Say Anything Blog

I’ll get the conversation started.

It leaves a big hole on how it all started.  Especially since it’s natural for things to go from order to disorder.

What causes a natural law to be “law” without a supernatural being.  Why can’t “laws” evolve?

I’m not sure if either is the direction you were looking to travel, but there it is.

“Hope is not a method.” - Common Military Saying

The above is a statement of pro activity.  If any Soldier were to tell me that he hoped what he was briefing was going to come to fruition, that would be unacceptable.  We in the Army do not have the luxury to ‘hope’ that things will end well.  Hope will get us killed.  Instead, we must plan and take action.  Hope is not a method.

As a leader I can never ‘hope’ that my Soldiers have the proper training.  I can never ‘hope’ that my Soldiers have the proper logistical supplies.  I can never ‘hope’ that my Soldiers will survive the next mission.  Hope is not a method; I live in the real world.

Minor Premise:

Natural causes sufficiently explain the all natural effects in the universe.

This one is wrong.  For one thing, it depends on a certain definition of “natural” that excludes God.  It’s similar to the enviro extremists regarding humans and human activity as being “outside the natural order”.  In other words, their entire thesis rests on the assumption that humans are not part of nature, which is ridiculous on the face of it.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Paulie B,

Your first answer is along the same lines as I am thinking.  It was one the first ‘red-flags’ which seem to present a gap in the logic.  I should not that the fallacy in a ‘logical fallacy’.  Of course this logical fallacy depends on a proper construction of the syllogism presented in this post.  I believe it to be correct, if not, hopefully someone will point it out.

Your second point is excellent.  I completely agree.  The idea of laws without a law-giver seems utterly absurd except for the fact that some reasonable people accept such a scenario.

R108,

You are very close to what I believe to be a serious flaw in the logical construction. It is decently concealed in the language, but in practice it is obvious.

Paulie: Excellent point, but lefties just deny that laws exist, being moral relativists.  I had it happen to me on a thread about globalwarmingism; the leftie just asserted that science wasn’t about being exact.  They continue to astound me with their intellectual dishonesty.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

R108, Paulie B.,

The major premise attempts to conceal the premise as practiced.  It is one thing to say “observable effects are best explained by natural cause”. It is quite another to exclude all but natural causes which is exactly what the premise does when applied.  In other words the major premise might as well be stated for what it is:

Observable effects are only explained by natural causes because that is all there is.

Remember:
We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is.

This premise, of course, is flawed by circular reasoning, and, therefore, unproven.

The premise states, as practiced, “observable effects are best [only] explained by natural causes..” for which the philosophical reason is “because that is all there is” (naturalism).  The conclusion restates the premise.

Quite a nifty trick!

Of course there are other problems with the conclusion.  But this is the biggy IMO.

Another way to look at it is:

All verifiable explanations require natural causes.
All Natural effects need to be verifiably explained.
All natural effects are best explained by natural causes.

In other words:
We must assume nature is all there is in order to provide a verifiable (naturalistic) explanation.

Since verifiable (naturalistic) explanations predictably result in natural causes, nature is all there is.

Incredibly enough, this logical fallacy is used by some to prove not only nature is all there is, but that there is no Creator, no intelligent design.  For all the logic that goes into science, you can’t help but wonder if this fallacy isn’t intentional.

HG: As it is with all logical processes, the premises presuppose the conclusion.  If you assume God, you will prove God, and if you assume no-God, you will prove no-God.  The existence of God lies outside not only logic, but the entire “scientific process”, by definition.  The way it is these days, if you assume God, you are classified as religious, and that is presumed to lie outside science.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

I’ve been at work, and therefore out of the discussion.  The circular thing is right on target.  I’ve had many a lot of talks on evolution, and the evolutionists arguments are always circular.  (I hope I didn’t just open a can of worms… I’m not trying to make this into an evolution debate, seriously.)

