only of investigating the nature, causes, or principles of reality based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. Only science can do the latter.

      Already presented. Keener. Your refutation?
      Keener’s conclusions are predetermined by his presuppositions, namely the Mission Statement of Asbury Seminary where he is on the faculty: “Scripture, in the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both the Old and New Testaments, is the only written Word of God, without error in all it affirms. The Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice……” And just about all his alleged “evidence” is merely anecdotal.

      No. Science can never prove it because science has to presuppose it. It would be like somehow proving you are not in a dream by looking at everything around you. You might as well try to prove you're not in the Matrix.
      Science never claims to prove anything (see above). It is the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence using observations, hypotheses and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories, which can also make predictions. It is philosophy which is based upon assumptions (sometimes dressed up as “self-evident truths”) that “presupposes”, NOT science.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        The reason we do science Sparko is so that we can trust ourselves, so why wouldn't you trust science?
        I asked if YOU trusted science?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          I asked if YOU trusted science?
          That was implied in my answer. Of course I trust science, thats why we do science, so as not to be fooled by our beliefs.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Nothing is ever proven by science. But empirically verified facts can be established beyond reasonable doubt.

            Without scientific methodology nothing can be substantiated; philosophy doesn’t have the means to do so. It consists only of investigating the nature, causes, or principles of reality based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. Only science can do the latter.
            Unfortunately, none of this has been scientifically substantiated, so without having any science in this statement, which is simply a statement about the philosophy of science, I will take this claim that without scientific methodology nothing can be substantiated as being unsubstantiated.



            Keener’s conclusions are predetermined by his presuppositions, namely the Mission Statement of Asbury Seminary where he is on the faculty: “Scripture, in the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both the Old and New Testaments, is the only written Word of God, without error in all it affirms. The Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice……” And just about all his alleged “evidence” is merely anecdotal.
            This might surprise you, but when people sign onto a faculty, that's because they've looked at the evidence and have come to a conclusion. They don't change it. Meanwhile, one does not say "Their data is invalid because of the presuppositions they have." The data is the data regardless but hey, if you're too scared to read something that disagrees with you, go ahead. I think I'll discount every atheistic idea I meet from now on because it comes from an atheist.

            Oh. By the way, nothing in that statement was scientifically substantiated.



            Science never claims to prove anything (see above). It is the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence using observations, hypotheses and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories, which can also make predictions. It is philosophy which is based upon assumptions (sometimes dressed up as “self-evident truths”) that “presupposes”, NOT science.
            Nothing in this is scientifically substantiated so I have no reason to take it seriously.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              You haven't destroyed anything AP, statements aren't "things" that can be emprically tested as to whether they are true or not. We give the words their meaning and the truth behind those words is in the meaning we give to them. Why is a belief not knowledge of a fact? Because we give the words their meaning, therefore it is a fact that when we say we believe, it means that we do not know.
              Nothing of this has been demonstrated with science. As you said

              You can embrace whatever it is you believe, your belief is why you embrace it, but whether those beliefs are truths or not you have no knowledge of without science.
              Since this has not been established by science, I therefore have no reason to believe it's true.

              I can do this all day....









              Or since you brought him up as a bolster to your argument you might want to do more than to mention his book.
              Yeah. It's such a chore to have to read.









              An example please.
              The one I'm talking about. Prove by science that the material world exists outside your mind.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                That was implied in my answer. Of course I trust science, thats why we do science, so as not to be fooled by our beliefs.
                why? You have shown over the years that you don't understand science at all. There is no way you could even begin to check out any of the science you believe, so is it just faith?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  Nothing of this has been demonstrated with science. As you said



                  Since this has not been established by science, I therefore have no reason to believe it's true.

                  I can do this all day....
                  AP, please stop acting the idiot, its very unbecoming. Science is not needed in order to discover the meaning that we ourselves have given to words. If you truly need impirical evidence of the meaning of a word, a word such as "belief" for instance, or "knowledge," then look it up in the dictionary.










                  Yeah. It's such a chore to have to read.
                  Fight your own battles AP.










                  The one I'm talking about. Prove by science that the material world exists outside your mind.
                  First explain to me what exactly it is that you mean by mind.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    AP, please stop acting the idiot, its very unbecoming. Science is not needed in order to discover the meaning that we ourselves have given to words. If you truly need impirical evidence of the meaning of a word, a word such as "belief" for instance, or "knowledge," then look it up in the dictionary.
                    But you see, if I believe a word has a certain meaning, that is a belief. How do I know if that belief is true or not? You've already told me.

                    You can embrace whatever it is you believe, your belief is why you embrace it, but whether those beliefs are truths or not you have no knowledge of without science.
                    So I can't say the truth of what words mean unless that truth is established by science. I don't think you've done such yet so until you establish that truth by science, I see nothing said here.











                    Fight your own battles AP.
                    Already have. That's why I read what I agree with and what I disagree with. If you're not able to read something that challenges you, it won't keep me up at night.











                    First explain to me what exactly it is that you mean by mind.
                    I mean that you think that you are experiencing a reality I take it of something that is extramental. This world does not just exist in your head.

