What do you mean, "you can't question God-given truth", specifically? People do so every single day, both within and without religious organizations.
If you're going to do a Straw Man, please at least start with something not factually false on its face.
As far as the defining documents themselves (let's take the one Slashdot is most afrai^H^H^H^H^H oddly-specific in its objections to), there is extensive "questioning" of God directly in the bible. Generally, this led to some form of either demonstration or explanation--which, many would say, it does through today. Because, many would say, refusing to ask doesn't demonstrated no answer will be given.
One can perform an infinite series of tests of Newtonian Mechanics.
Okay, our major issue seems to be usage of language. One actually -cannot- perform an infinite series of tests. Sounds great as an abstraction, just isn't reality in a literal sense. One cannot simply standardize the expectations of the tests expected to be presented with a hypothesis to "perform an infinite number of tests of everything with respect to everything about this and with respect to everything both known and unknown in reality" as the single, boilerplate qualification for any and all hypotheses across all science.
To elaborate this further, I would need to address, it seems, "falsification by happenstance" in a manner that fits into the topic effectively from your perspective. I'll give that some thought.
Evolutionary theory will continue to offer more and more falsifiable predictions that allow us to further our knowledge of the world, whereas ID offers nothing but more questions.
Well, evolution will continue to offer falsifiable predictions, and so will ID (a few are a google away, in case you weren't aware that the usual parroting of the claim that it makes none is just directly false), and yes, it will offer more questions. I'm not sure why you think questions are a problem. And no, it won't mean we're saying "we can never know", it'll just be being intellectually honest and saying we know what specifics we know, and don't know what we don't, from which we can approach some quite-useful questions such as "Is this virus naturally occurring, or are we under a biological warfare attack?". I'm not sure what the "caves" have to do with it, unless you're sharing some kind of psychological confession about you inevitably being eliminated by the Natural Selection you choose as your only alternative.
As for me, I'll be enjoying the "uselessness" of having an arbitrary amount of time to learn about these biological structures and their progression in detail, along with any other fields of endeavor I'm interested in. And it is good knowing this as an... empirical fact, however individual.
Whether or not it has been disproven does not make it unscientific.
Well then, I suppose you have no concerns about advocating anything you choose to consider "scientific"--even if it's disproven. Luminiferous Ether was a scientific theory. Is it still "scientific", now that it has been disproven? Well, at minimum I'll stipulate that I am considering falsified theories to be unscientific, for the purposes of this discussion.
It is a perfectly valid postulate, just like my 'all sheep are white' example.
The problem with analogies is they are often disanalogous. It is known that there are black sheep. The closer analogy would be "there have never been any naturally purple sheep" as a hypothesis. Empirically, we can reasonably conclude there probably were not purple sheep by the fact none have been observed, but this is, strictly speaking, not a falsifiable test, and therefore not a -scientific- hypothesis.
Can you give me a biological attribute that cannot be explained by natural selection?
In the case of fluorescent ones, yes. They must be explained by design--as they were, as a matter of fact, recently designed by genetic engineers.
Do we have any reason to suspect that something as outlandish as a 'designer' is necessary to explain cats?
Nothing "outlandish" about it at all in the general case, just you deciding to characterize it that way, with no non-subjective weight to the statement at all. As for the specific case I'm referencing, it isn't "outlandish" due to it being fact. Here's a link in case you missed the news: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/27153/
I guess meeting the designer would allow me to put this to rest - of course He could be lying. I may also be seeing things.
Okay, well "seeing things" applies equally well to the notion that there are even animals to potentially evolve. Solipsism, metaphysical Idealism, etc.
As for "meeting the designer", well, that test will be performed, in the long run. In the shorter run, well, I think we'd run into the standard interaction...
Atheist: The great thing about science is that you can verify its claims yourself!
Theist: Okay, glad we agree! Here's a methodology to test for the existence of God, called "Hesychasm". Test it and verify it for yourself!
Atheist: No.
Well, just like any scientific postulate, you would have to show that the claim is not sufficient to account for the observation.
If I was seeking to falsify it, yes. That isn't my stance here. My position is that it is scientifically indeterminate, in the same sense as I don't have to falsify the Copenhagen Interpretation to allow the Everett Interpretation. If your were to propose that -only- Copenhagen is scientifically viable, then you would indeed have to falsify Everett, at minimum.
What you are describing is the very definition of science! We make an observation, postulate a theory, use the theory to make a prediction then falsify the prediction.
No, to be precise you are -not- making a testable prediction. You are saying, in effect, "nothing contradicting this will be found" as the closest thing to it. This is like Newtonian Mechanics being valid as science in its (specifiable) predictions, until it was further refined by observations which did not fully fit the model. It made specific predictions that validated it up until that point. Similarly, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics made -specific- testable predictions which demonstrated it as more accurate across scales. "No exceptions will be found" is not a testable prediction. And, similarly, there are all sorts of testable predictions for "evolution occurs", which is why that remains scientific as stated.
I'm afraid I do not understand your following point regarding how 'only evolution occurs' is unscie
Not everyone lives their lives based on some sort of afterlife risk/reward system.
Including, inconveniently for your Straw Man, most theists.
Your viewpoint discounts the impact we have on this life as inconsequential except for how it helps to punch a ticket for the afterlife.
