thordaddy
Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
PuckSR opines,
Quote | OK....at this point...your being purposefully obtuse.....
We are talking about science right? So we use the scientific definition of empirical.... just because a word has "multiple" definitions...that doesnt mean that you get to use whichever one you want.... Besides...you completely misunderstand why science cannot answer the above questions...go back and read the thread...I thought I was discussing this with someone who was intellectually honest...or at least attempted to be...my mistake |
Actually, we are talking about finding greater truth. And of course I can use whatever definition of empirical I want as long as it's the actual definition.
I don't care why science can't answer these questions. These questions demand answers regardless. If science wants to take itself out of the game, it can't expect to continue to make the rules.
Then you say,
Quote | So even if we use your definition of the word empirical...your logic still sucks.... RIGHT? |
WRONG! Just because I use the primary definition of empirical (originating in observation and/or experience) doesn't mean the strawman you create and destroy impugns my logic. I have only ever stated that "faith" in an IDer represents an interpretation of empirical evidence (originating in observation and/or experience). I'm bewildered to read those rebutting this assertion.
I have not said that this interpretation represents incontravertible proof of an IDer. What I have ASKED is how this interpretation can equate to "NO empirical evidence" for an IDer. I have yet to get a clear cut answer.
Then you say,
Quote | I will agree that the both share the same function. They both seek to explain reality.
The mechanism is entirely different... science gathers information and then tries to rationalize an explanation religion develops an explanation and then attempts to gather evidence
Structure? Umm last time I checked, you do not pay tithings to a scientist. Last time I checked, competing religious opinions do not reconcile through experimentation...
So i will grant you that they both seek to explain reality....and that is the only similiarity...the rest is in your head. |
I was under the impression that at the fundamental level both function and structure are essentially indistinguishable and only with modification does the structure evolve and become distinguishable from the function.
So when I say that at the fundamental level religion and science are indentical and you agree they both share the same function (search for greater truth) then it assumes their structures to be the same at the fundamental level. The structure of religion has evolved by adding a slight modification. One could argue whether the modification was beneficial or not, but the new structure simply added prediction and experimentation to an interpretation of empirical evidence and renamed itself science.
As for the mechanism, for both religion and science it remains human intelligence.
Lastly you say,
Quote | Wow....can I call you a liar...YOUR A LIAR This is equivalent to saying: "empirical evidence for an IDer might exist in the natural world." |
If you say ID could become a "valid natural explanation" one assumes that the existence of empirical evidence for an IDer must exist or you could not make that statement. If you are unsure whether empirical evidence exists for an IDer (might exist, as you say) then you SHOULD have said ID may or may not become a "valid natural explanation."
Quote | What planet do you live on... You think denying ID(t) denies an IDer... You think admitting the possibility of ID admits that there is definately an IDer... Lewis Carroll would have even been dumbfounded at this point.... The only "intelligence" that I can discern from that statement is that you are arguing that if God could possibly exist...then he must exist... If that is your purpose....just let me know.... |
That is interesting. If you admit the possibility of an IDer this does not prove an IDer, but only proves that you think empirical evidence for an IDer exists or how else could you claim the possibility of an IDer? You seem to dig your hole ever deeper.
You are actually arguing that an IDer could become a "valid natural explanation" while asserting "NO empirical evidence" for an IDer. If there is "NO empirical evidence" for an IDer, on what basis are you asserting the possibility of its existence and its validity as a "natural explanation?"
Next you say,
Quote | You are correct, empirical refers to knowledge gained by experience and observation. You are also correct, any time a person observes anything they are gather empirical data.
Here is why we are altering the definition Science is based on empirical data...good Science must be capable of scrutinizing the data... so...a scientist normally refers to empirical data as that which is verifiable or testable....
However...you are correct...the data that science is based on is not always empirical by our definition...
Here in lies the rub, though People seeing Jesus, seeing aliens, and all of that other stuff are not examples of empirical evidence for what they observed. Why? Besides the fact that we cannot verify their claims.... They are already attempting to define the observation...
If 1 million people claim that they saw lights in the sky...you may consider that empirical evidence for lights in the sky..
If 1 million people claim that they saw lights in the sky, and that those lights are aliens...you may consider that empirical evidence that they saw lights in the sky.
A belief is not an observation or an experience....therefore belief cannot be empirical.
Sorry it took so long to explain that to you...but i finally realized what you were misunderstanding. I hope that helps Thordaddy |
You've already conceded the possibility of an IDer as a "valid natural explanation." The question is why you have conceded this when "NO empirical evidence" exists and millions of believers "cannot be empirical?" On what are you basing this possibility for an IDer?
And how do you figure that "belief" isn't based on observation and experience? If I believe my son will be athletic, is this not based on my observations and experiences with him in athletic situations?
|