                    Can that be established using science?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      why? You have shown over the years that you don't understand science at all. There is no way you could even begin to check out any of the science you believe, so is it just faith?
                      Ad hominum attacks aside, faith is not science. Faith is like belief, by faith you believe that the universe was created, by science you know it began approximately 14.5 billion years ago.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Ad hominum attacks aside, faith is not science. Faith is like belief, by faith you believe that the universe was created, by science you know it began approximately 14.5 billion years ago.
                        No. Faith is not a belief system. It's a response to what one already believes. It's an action. It's not an epistemology.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          Unfortunately, none of this has been scientifically substantiated, so without having any science in this statement, which is simply a statement about the philosophy of science, I will take this claim that without scientific methodology nothing can be substantiated as being unsubstantiated.
                          The veracity of a word’s meaning is determined by common agreement, not by science. Without such agreement words are meaningless. So, unless you’re denying any words can have meaning “substantiated” is defined as: “having evidence to support or prove the truth of...” Scientific methodology can supply such substantiated evidence and discover new knowledge, whereas philosophy cannot. It is dependent upon existing knowledge.

                          This might surprise you, but when people sign onto a faculty, that's because they've looked at the evidence and have come to a conclusion. They don't change it. Meanwhile, one does not say "Their data is invalid because of the presuppositions they have." The data is the data regardless but hey, if you're too scared to read something that disagrees with you, go ahead. I think I'll discount every atheistic idea I meet from now on because it comes from an atheist.
                          No doubt Keener found the evidence of supernatural events as found in scripture to be “true” to his satisfaction. And no doubt people like you will agree with him given your religious beliefs.

                          But by investigating miracles occurring in the natural world, he is making a scientific claim and, as such, it requires testing by scientific methodology. To my knowledge all he has provided is anecdotal evidence. But science consists of “intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and verifiable experiments.”

                          Oh. By the way, nothing in that statement was scientifically substantiated.
                          Word games!

                          Nothing in this is scientifically substantiated so I have no reason to take it seriously.
                          You’ll have to do better than this AP.

                          See above re the definition of “substantiated”. The mere fact of our communication via electronic means is “substantiated” evidence of effective scientific methodology. But, whereas science demonstrably advances the body of knowledge and allows for prediction to enable further new knowledge, philosophy is unable to do so. It must rely on existing knowledge upon which to form a premise.
                          Last edited by Tassman; 06-14-2014, 11:44 PM.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            But you see, if I believe a word has a certain meaning, that is a belief. How do I know if that belief is true or not? You've already told me.
                            But you don't "believe" that a word has a certain meaning, you "know" that a word has a certain meaning, because we gave it that meaning. Will you continue to act the fool?


                            So I can't say the truth of what words mean unless that truth is established by science. I don't think you've done such yet so until you establish that truth by science, I see nothing said here.
                            Since language is our own creation, we don't need science to explain it to us AP. I can't believe I have to explain this to you!












                            Already have. That's why I read what I agree with and what I disagree with. If you're not able to read something that challenges you, it won't keep me up at night.
                            I am happy to read things that challenge me, thats why i'm discussing this with you. So, go ahead and challenge me with what you've learned instead of telling me to go read a book. If you are unable to do this on your own, in your own words, then i'll have to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about and there is no point in discussing it with you.












                            I mean that you think that you are experiencing a reality I take it of something that is extramental. This world does not just exist in your head.

                            Can that be established using science?
                            Thats not what I asked. I asked you to define what it is that you mean by a mind.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Ad hominum attacks aside, faith is not science. Faith is like belief, by faith you believe that the universe was created, by science you know it began approximately 14.5 billion years ago.
                              It wasn't ad hominem, It was on point. Your posts regarding science (especially general relativity) show that you have no science background, and have a horrible grasp on science itself. And there is no way you can check out what scientist claim is true or not. Therefore you are believing in science entirely on faith. You merely believe they are right in what they claim, even though you have shown you don't even understand WHAT they are saying. And despite science revising itself and proving earlier truth claims to be not true as science progresses. You believe in shifting sand and can't even understand what sand is.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                It wasn't ad hominem, It was on point. Your posts regarding science (especially general relativity) show that you have no science background, and have a horrible grasp on science itself. And there is no way you can check out what scientist claim is true or not. Therefore you are believing in science entirely on faith. You merely believe they are right in what they claim, even though you have shown you don't even understand WHAT they are saying. And despite science revising itself and proving earlier truth claims to be not true as science progresses. You believe in shifting sand and can't even understand what sand is.
                                I don't fully understand QM either Sparko, neither do you, but I do know that it works. Do you trust that QM works? People believe in science because it works, whether they fully understand it or not. Being that you asked the question, I take it that you don't trust in science? I guess then that it is you who believes in whatever you are told.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, Today, 09:20 AM
                                0 responses
                                4 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, Yesterday, 09:28 AM
                                0 responses
                                14 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 10-26-2021, 09:44 AM
                                0 responses
                                13 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 10-25-2021, 09:09 AM
                                0 responses
                                11 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 10-22-2021, 09:17 AM
                                0 responses
                                14 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Working...
                                X