No, it doesn't. Behavioral directives for the benefit of others in this life are present extensively in my religion. How's your attempt at consensus on -one-, after 3000 years of secular philosophy, coming along? You know, broad consensus being absolutely necessary to have anything functional that could be of benefit--though that might mean you'd actually have a few personal expectations on yourself, if that ever happens. Yes, I realize you probably don't want it ever to progress to that possibility, which is why this hasn't posed a concern for you so far.
The measure of one's belief is not in how well one can blindly follow a path, it is how well they can follow a path knowing all that exists around them. It is easy to hold a belief when you know of nothing else, but what value is there in that?
Okay, I'm pretty confident know more about theology -and- a half-dozen atheistic worldviews than you do, as well as, I'd venture, considerably more classical philosophy. Apart from your psychic abilities telling you know others "know nothing else", what now?
If peaceful discussion cannot be tolerated, then how serious can the belief behind that intolerance truly be?
Well, where is this "intolerance"? You seem to be stating your viewpoint just fine and completely unrestricted to me. Are you expecting some kind of martyrdom here?
We can however seek to *disprove* the theory - this is perfectly scientific, and thus puts the question within the realms of testability.
Not really, except in the sense it's already been disproven.
Here's a couple cats. Can Natural Selection account for all their biological attributes? I'm not specifying yet whether or not the cats are fluorescent.
What are you proposing as your differentiator between features caused by natural selection versus those caused by design?
We can however seek to *disprove* the theory - this is perfectly scientific, and thus puts the question within the realms of testability.
Okay, outside of the sense in which it has been disproven, what would qualify as disproof of -exclusive- causal claims? The situation is rather like an attempt to prove the Copenhagen Interpretation correct -exclusively- in exclusion to the Everett Interpretation--there is no readily-perceivable test which neatly differentiates these two. Apart from that, we have alternate interpretations of the data which do not necessitate one or the other, and what is actually scientific as a statement--that those cases of biological features which we can specify clear causal steps scientifically are, scientifically, biological features for which we can specify clear causal steps. There is no need, that I can see, to overextend claims as to what we scientifically know into what we do not, and claim as a scientific premise that we "will know it applies in all cases", presciently.
From your post it is clear that you do not accept the postulate that evolution can explain the origins of life, claiming that this is unscientific.
Ah, no, only according to your habit of overextending the term "scientific". Firstly, I do consider it possible it would be demonstrated, simply that as a matter of science it hasn't been, therefore the correct scientific stance is that it hasn't been. Secondly, you are equivocating "scientific" with "true" here, it seems--the two are not synonyms.
Again, as a question of science, "evolution occurs" is certainly scientific, "only evolution occurs" isn't.
I ask what is unscientific about it?
Depends on what specifically you are considering in-scope of "evolution". Are you claiming it can be scientifically proposed as -a model- of origins, or scientifically proposed as -the exclusive model- of origins? Again, I propose there is no test for the latter usage, much like Copenhagen-vs-Everett, which, from a scientific viewpoint, seems expected as this insistence has nothing to do with concern with science in the first place.
Perhaps you find disagreeable the 'faith' (by which I mean absolute conviction) that many atheists place in this postulate?
I'd find it more objectionable in terms of their blatant irrationality that -they know- (with "absolute conviction") no cases of design ever happened, via "supernatural" or extraterrestrial intelligence, at any point in millions of years they have only indirect inferential knowledge of, actually. The damage to science itself from falsely claiming such a-priori conclusions are valid science, which at best, are an overapplication of empiricism, not scientific method, would also be a serious concern. Your personal error in thinking that all things fall neatly into either a "scientific" or "faith" approach, would be a distant third.
It really is amusing seeing you and your post's parent trying to bolster each other's views against the supernatural by agreeing with each other's claims to being psychic.
But, no, of course you do not know the content of others' thoughts, much less "all" of them. In fact, most theists are well aware that if they were incorrect, the consequences of being so would be... nothing whatsoever, relative to an atheism that is not difficult to understand nor some kind of disturbingly new and unknown premise. There certainly would not be more fear than the reality of the situation calls for--that a rational atheist does have a basis for fear, as a consequence of the universal biological struggle for survival he cannot ultimately accomplish.
By logical inference, rather than claims of psychic abilities, the natural notion is that the atheist who is confident of his worldview would be the one experiencing fear--it's his worldview that directly calls for it. I suppose, though, bravado and projection (even if irrational by reference to the content of -your own worldview alone-) would work for you, for a while, anyway.
And likewise I'll excuse you for not paying attention to that 85% of its lifetime or recent history, such that you aren't aware that the only Catholic stances that are presented as "immutable truth" are the quite-rare ex cathedra doctrinal pronouncements--of which "discouragement to read the bible" is certainly not among them.
Disclaimer: I am not Roman Catholic, but facts are inter-denominational.
Utter the word "evolution" and then its like a switch flips.
Perhaps, in part, because "evolution" is so commonly equivocated to mean an exhaustive causal explanation of origins, rather than a particular observable biological process. That is, used in a manner that is untestable and unscientific, while hoping to carry the authority of validation of the testable case by means of mere word-association.
It's the distinction between "evolution occurs", and "only evolution occurs"--the former is a testable scientific hypothesis with extensive corroboration; the latter, although Needed Really Badly for an atheistic worldview, is simply untestable and thereby unscientific, and no amount of wishing the former case can be verbally morphed to the latter case will make this non-sequitur anything other than logically and scientifically invalid.