What science said today is often 180 degrees from what science said a couple hundred years ago.  What will science say in another couple hundred years?

“Hope is not a method.” - Common Military Saying

The above is a statement of pro activity.  If any Soldier were to tell me that he hoped what he was briefing was going to come to fruition, that would be unacceptable.  We in the Army do not have the luxury to ‘hope’ that things will end well.  Hope will get us killed.  Instead, we must plan and take action.  Hope is not a method.

As a leader I can never ‘hope’ that my Soldiers have the proper training.  I can never ‘hope’ that my Soldiers have the proper logistical supplies.  I can never ‘hope’ that my Soldiers will survive the next mission.  Hope is not a method; I live in the real world.

The existence of God lies outside not only logic.

R108,

Doesn’t the following contradict your statement above?

Romans 1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

As it is with all logical processes, the premises presuppose the conclusion.

R108,

I understand your statement above demonstrates circular reasoning. As noted below:

(4) Petitio principii (begging the question) or Circulus in probando (arguing in a circle), which consists in demonstrating a conclusion by means of premises which presuppose that conclusion.

What science said today is often 180 degrees from what science said a couple hundred years ago.  What will science say in another couple hundred years?

Paulie B,

Don’t get me wrong, science is a good thing.  But, it is a limited tool when the method of investigation is limited to only natural causes.  This scientific method works fine in many cases, but not when it comes to origins and the like.  This science has no business attempting to prove philosophy or trying to disprove a creator or intelligent design.

I’m not saying that science is a bad thing either.  However, some people worship science as their god, but that god changes with the times. 
Science is not a scary thing for a Christian.

Side note:
Although my God’s people may change, my God does not change.

“Hope is not a method.” - Common Military Saying

The above is a statement of pro activity.  If any Soldier were to tell me that he hoped what he was briefing was going to come to fruition, that would be unacceptable.  We in the Army do not have the luxury to ‘hope’ that things will end well.  Hope will get us killed.  Instead, we must plan and take action.  Hope is not a method.

As a leader I can never ‘hope’ that my Soldiers have the proper training.  I can never ‘hope’ that my Soldiers have the proper logistical supplies.  I can never ‘hope’ that my Soldiers will survive the next mission.  Hope is not a method; I live in the real world.

Science is not a scary thing for a Christian.

Well said Paulie B.

Firstly, I disagree with your premises. They are broken, so any conclusion from them will be broken?

If we observe anything in nature, we can apply some physics principles, like conservation of energy, for example. If we find that the total amount of energy before and after is the same (which we measure), can we not conclude that there was no energy transfer from a super-natural source? Without such a transfer, we can say there was no super-natural effect witnessed. It’s not that `observable effects in nature are best explainable only by similarly natural causes’. It’s that without a need to add anything super-natural, why add anything super-natural? If something appears to violate known principles then we do have to consider other options.

Ernest Rutherford’s famous experiment, where alpha particles bounced back from a piece of gold foil, made physicists re-think their models of the atom. As he said:

It was almost as incredible as if you fired a fifteen inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back to hit you.--Ernest Rutherford

And the minor premise is broken too. I would change it too:

Natural causes very probably explain all natural effects in the universe.

Obviously, it’ll take just one repeatable example that can be shown to have been caused by a non-natural effect to break this. But since we haven’t found a single example so far, I would say the probability is very low. And since science doesn’t discriminate on ideological grounds, it would probably happily integrate such a discovery (like Rutherford’s discovery above), and then it would then become natural (but our idea of what is natural will expand).

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

What causes a natural law to be “law” without a supernatural being.  Why can’t “laws” evolve?--Paulie B

Since one of my degrees is in physics, I will use that for my examples. The law of `Conservation of Energy’ is true because we (physicists/man) make it true. Energy is an idea, we defined it, so we can say what it is. It turns out (though not by accident) it is useful to analyze the behavior of many observed systems too.