In overall full agreement with your post, but I do think it's important to make one note here...
Occam's Razor doesn't actually "fail" in this case, it simply "fails" according to the popular mischaracterization of what it actually says, which it never actually did.
Occam's Razor correctly specifies it is better to "use" a Copernican model due to its simplicity, for the general case of using a conceptual model.
Occam's Razor says absolutely nothing about one being "true", or "more likely to be true", or anything touching on truth-value in any way. Doesn't now, didn't in Einstein's time, never did.
Like Riemannian Geometry "versus" Euclidean Geometry, it speaks only to conceptual economy in modeling a specific domain, not "correctness". It speaks only to the "efficiency of the algorithm", not to the "correct result of the algorithm", if you will.
Incidentally, I like to think that there's a previously-unmentioned circle of Dante's Inferno for this, called "Bad Epistemology", though probably "Fraud" will have to handle it, given what the obvious motivation for the commonplace massively-time-wasting false elaboration of Occam's principle tends to be.
Well, except that the death tolls that as a matter of certainty were there during the process of evolution, before any religion at all, would dwarf even Mao's and Stalin's.
So, so far your assertion needs the exceptions of "cults of personality", and contexts without any religion. Probably territorial motivations, wealth, and national self-interest would fit in there somewhere.
I like to call yours an "argument from the never-existed". Very popular with the Dawkins/Hitchens set, though.
Intuitively, one might say that the immune system is "too complex"
No reason anywhere to care about what you care about, but this is an example of how you can't seem to help equivocating someone's statements to what they are not.
One might indeed say this, and you can verify this by noting someone could make that statement. If you're unable to discern that I'm using a very qualified rendering of this for a wider context, I'm not sure how you communicate, but there it is. If you're going to (rather humorously) excerpt sections and demand I literally do that, I'll at minimum note what I actually said--literally.
Please address some of my questions on that respect
Ah, no? Now what?
I have no need to present to you on-demand anything. I have stated what my view is, with what I felt is appropriate qualification. Go ahead and address the proposal before you, if you like. The minimum FSM for full emulation of a given entity, and the count of states needed.
What I'm asking for, is what is the universal, observer-independent, never changing measure of complexity.
This does not exist with reference to anything in reality whatsoever. An easy way to avoid addressing it by stipulating impossible criteria, but it's really nothing more than silly evasion.
Precisely. You have no argument until you come up with some data. Once you do, come back and try again.
No, of course not, clearly. As clearly as you know it with absolute clarity in your own mind as you proceed to go ahead and simply lie anyway. That I insist we remain open to future data, requires no data to assert. The argument is self-contained and has no such contingencies. Again, my argument is what it is, not what you'd prefer to make up that it is.
The complexity of engineering you're talking about is unrelated and extremely relative.
Should have expected this sort of evasion. No, it's not. You are saying "complexity" doesn't exist. "Exist" includes all contexts, including engineering.
Stonehenge is impressive by ancient standards.
How is pointing this out relevant to the discussion of "complexity"? Wait... are you saying it's not complex? Speaking unrelated verbal constructions having nothing to do with the point at hand? Yes, you can go ahead and say you yourself consider this "less complex", and that is precisely why you chose it as an example, and that is why you yourself think such a statement can be validly asserted. It's transparent anyway.
All of the points you've raised are wrong, and there are detailed explanations available of why they're wrong.
You're wrong, and there are detailed explanations available of why you are wrong.
What, you don't find this response sufficient? If you have a point, make it. I guarantee that in no case will you find an argument that is sufficient to demonstrate any of these are not "evidence", by definition and by what "evidence" simply means. If you can't differentiate between the notions of "evidence", "convincing evidence", and "proof", you have no business discussing much of anything.
You can say something is "evidence", but that doesn't actually make it evidence - at least, not evidence that other people necessarily accept.
One has nothing to do with the other. "Evidence" being "evidence" has nothing to do with a person's accepting that it is what it is.
There are many, many ways to argue the strength of evidence is weak. Claiming that it isn't "evidence" -at all-, and claiming that it isn't so long as one doesn't accept it as such, is simply to not understand what "evidence" means.
Never in history has anyone won a acquittal of a legal case by declaring at the end of a trial, "No evidence exists" in the face of the exhibits and examinations that obviously are there, and obviously occurred. "There is not compelling evidence", yes. "There wasn't any evidence", no. If you mean, colloquially, "no evidence" to mean "no unarguable evidence", then fine--but this has nothing to do with accurate use of language in a philosophically-serious context.
No, Occam's Razor says absolutely nothing about truth-value, or "probability of being true" as in such equivocations at "bets"--as is again here done as it's typically used, to suggest what one won't directly claim (often because one already knows it can't be claimed on the basis of Occam's Razor, and directly stating what they hope to convey by suggestion would make it more likely they'd be called-out on the inaccuracy of the disingenuous claim).
Occam's Razor says it is more conceptually economical to "use" the former case, and -nothing else-.
Which is "true"--Euclidean Geometry or Riemannian Geometry? Both. Which does Occam's Razor indicate is better to "use" for the general case, due to simplicity? Euclidean. Note that one has nothing to do with the other.
Only with that you can begin to argue that me going from New York to Paris in 4 hours might be "too fast".