The same applies to all laws of physics. We define them, and the way they are defined makes them true. If I define `c’ to equal `a + b’ then it is what it is, since I defined it so. The fact that the laws of physics seem to apply to the real world means that they are useful, and were wisely defined too.

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Without such a transfer, we can say there was no super-natural effect witnessed. It’s not that `observable effects in nature are best explainable only by similarly natural causes’. It’s that without a need to add anything super-natural, why add anything super-natural?

AV,

The FACT is that science IS a method of discovery which uses METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM.  No amount of rhetorical jockying is going to change that.  If you want to create a philosophy of science based on your statement above then have at it. Until then methodological naturalism is the accepted standard.

But since we haven’t found a single example so far, I would say the probability is very low.

FACT #2: A method of science which in practice operates on the premise that “nature is all that there is” will never offer a supernatural explanation—it is a predetermined impossibility AV.

The science is fixed to off naturalistic explanations.  Until the methodological naturalism is abandoned for natural philosphy, many things will remain outside the boundaries of accepted science.

AV,

Your comment above this is utter non-sense.  Laws exist and operate whether or not anyone explains it.  Gravity was operating long before Newton explained it.

AV: Your premise that physicists “invented” the laws of physics is so patently untrue that I very much doubt your claim of having a degree in physics.  As you should know, all the laws of physics have been discovered, not invented. Energy had to be present before the creation of the universe for that creation to have happened.  How did the world exist before one of you physicists invented energy?  Please give a clear explanation.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

AV: Physics is the study of the physical world, so by definition, it excludes metaphysics.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

On the other hand, we invented the scientific method…

But this is pure tripe:

Since one of my degrees is in physics, I will use that for my examples. The law of `Conservation of Energy’ is true because we (physicists/man) make it true. Energy is an idea, we defined it, so we can say what it is. It turns out (though not by accident) it is useful to analyze the behavior of many observed systems too.

Where’d you get your physics degree?  A crackerjack box?

When we use “true” in a scientific context, it isn’t simply a definition.  That is a complete garbling up of of the methodology.  To say a thing is true because it is defined so is simply to invoke a tautology.

Truth in an empirical sense means that a proposition has been tested by the scientific method and determined to be “true” by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

In your example of conservation of energy, we define what it means for energy to be conserved, but we test experimentally to see whether it is conserved.  And it turns out, it’s not entirely true (you can’t even define a self-consistent conservation principle for Einsteinian cosmology for example, and there is empirical evidence that the Universe’s rate of expansion is increasing, a clear violation of the conservation of energy).

...physics in particular, is a tool to root out
the true nature of reality.

Physics is an attempt to explain the already existing reality of the physical world, in predictable and quantifiable ways.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

[myg0t]Jeesus:

So science has tossed the use of “law” in favor of “theory”.

Better check your facts there.

We use law to describe any proposition that has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its truth when a given set of circumstances have been met, and which has a general range of application. 

Newton’s Laws are not just laws just because, in a variety of contexts, they are true to many order of accuracy better than measurement science can provide, but because of their general utility in describing a range of phenomena.  Given Newton’s three laws, you can describe and predict to an accuracy far better than you can measure, any macroscopic, nonrelativistic purely mechanical phenomenon on the surface of the Earth.  That’s a pretty broad range of applicability.

Note that this use of the word “law” is not that different than the way it’s used legally.  Laws always have a domain of applicability.  For example, it is legal to drink in my town, but not outside city limits.  State law cannot override federal law, nor the US constitution…

If a thing is widely true under a variety of circumstances, but lacks the ability to completely describe a range of phenomena, we use the word “principle” rather than “law”.  Conservation of Energy is a widely used principle for example, which though contained within Newton’s Laws, also has validity even outside the range of validity of Newton’s Laws.

The relationship between an empirical hypothesis and a theory, by the way, is an empirical ("scientific") hypothesis is a proposition which is constructed from a theory that has empirically testable consequences (usually through falsification).  That is a different thing than a “speculation”.  You can speculate whether something is true, without ever having a theory to base it on.