That's okay--I'm content to not begin, and let entropy conclude your side of the argument.
We can't possibly have a meaningful argument if you only insist that it's too fast
And this is precisely what I'm not doing. You are arguing it is not too fast (for the available "modes of travel")--presciently with respect to all future cases. Intuitively, one might say that the immune system is "too complex" (yes, I suggest you do give some credence to the validity of complexity as "real", because you yourself likely know this is a more appropriate example than, say, explaining having fingernails--I suspect it would be a challenge for you to discuss this for more than a few paragraphs without contradicting yourself as to recognizing that complexity "exists"). In answer to that, one might counterargue that it isn't too complex given incremental changes--again plausible. We won't get any farther than this until genetics can provide what we actually require to resolve it--an enumeration of all the specific mutations required to produce the biological feature. Given that, we can approach the frequency of mutations anywhere in DNA as a matter of chemistry, and from there determine the expected frequency of all the required mutations for the result. Adding to this at least provisional estimates of population size and years at hand, we should be able to provide a fairly-specific probability--eventually. So, though we may at this point heuristically conclude different things, say, "too complex" on one side versus "not too complex" on the other, those are just general opinions until we have the means to quantify it. What such a quantification would yield, I am not prepared to say, and I suspect no matter what the probability figure is, those predisposed against design will argue it isn't overly improbable, by such means as the Anthropic Principle. Nonetheless, such a calculation would be useful both with respect to the question of design and for science in general, and I see no legitimate reason to argue it should not be pursued based on one's own personal worldview bias.
As for measurement of the complexity, though I am again not proposing to offer a definitive methodology for this domain (other than the Finite State Machine suggestion), I find it rather unreasonable to conclude there is -no- functional methodology to address "complexity" as something that exists. It simply isn't credible to say that, in fact, no engineering projects actually proceed, despite the evidence of the economy, because when the executives and investors ask "How complex will this be to do", the answer is inescapably "There's no such thing as complexity, so I can offer you no scope or cost projections to create this, invest accordingly". This notion flies in the face of basic reality.
There is evidence to support the idea that Paul invented the idea that 100% of all Humans go to Hell with the exception of those saved by Jesus
Meanwhile, there is no evidence that you aren't simply making up that Paul ever said this.
Further, you are making the assumption that the implications of sin are equivalent for all lineages. It is a common view, it is a simple view, and it is incorrect.
a) "God did it" is much simpler than the processes of evolution via mutation and natural selection
b) If it were not, Occam's Razor says nothing about what is true, rather what is simplest for conceptual economy
The misapplication of this principle is amazingly widespread... oh, and "imaginary friend" part--that'd be a Bare Assertion Fallacy.
Just looking to help prep you for Philo 101.
The argument is and always has been about the historic "origin of species", which covers a huge timeline that we are a tiny part of.
In summary, as I see no real reason to continue this as you are now simply trotting out stock arguments to what is outside the scope of my objections...
No. "The argument" may be this to you, but it is not based on everything I have said from the beginning. My objection is solely centered around the potential damage to science of your psychic a-priori exclusion of a particular causal explanation.
Don't you think you should figure that out first?
No. Absolutely not. I'm interested in developing understanding, not complying with your irrelevant expectations. That's how science, as opposed to the various things you erroneously think science is, advances. With proposals that, at the point of proposal, lack even any tests, much less conclusive "proof". Conceptualization of a hypothesis -always- precedes a test, every single time, and often by decades, such as some attributes of Relativity, which were only testable 50 years after the theory was presened.
In short, I reject your erroneous notions of "science" in toto, and really have nothing more to say on it.
It gets tiring endlessly responding to the directly, clearly, knowingly false, so I'll be brief on this particular response to the directly, clearly, knowingly false.
Feel free to google "NDE", "prophecy fulfillment", or "early Christian martyrdom" any time you like, and you will have -evidence-. "Evidence" is distinct from "conclusive evidence", as another matter of clear fact, and conflating and equivocating the two doesn't alter the reality of the matter.
For the standard objections:
1. Yes, NDE's are documented in peer-reviewed publications, such as the most prestigious medical journal in Europe--The Lancet. Link found upon request. Didn't even need to be the case for NDE's to be "evidence" per what "evidence" means, still is. Are there alternate explanations possible? Yes. Does that have anything to do with whether something is "evidence"? No.
2. Yes, some prophecy could be considered "self-fulfilling". Discard all questionable cases, reduce the probability of the remaining 10-thousand-fold, it will still remain with a probability greater than.5. Yes, the actual improbability will be much greater, but again the main issue here is using the word "evidence" correctly.
3. Yes, there are present-day martyrs and this doesn't "prove" their position. Again, a) we are not talking about "proof", we are talking about -evidence-, and b) the situation is much different for actual contemporaries of the event, where they are not willingly dying to for a belief based on belief, but would be for something they would know to be false, and thus their death pointless, if it were.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean, "you can't question God-given truth", specifically? People do so every single day, both within and without religious organizations.
If you're going to do a Straw Man, please at least start with something not factually false on its face.
As far as the defining documents themselves (let's take the one Slashdot is most afrai^H^H^H^H^H oddly-specific in its objections to), there is extensive "questioning" of God directly in the bible. Generally, this led to some form of either demonstration or explanation--which, many would say, it does through today. Because, many would say, refusing to ask doesn't demonstrated no answer will be given.
Rinse, repeat.
Ah, yes, you mean "survival" in the abstract, which applies to no actual particular entities.
And people have a problem with my metaphysics.
Naturally Deselected by his own DNA.
A fitting end.
Because, since it is the both companies' unofficial Mission Statement, neither CEO would tolerate letting the other have "Me".
One can perform an infinite series of tests of Newtonian Mechanics.
Okay, our major issue seems to be usage of language. One actually -cannot- perform an infinite series of tests. Sounds great as an abstraction, just isn't reality in a literal sense. One cannot simply standardize the expectations of the tests expected to be presented with a hypothesis to "perform an infinite number of tests of everything with respect to everything about this and with respect to everything both known and unknown in reality" as the single, boilerplate qualification for any and all hypotheses across all science.
To elaborate this further, I would need to address, it seems, "falsification by happenstance" in a manner that fits into the topic effectively from your perspective. I'll give that some thought.
Evolutionary theory will continue to offer more and more falsifiable predictions that allow us to further our knowledge of the world, whereas ID offers nothing but more questions.
Well, evolution will continue to offer falsifiable predictions, and so will ID (a few are a google away, in case you weren't aware that the usual parroting of the claim that it makes none is just directly false), and yes, it will offer more questions. I'm not sure why you think questions are a problem. And no, it won't mean we're saying "we can never know", it'll just be being intellectually honest and saying we know what specifics we know, and don't know what we don't, from which we can approach some quite-useful questions such as "Is this virus naturally occurring, or are we under a biological warfare attack?". I'm not sure what the "caves" have to do with it, unless you're sharing some kind of psychological confession about you inevitably being eliminated by the Natural Selection you choose as your only alternative.
As for me, I'll be enjoying the "uselessness" of having an arbitrary amount of time to learn about these biological structures and their progression in detail, along with any other fields of endeavor I'm interested in. And it is good knowing this as an... empirical fact, however individual.
Whether or not it has been disproven does not make it unscientific.
Well then, I suppose you have no concerns about advocating anything you choose to consider "scientific"--even if it's disproven. Luminiferous Ether was a scientific theory. Is it still "scientific", now that it has been disproven? Well, at minimum I'll stipulate that I am considering falsified theories to be unscientific, for the purposes of this discussion.
It is a perfectly valid postulate, just like my 'all sheep are white' example.
The problem with analogies is they are often disanalogous. It is known that there are black sheep. The closer analogy would be "there have never been any naturally purple sheep" as a hypothesis. Empirically, we can reasonably conclude there probably were not purple sheep by the fact none have been observed, but this is, strictly speaking, not a falsifiable test, and therefore not a -scientific- hypothesis.
Can you give me a biological attribute that cannot be explained by natural selection?
In the case of fluorescent ones, yes. They must be explained by design--as they were, as a matter of fact, recently designed by genetic engineers.
Do we have any reason to suspect that something as outlandish as a 'designer' is necessary to explain cats?
Nothing "outlandish" about it at all in the general case, just you deciding to characterize it that way, with no non-subjective weight to the statement at all. As for the specific case I'm referencing, it isn't "outlandish" due to it being fact. Here's a link in case you missed the news: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/27153/
I guess meeting the designer would allow me to put this to rest - of course He could be lying. I may also be seeing things.
Okay, well "seeing things" applies equally well to the notion that there are even animals to potentially evolve. Solipsism, metaphysical Idealism, etc.
As for "meeting the designer", well, that test will be performed, in the long run. In the shorter run, well, I think we'd run into the standard interaction...
Atheist: The great thing about science is that you can verify its claims yourself!
Theist: Okay, glad we agree! Here's a methodology to test for the existence of God, called "Hesychasm". Test it and verify it for yourself!
Atheist: No.
Well, just like any scientific postulate, you would have to show that the claim is not sufficient to account for the observation.
If I was seeking to falsify it, yes. That isn't my stance here. My position is that it is scientifically indeterminate, in the same sense as I don't have to falsify the Copenhagen Interpretation to allow the Everett Interpretation. If your were to propose that -only- Copenhagen is scientifically viable, then you would indeed have to falsify Everett, at minimum.
What you are describing is the very definition of science! We make an observation, postulate a theory, use the theory to make a prediction then falsify the prediction.
No, to be precise you are -not- making a testable prediction. You are saying, in effect, "nothing contradicting this will be found" as the closest thing to it. This is like Newtonian Mechanics being valid as science in its (specifiable) predictions, until it was further refined by observations which did not fully fit the model. It made specific predictions that validated it up until that point. Similarly, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics made -specific- testable predictions which demonstrated it as more accurate across scales. "No exceptions will be found" is not a testable prediction. And, similarly, there are all sorts of testable predictions for "evolution occurs", which is why that remains scientific as stated.
I'm afraid I do not understand your following point regarding how 'only evolution occurs' is unscie
Not everyone lives their lives based on some sort of afterlife risk/reward system.
Including, inconveniently for your Straw Man, most theists.
Your viewpoint discounts the impact we have on this life as inconsequential except for how it helps to punch a ticket for the afterlife.