Carrick,

Thank you for the education, that is just one of the many benefits of SAB.

HG, you’re quite welcome.  The diversity interests and specialization of Rob’s regular readers is one thing that keeps me coming back.

I always get a chuckle when a liberal comes on this blog and assumes that just because it’s a conservative blog, that everybody on it is stupid and uneducated.

Where’d you get your physics degree?  A crackerjack box?--Carrick

It was part of a two-for-one discount. Some of my language above was foolish. Got to proof-read before I post. I accidentally let a couple of `true’s slip through. (Science may be a search for truth, but it at any given instant, the accepted theories are just our best guess.)

Energy had to be present before the creation of the universe for that creation to have happened.--Robert108

Energy is an concept. A triangle is an concept. If you don’t believe me, show me a triangle (or some energy). How we explain the universe around us is in terms of the concepts we have. If a system is capable of doing work, we say it has energy.

The FACT is that science IS a method of discovery which uses METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM.--HG

Funny, because I have never heard of `METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM’ before, but I have performed plenty of experiments. Like I said above, all you need is one example that physics cannot ever hope to explain.

Laws exist and operate whether or not anyone explains it.  Gravity was operating long before Newton explained it.--HG

What about Einsteins gravity? Then there is quantum gravity (if anyone manages to get it to work). Objects with mass tend to attract each-other, and we have labeled this gravity (and yet do not understand the cause. There is currently research to attempt to prove the `graviton’ exists).

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Objects with mass tend to attract each- other…

Hmmm.

AV might be on to something.  If that is the theory, the proof might be that objects with massive boobs attract me.

...for great justice

AV: None of your replies refute the statements you quote.  You are reduced to semantic games here.  It’s not the definition of energy that is the subject of my statement, it’s energy itself.  Of course, my point is that energy existed to create the Universe before any humans existed.  You should know that.  In fact, your concept of evolution absolutely depends on it.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

I seem to get the feel that AV is approaching this from a social relativist perspective.  Namely, what scientists hold true, is held true not because it is anchored in an underlying physical reality, but because we as scientists are simply practicing our normal social games, and merely pretending that we are learning anything about the universe (this is an approximation of what they really say).

In any case, it is founded on mushy-headed social-science thinking that is easily exposed as the product of too many doobies and too little profound thought.  For example, if science doesn’t work, why then is there progress in science over time?

This progress is immediate and obvious, at least to me, as I type on my laptop, and contemplate that when I was in high school, we were still learning to use slide rules.  If you think about it, technology itself is a manifestation of the reality of an objective underlying reality.

For example, exactly how do these people suggest that TVs and laptops started working?  Are these people suggesting that a caveman could pick up a few sticks and make a TV with it?  If they aren’t suggesting that, it’s obvious there must be some objective reality that we are exposing using the scientific method, and what we are learning about that reality gives us more insight on how to control that reality.

Finally, AV, the “laws of nature” refer to the immutable laws describing the workings of nature.  This is a case where you don’t have to have them written down for them to exist.  If you trip on a rock, you needn’t understand anything about gravity, to feel the consequences of your actions.

In the end, you are confusing human constructs, such as Newton’s laws, with the reality of an underlying set of laws that govern reality.

Of course, my point is that energy existed to create the Universe before any humans existed.--Rboert108

The First Law of Thermodynamics certainly supports a lot of your argument.

The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.

The only problem is that how can one know what the conditions `outside’ of the universe are like? This may be outside of the realm of (current?) physics.

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

AV: Don’t be surprised if you notice something that is outside the realm of physics.  Physics only deals with a very narrow band of existence.  It’s a lot like thinking the visible spectrum is the totality of the electromagnetic spectrum.  In fact, until recently in human history, the electromagnetic spectrum was mostly unknown to “scientists”.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Carrick: In the late 19th century, many considered (weasel words I know, but I cannot remember the details) that most of physics was complete, and only a couple of details needed to be cleared up. The Swiss Patent Office even contemplated closing since they thought that nearly everything had already been invented.

I try not to hold on to any belief too dogmatically. If I find that something works (like Quantum Theory does extremely well, and has allowed us to use semiconductors for making laptops), then I will happily use it. If something better happens to come along, I’ll happily use it instead.

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

I seem to get the feel that AV is approaching this from a social relativist perspective.

Ya think?  Good call, Carrick.  You might consider that I don’t self-identify as “Christian Omnivore”.  His ideological agenda is obvious, it seems.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

The First Law of Thermodynamics certainly supports a lot of your argument.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, along with all of physics, is an attempt to explain what already exists; it does not in any way deal with causation.

Sorry to be repetitious.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Actually that was Lord Kelvin who claimed that all that was left in science was to increase the precision of the known constants.

That was I think about 10 years before Einstein published his 1905 papers on relativity, thermodynamics and the photoelectric effect.

Then again, in between bursts of genius, Kelvin was known for putting his foot in his mouth....  “the radio has no future,” “manned flight is impossible,” etc.

Ya think?  Good call, Carrick.  You might consider that I don’t self-identify as “Christian Omnivore”.  His ideological agenda is obvious, it seems.--Robert108

If you were posting on an `Atheist Vegetarian’ blog, you might call yourself that if you wanted to make your beliefs obvious to all. That way, people instantly know from what viewpoint your opinions are coming from.

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Carrick:

Better check your facts there.

Charlatans do come in all shapes and sizes. *hint*hint*
I’m talking about you btw.

http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/kaos42
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law

The First Law of Thermodynamics, along with all of physics, is an attempt to explain what already exists; it does not in any way deal with causation.--Robert108

Physics does deal with causation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

Can I assume that you are talking about the `first-mover’ problem?

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Um, [myg0t]Jeesus, exactly why are you taking Katharine Osborne, a technical and science writer but not a scientist, as an authority on the subject?  I have used the words “hypothesis,” “theory”, “principle” and “law” as they are generally understood in the field of physical science

Actually, if I were to go to lay literature for a definition, I prefer the wikipedia definition(which is the sum of a number of individuals opinions, rather than just one):

A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.

As I have explained it, a law becomes a law, when it has a large range of applicability.  This happens very rarely, which Katharine is mistaking for “never”.

And Katherine has it totally wrong with this part:

The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science.

Total crap.

Again from Wikipedia:

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena

and for hypothesis:

tentative conjecture explaining an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation, and/or experimentation.

As I mentioned, normally in science, a hypothesis is a testable question that arises from a scientific theory.  Theories imply hypotheses.  Hypotheses then become testable “atoms” that hold a theory together. 

Finally, a theory that has no testable hypotheses is not a scientific theory at all.  Thus string theory is not a scientific theory so much as a mathematical model of how the universe might be.  As Linus Pauling might say string theory is <a href="">not even wrong,</a> meaning only that it is untestable and thus not part of empirical science.

Charlatans do come in all shapes and sizes.

Yes, they do.  And unless you want to appear like one, next time make sure that you are picking somebody knowledgeable about a subject, before you decide to plagiarize them… as you did above!.  LOL.

Left out a link:

not even wrong

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory & the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics (Hardcover) by Peter Woit (Jonathan Cape, 2006), 256 pages.

By the way, HG.  If by “natural” we mean that which is governed by natural law, then your statement:

There are no supernatural causes necessary to explain natural effects.

Is another tautology.

If you need a supernatural cause (e.g., God) it wouldn’t be a natural effect, but rather the result of a “supernatural act”.