No, it doesn't. Behavioral directives for the benefit of others in this life are present extensively in my religion. How's your attempt at consensus on -one-, after 3000 years of secular philosophy, coming along? You know, broad consensus being absolutely necessary to have anything functional that could be of benefit--though that might mean you'd actually have a few personal expectations on yourself, if that ever happens. Yes, I realize you probably don't want it ever to progress to that possibility, which is why this hasn't posed a concern for you so far.
The measure of one's belief is not in how well one can blindly follow a path, it is how well they can follow a path knowing all that exists around them. It is easy to hold a belief when you know of nothing else, but what value is there in that?
Okay, I'm pretty confident know more about theology -and- a half-dozen atheistic worldviews than you do, as well as, I'd venture, considerably more classical philosophy. Apart from your psychic abilities telling you know others "know nothing else", what now?
If peaceful discussion cannot be tolerated, then how serious can the belief behind that intolerance truly be?
Well, where is this "intolerance"? You seem to be stating your viewpoint just fine and completely unrestricted to me. Are you expecting some kind of martyrdom here?
We can however seek to *disprove* the theory - this is perfectly scientific, and thus puts the question within the realms of testability.
Not really, except in the sense it's already been disproven.
Here's a couple cats. Can Natural Selection account for all their biological attributes? I'm not specifying yet whether or not the cats are fluorescent.
What are you proposing as your differentiator between features caused by natural selection versus those caused by design?
We can however seek to *disprove* the theory - this is perfectly scientific, and thus puts the question within the realms of testability.
Okay, outside of the sense in which it has been disproven, what would qualify as disproof of -exclusive- causal claims? The situation is rather like an attempt to prove the Copenhagen Interpretation correct -exclusively- in exclusion to the Everett Interpretation--there is no readily-perceivable test which neatly differentiates these two. Apart from that, we have alternate interpretations of the data which do not necessitate one or the other, and what is actually scientific as a statement--that those cases of biological features which we can specify clear causal steps scientifically are, scientifically, biological features for which we can specify clear causal steps. There is no need, that I can see, to overextend claims as to what we scientifically know into what we do not, and claim as a scientific premise that we "will know it applies in all cases", presciently.
From your post it is clear that you do not accept the postulate that evolution can explain the origins of life, claiming that this is unscientific.
Ah, no, only according to your habit of overextending the term "scientific". Firstly, I do consider it possible it would be demonstrated, simply that as a matter of science it hasn't been, therefore the correct scientific stance is that it hasn't been. Secondly, you are equivocating "scientific" with "true" here, it seems--the two are not synonyms.
Again, as a question of science, "evolution occurs" is certainly scientific, "only evolution occurs" isn't.
I ask what is unscientific about it?
Depends on what specifically you are considering in-scope of "evolution". Are you claiming it can be scientifically proposed as -a model- of origins, or scientifically proposed as -the exclusive model- of origins? Again, I propose there is no test for the latter usage, much like Copenhagen-vs-Everett, which, from a scientific viewpoint, seems expected as this insistence has nothing to do with concern with science in the first place.
Perhaps you find disagreeable the 'faith' (by which I mean absolute conviction) that many atheists place in this postulate?
I'd find it more objectionable in terms of their blatant irrationality that -they know- (with "absolute conviction") no cases of design ever happened, via "supernatural" or extraterrestrial intelligence, at any point in millions of years they have only indirect inferential knowledge of, actually. The damage to science itself from falsely claiming such a-priori conclusions are valid science, which at best, are an overapplication of empiricism, not scientific method, would also be a serious concern. Your personal error in thinking that all things fall neatly into either a "scientific" or "faith" approach, would be a distant third.
It really is amusing seeing you and your post's parent trying to bolster each other's views against the supernatural by agreeing with each other's claims to being psychic.
But, no, of course you do not know the content of others' thoughts, much less "all" of them. In fact, most theists are well aware that if they were incorrect, the consequences of being so would be... nothing whatsoever, relative to an atheism that is not difficult to understand nor some kind of disturbingly new and unknown premise. There certainly would not be more fear than the reality of the situation calls for--that a rational atheist does have a basis for fear, as a consequence of the universal biological struggle for survival he cannot ultimately accomplish.
By logical inference, rather than claims of psychic abilities, the natural notion is that the atheist who is confident of his worldview would be the one experiencing fear--it's his worldview that directly calls for it. I suppose, though, bravado and projection (even if irrational by reference to the content of -your own worldview alone-) would work for you, for a while, anyway.
And likewise I'll excuse you for not paying attention to that 85% of its lifetime or recent history, such that you aren't aware that the only Catholic stances that are presented as "immutable truth" are the quite-rare ex cathedra doctrinal pronouncements--of which "discouragement to read the bible" is certainly not among them.
Disclaimer: I am not Roman Catholic, but facts are inter-denominational.
Utter the word "evolution" and then its like a switch flips.
Perhaps, in part, because "evolution" is so commonly equivocated to mean an exhaustive causal explanation of origins, rather than a particular observable biological process. That is, used in a manner that is untestable and unscientific, while hoping to carry the authority of validation of the testable case by means of mere word-association.
It's the distinction between "evolution occurs", and "only evolution occurs"--the former is a testable scientific hypothesis with extensive corroboration; the latter, although Needed Really Badly for an atheistic worldview, is simply untestable and thereby unscientific, and no amount of wishing the former case can be verbally morphed to the latter case will make this non-sequitur anything other than logically and scientifically invalid.
Entropy.
Now that it's clear that the "goal" is impossible from a Naturalism perspective, I suggest widening the scope of possibilities for consideration.
In overall full agreement with your post, but I do think it's important to make one note here...
Occam's Razor doesn't actually "fail" in this case, it simply "fails" according to the popular mischaracterization of what it actually says, which it never actually did.
Occam's Razor correctly specifies it is better to "use" a Copernican model due to its simplicity, for the general case of using a conceptual model.
Occam's Razor says absolutely nothing about one being "true", or "more likely to be true", or anything touching on truth-value in any way. Doesn't now, didn't in Einstein's time, never did.
Like Riemannian Geometry "versus" Euclidean Geometry, it speaks only to conceptual economy in modeling a specific domain, not "correctness". It speaks only to the "efficiency of the algorithm", not to the "correct result of the algorithm", if you will.
Incidentally, I like to think that there's a previously-unmentioned circle of Dante's Inferno for this, called "Bad Epistemology", though probably "Fraud" will have to handle it, given what the obvious motivation for the commonplace massively-time-wasting false elaboration of Occam's principle tends to be.
Well, except that the death tolls that as a matter of certainty were there during the process of evolution, before any religion at all, would dwarf even Mao's and Stalin's.
So, so far your assertion needs the exceptions of "cults of personality", and contexts without any religion. Probably territorial motivations, wealth, and national self-interest would fit in there somewhere.
I like to call yours an "argument from the never-existed". Very popular with the Dawkins/Hitchens set, though.
Lose or even greatly diminish that force multiplier and suddenly humans become reasonable.
Okay, done.
Let's see...
Mao Zedong: ~60,000,000 dead of own citizens via genocide
Jozef Stalin: 23,000,000 dead of own citizens via genocide
Perhaps you left out a factor?
Intuitively, one might say that the immune system is "too complex"
No reason anywhere to care about what you care about, but this is an example of how you can't seem to help equivocating someone's statements to what they are not.
One might indeed say this, and you can verify this by noting someone could make that statement. If you're unable to discern that I'm using a very qualified rendering of this for a wider context, I'm not sure how you communicate, but there it is. If you're going to (rather humorously) excerpt sections and demand I literally do that, I'll at minimum note what I actually said--literally.
Please address some of my questions on that respect
Ah, no? Now what?
I have no need to present to you on-demand anything. I have stated what my view is, with what I felt is appropriate qualification. Go ahead and address the proposal before you, if you like. The minimum FSM for full emulation of a given entity, and the count of states needed.
What I'm asking for, is what is the universal, observer-independent, never changing measure of complexity.
This does not exist with reference to anything in reality whatsoever. An easy way to avoid addressing it by stipulating impossible criteria, but it's really nothing more than silly evasion.
Precisely. You have no argument until you come up with some data. Once you do, come back and try again.
No, of course not, clearly. As clearly as you know it with absolute clarity in your own mind as you proceed to go ahead and simply lie anyway. That I insist we remain open to future data, requires no data to assert. The argument is self-contained and has no such contingencies. Again, my argument is what it is, not what you'd prefer to make up that it is.
The complexity of engineering you're talking about is unrelated and extremely relative.
Should have expected this sort of evasion. No, it's not. You are saying "complexity" doesn't exist. "Exist" includes all contexts, including engineering.
Stonehenge is impressive by ancient standards.
How is pointing this out relevant to the discussion of "complexity"? Wait... are you saying it's not complex? Speaking unrelated verbal constructions having nothing to do with the point at hand? Yes, you can go ahead and say you yourself consider this "less complex", and that is precisely why you chose it as an example, and that is why you yourself think such a statement can be validly asserted. It's transparent anyway.
All of the points you've raised are wrong, and there are detailed explanations available of why they're wrong.
You're wrong, and there are detailed explanations available of why you are wrong.
What, you don't find this response sufficient? If you have a point, make it. I guarantee that in no case will you find an argument that is sufficient to demonstrate any of these are not "evidence", by definition and by what "evidence" simply means. If you can't differentiate between the notions of "evidence", "convincing evidence", and "proof", you have no business discussing much of anything.
You can say something is "evidence", but that doesn't actually make it evidence - at least, not evidence that other people necessarily accept.
One has nothing to do with the other. "Evidence" being "evidence" has nothing to do with a person's accepting that it is what it is.
There are many, many ways to argue the strength of evidence is weak. Claiming that it isn't "evidence" -at all-, and claiming that it isn't so long as one doesn't accept it as such, is simply to not understand what "evidence" means.
Never in history has anyone won a acquittal of a legal case by declaring at the end of a trial, "No evidence exists" in the face of the exhibits and examinations that obviously are there, and obviously occurred. "There is not compelling evidence", yes. "There wasn't any evidence", no. If you mean, colloquially, "no evidence" to mean "no unarguable evidence", then fine--but this has nothing to do with accurate use of language in a philosophically-serious context.
No, Occam's Razor says absolutely nothing about truth-value, or "probability of being true" as in such equivocations at "bets"--as is again here done as it's typically used, to suggest what one won't directly claim (often because one already knows it can't be claimed on the basis of Occam's Razor, and directly stating what they hope to convey by suggestion would make it more likely they'd be called-out on the inaccuracy of the disingenuous claim).
Occam's Razor says it is more conceptually economical to "use" the former case, and -nothing else-.