Along the same lines, suppose this four-dimensional (actually, 3+1) universe is but one dimension of a five-dimensional book.  If some being living in that 5-dimensional (actually, 4+1 or even 3+2) were to act in such away as to affect our universe, then from our perspective it would still be a supernatural act, as in coming from outside the realm of our physical law.  Even if they were neither a god nor a devil, but just ordinary run-of-the-mill joe six-pack five dimensional creatures....

Funny, because I have never heard of `METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM’ before, but I have performed plenty of experiments. Like I said above, all you need is one example that physics cannot ever hope to explain.

AV,

Somehow I don’t think it would matter if you had.  Do a little research and see for yourself.  It not only exists, but governs science by limiting the method of investigation as I noted above.

AV, science has often and will continue to often make claims which propose to explain some phenomenon only to be revised sometime future.  When it comes to the questions of the origins of life and the universe, the deepest and greatest questions of all, science may construct a naturalistic explanation which excludes any unobservable cause (although I still am waiting for that transitional form), but that is only a biased construction imagined in the minds of some who, as illustrated in this post, will construct a method of investigation which assumes a philosophical premise and concludes the same, then defines that method of investigation as the only true science.  I’m not buying.

If you need a supernatural cause (e.g., God) it wouldn’t be a natural effect, but rather the result of a “supernatural act”.

Carrick,

I will revise the post to say:

“There are no supernatural causes necessary to explain observable effects in nature.”

Even if they were neither a god nor a devil, but just ordinary run-of-the-mill joe six-pack five dimensional creatures....

Not exactly “Occam’s Razor”, is it?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

AV: Your link took me to a page with references to other pages, but no information on what you are talking about.  I maintain that physics can only “prove” what already exists, but not how it originated.  It may speculate, but not prove origins.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

If you were posting on an `Atheist Vegetarian’ blog, you might call yourself that if you wanted to make your beliefs obvious to all. That way, people instantly know from what viewpoint your opinions are coming from.

Like we can instantly know about where your viewpoints are coming from?  Perhaps all Anarchists aren’t atheists, but you have expressed quite a few atheist and antiChristian views on this blog, so I’m spot on.
Nice try, though.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

HG, you could have an observable effect that is not of natural origin, e.g., a supernatural event, like Jesus walking on water. Or perhaps, you could have a God that acts, but never makes an action that can be proven to not be of natural origin.

That was really my point.

Carrick: Good point, but I think both HG and I have brought up the fact that if you restrict your view to that which can be “explained” by natural causes, you automatically omit everything else.  The basic premise determines the range of possible conclusions, especially for those like AV.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

I also find it interesting that a great many anti-God people will believe in “Mother Nature” or “Gaia”, which are obviously supernatural concepts, but reject God.  Methinks they are simply against Christianity.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

That was really my point.

Carrick,

Ok, got it. Makes sense.

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)

“[E]ven those who are supporting — but here’s the thing, Larry — even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 3/19/07)

“My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” (NBC’s “The Today Show,” 7/18/07)

Senator Barack Obama

Guys,

I don’t know why you waste your breath with anyone who associates themselves with mentally-stunted anarchists.  These are fringe folk, most likely molested by their step-dads while very young and desparate for attention.  So much so, they adopt hate and vitriole as the center of their pathetic existence and seek solace in associating with the similarly marginal. 

They have no moral authority.

Still… He does keep the conversation going.

If he and his kind didn’t come to visit us, it might get real boring, sitting around and nodding in unison.

...for great justice

Robert108, I don’t necessarily restrict myself to other points of view.  The idea with empirical science is to see how far we can push it without having to invoke prime mover issues.

I mean you don’t have to go far to find the limits:  The very existence of the universe itself is a paradox.  It is an effect with no natural cause.  At least according to the definition I gave before, since any cause would have to reside outside our universe.