Which is "true"--Euclidean Geometry or Riemannian Geometry? Both. Which does Occam's Razor indicate is better to "use" for the general case, due to simplicity? Euclidean. Note that one has nothing to do with the other.
Only with that you can begin to argue that me going from New York to Paris in 4 hours might be "too fast".
That's okay--I'm content to not begin, and let entropy conclude your side of the argument.
We can't possibly have a meaningful argument if you only insist that it's too fast
And this is precisely what I'm not doing. You are arguing it is not too fast (for the available "modes of travel")--presciently with respect to all future cases. Intuitively, one might say that the immune system is "too complex" (yes, I suggest you do give some credence to the validity of complexity as "real", because you yourself likely know this is a more appropriate example than, say, explaining having fingernails--I suspect it would be a challenge for you to discuss this for more than a few paragraphs without contradicting yourself as to recognizing that complexity "exists"). In answer to that, one might counterargue that it isn't too complex given incremental changes--again plausible. We won't get any farther than this until genetics can provide what we actually require to resolve it--an enumeration of all the specific mutations required to produce the biological feature. Given that, we can approach the frequency of mutations anywhere in DNA as a matter of chemistry, and from there determine the expected frequency of all the required mutations for the result. Adding to this at least provisional estimates of population size and years at hand, we should be able to provide a fairly-specific probability--eventually. So, though we may at this point heuristically conclude different things, say, "too complex" on one side versus "not too complex" on the other, those are just general opinions until we have the means to quantify it. What such a quantification would yield, I am not prepared to say, and I suspect no matter what the probability figure is, those predisposed against design will argue it isn't overly improbable, by such means as the Anthropic Principle. Nonetheless, such a calculation would be useful both with respect to the question of design and for science in general, and I see no legitimate reason to argue it should not be pursued based on one's own personal worldview bias.
As for measurement of the complexity, though I am again not proposing to offer a definitive methodology for this domain (other than the Finite State Machine suggestion), I find it rather unreasonable to conclude there is -no- functional methodology to address "complexity" as something that exists. It simply isn't credible to say that, in fact, no engineering projects actually proceed, despite the evidence of the economy, because when the executives and investors ask "How complex will this be to do", the answer is inescapably "There's no such thing as complexity, so I can offer you no scope or cost projections to create this, invest accordingly". This notion flies in the face of basic reality.
There is evidence to support the idea that Paul invented the idea that 100% of all Humans go to Hell with the exception of those saved by Jesus
Meanwhile, there is no evidence that you aren't simply making up that Paul ever said this.
Further, you are making the assumption that the implications of sin are equivalent for all lineages. It is a common view, it is a simple view, and it is incorrect.
Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation that fits all known facts is the one most likely to be correct.
No, it doesn't.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
a) "God did it" is much simpler than the processes of evolution via mutation and natural selection b) If it were not, Occam's Razor says nothing about what is true, rather what is simplest for conceptual economy The misapplication of this principle is amazingly widespread... oh, and "imaginary friend" part--that'd be a Bare Assertion Fallacy. Just looking to help prep you for Philo 101.
The argument is and always has been about the historic "origin of species", which covers a huge timeline that we are a tiny part of.
In summary, as I see no real reason to continue this as you are now simply trotting out stock arguments to what is outside the scope of my objections...
No. "The argument" may be this to you, but it is not based on everything I have said from the beginning. My objection is solely centered around the potential damage to science of your psychic a-priori exclusion of a particular causal explanation.
Don't you think you should figure that out first?
No. Absolutely not. I'm interested in developing understanding, not complying with your irrelevant expectations. That's how science, as opposed to the various things you erroneously think science is, advances. With proposals that, at the point of proposal, lack even any tests, much less conclusive "proof". Conceptualization of a hypothesis -always- precedes a test, every single time, and often by decades, such as some attributes of Relativity, which were only testable 50 years after the theory was presened.
In short, I reject your erroneous notions of "science" in toto, and really have nothing more to say on it.
There is literally zero evidence of any of them.
.5. Yes, the actual improbability will be much greater, but again the main issue here is using the word "evidence" correctly.
It gets tiring endlessly responding to the directly, clearly, knowingly false, so I'll be brief on this particular response to the directly, clearly, knowingly false.
Feel free to google "NDE", "prophecy fulfillment", or "early Christian martyrdom" any time you like, and you will have -evidence-. "Evidence" is distinct from "conclusive evidence", as another matter of clear fact, and conflating and equivocating the two doesn't alter the reality of the matter.
For the standard objections:
1. Yes, NDE's are documented in peer-reviewed publications, such as the most prestigious medical journal in Europe--The Lancet. Link found upon request. Didn't even need to be the case for NDE's to be "evidence" per what "evidence" means, still is. Are there alternate explanations possible? Yes. Does that have anything to do with whether something is "evidence"? No.
2. Yes, some prophecy could be considered "self-fulfilling". Discard all questionable cases, reduce the probability of the remaining 10-thousand-fold, it will still remain with a probability greater than
3. Yes, there are present-day martyrs and this doesn't "prove" their position. Again, a) we are not talking about "proof", we are talking about -evidence-, and b) the situation is much different for actual contemporaries of the event, where they are not willingly dying to for a belief based on belief, but would be for something they would know to be false, and thus their death pointless, if it were.