Have you ever thought about the offering plate in church? If God is real, why do they have to pass it? If you read these verses in the Bible, you can see that God claims to be extremely powerful and willing to answer any prayer:

* Matthew 7:7
* Matthew 17:20
* Matthew 21:21
* Mark 11:24
* John 14:12-14
* Matthew 18:19
* Mark 9:23
* Luke 1:37

Now consider this: Why don’t the ministers and deacons of the church gather together every Sunday morning and pray to Jesus for the money they need? Why doesn’t Jesus answer their prayers? Why do churches have to beg for money from mere mortals when there is an immortal, all-powerful God who should provide anything they ask for? Here is what “God” is saying:

Pray to me for anything and I will hear and answer your prayers. I say it in dozens of places in the Bible, but I like the way I say it in Mark 11:24 the best: “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” Anything you need—money, love, happiness, you name it—I am here to provide it for you.

Now, there is just one thing I need in return. I need your money. I need lots of your money. The Bible specifies that you tithe ten percent of your income to me, but think of that as a starting point. Feel free to give more!

Because even though I created the universe and everything in it, and even though I will give you everything you ask for in prayer, I can’t give a cent to any church, ever. When they pass the offering plate at church, be sure to give generously!

This, of course, is ridiculous.

The reason why they pass the offering plate at church is because God is imaginary.

...any cause would have to reside outside our universe.

The truth of that statement depends entirely upon how you define “universe”. What is the dark matter?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

The reason why they pass the offering plate at church is because God is imaginary.

No, it’s because humans are imperfect.  You, on the other hand, are imaginary.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

robert108 - Ewok is the spammer who posts those porn links using many of the regular’s names.

If you see more of the copy and paste crap, just ignore it please. I’m deleting them.

likwid: Thanks!  Like I said, imaginary.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Robert108:

The truth of that statement depends entirely upon how you define “universe”.

The most conventional definition used in cosmology is all points in space-time that can be causally linked (more exactly, is at some point in history, a ray of light from one point could reach any other point).

Anything topologically outside of that is called the “multiverse”.

We know with little scientific doubt that there was a “beginning” to our universe, and so far there is no evidence of any information (e.g., light rays, etc) linking to anything prior to its creation.  So whatever was “before” creation, is not in the cosmological sense at least, part of our universe.

Carrick: Your definition of the universe, which I consider a very good one, given the limitations of your belief system, illustrates my point.  The definition itself limits the scope of what scientists are willing to accept as the “universe”, which has nothing whatsoever to do with what the universe considers itself to be.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

...which has nothing whatsoever to do with what the universe considers itself to be.--Robert108

What does the universe consider itself to be?

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

AV,

Gustave has a great story on global warming which also illustrates this fallacy.

Robert108:

Carrick: Your definition of the universe, which I consider a very good one, given the limitations of your belief system, illustrates my point.

What does belief or its limits have anything to do with a definition used within empirical science?  Or more to the point, why should belief have anything to do with empirical science?

My definition, and how I used the word (appropriately in the context it was used), was of what we mean in empirical science by “universe”.  As scientists, we don’t deny the possibility of the existence of things that cannot affect or be affected by us, we just use a different label for that, e.g., “multiverse”.

What you appear to keep missing is that the role of empirical science is to restrict itself to things that can be tested empirically.  That doesn’t mean there aren’t other things..., just that they can’t be tested objectively, so properly they aren’t part of that discipline of “things that can be tested objectively.”

If you want to argue that science as a body should treat the question of the existence of God that is fine.  And as soon as you can come up with an experimental test of His existence, we’d be more than happy to incorporate that into our framework of what constitutes empirical science.

why should belief have anything to do with empirical science?

Doesn’t empirical science lead to true beliefs?

Sparkie:

Doesn’t empirical science lead to true beliefs?

That’s a deep question.

Carrick
I know my epistemology. Let’s have at it!

Carrick vs. Sparkie.

This ought to be good.  I’ll be playing the role of spectator but I reserve the right to an occasional comment.

Carrick: 

What you appear to keep missing is that the role of empirical science is to restrict itself to things that can be tested empirically.

Actually, you make my point very well.  It is exactly that restriction that creates your view of the universe.  One who doesn’t have those restrictions is free to conclude otherwise.  Everything is ultimately founded on belief, since premises are necessary to form conclusions, and ultimately premises must be taken on faith, like your faith that “empirical science” can define the truth.  You don’t know that by any independent means; it is a foregone conclusion with you.  It’s just another human limitation, and science is a human creation.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

What does the universe consider itself to be?

I would say: Everything, without limitation, but that’s just a guess.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

No, Robert108.  You keep missing the point.

The word “Universe” is just a word, with a variety of meanings.  It has one meaning for you apparently, quite another for a group of cosmologists.  That implies nothing about belief at all, only how people choose to define that word.  Nor does it say anything about a person’s personal belief system whatsoever.

And yes “empirical science” can define a type of truth, those that are discernible by the scientific method.  But I certainly never claimed it could illuminate all truth.

As to belief… is belief really a necessary component of practicing science?  I don’t think so.  All that is required is understanding the propositions inherent in the method, and correctly following them in the correct order.  If you do it right, you’ll discover new truth.  This is an objective result, not a subjective one.  And one that will happen regardless of what you believe, as long as you do the steps in the right order.

I’ve read plenty of scientific papers which contained truths (through their measurement protocol and results) that the authors themselves were unaware of.  In fact, I would say that occurs frequently.  Scientific journals are filled with papers that contain more truth than its own authors were aware of at the time they wrote the paper.

I would say understanding is a prerequisite for practicing science, but neither belief nor faith.  Remember once you’ve written the paper and it’s in a published form, that paper now becomes part of the collective human knowledge regardless of your feelings about your results.

Everything is ultimately founded on belief, since premises are necessary to form conclusions, and ultimately premises must be taken on faith, like your faith that “empirical science” can define the truth.--Robert108

faith
• noun 1 complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief. --Oxford Dictionary

A assure you that many scientists would drop their current beliefs (some might take awhile) if new evidence or theories come along that contradict current beliefs, therefore this isn’t faith.

Deeply religious people appear to take pride in their ability to resist (deny) evidence, like the Creationist crowd for example.

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

On the other hand, Sparkie, I do have deep faith in the utility of the scientific method.  If we get a screwed-up result, we sit down figure out what we did wrong, rather than throw out the method.

But my point is what is special about the method is it doesn’t give a rats ass what you are thinking while you are going through the process, only that you objectively go through the right steps in the right order.  Indeed, many discoveries have been made by error for example but by people who were clever enough (or knew somebody who was clever enough) to recognize what they had accomplished.

Example… discovery of the cosmic microwave background.  Penzias and Wilson set out to build a better microwave antenna then pointed it towards a blank spot in the sky to calibrate the noise floor.  They kept picking up a signal that they couldn’t explain (curiously the spectrum looked like a black-body radiation pattern).  They talked to their friend Richard Dicke, who put them onto the right explanation.  Seems Dicke was trying to build his own microwave antenna to look for the cosmic microwave background.  Poor bloke was too honest, he inadvertently gave away his share of a Nobel Prize by explaining to them what they were measuring.

The point here is scientific discoveries are made by doing things better and more carefully often combined with a bit of luck. How we feel about what we are doing, our personal motivations, etc., really doesn’t affect the outcome that much.  How good we are at what we do, definitely does.

I know I’m beating a dead wookie here, but true skepticism (as opposed to say cynicism) plays at least as big or bigger a role as belief does for science.

1 complete trust or confidence.

AV: You affirm your faith in the “scientific method”.  You trust it completely(not any particular facts, but the method itself), and have complete confidence in it.  Therefore, faith.  Don’t be ashamed, it’s all we have, when it comes right down to it.  Your lot is just generally arrogant about it, that’s all. You consider yourselves superior to those who have faith in something else.  It’s just a phase; you’ll grow out of it.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin