This is not a theist forum for theist views. This is a forum where science, theism, and non-theism is discussed openly. @gbrooks9 please stop capitalizing theism, it gives the impression of some higher authority like the royal “We”.
Agreed, @faded_Glory.
But this should make our task even easier:
E=mc2 is proven.
I.D. assertion that God’s presence is proved by probabilities is … what? I can call it merely an Assertion… or an Hypothesis.
But what got me down this garden path was @mercer insisting that we can’t use the term “proven” anywhere.
You are wrong. Full stop. Period.
As soon as we start talking about relying on the Bible, it puts us in a completely different context:
This IS a theist forum. Please get with the program.
I can’t speak for Mercer, but in my view we can certainly prove things with the axiom system provided by our models, but because our models will always be provisional, the proofs may not be valid outwith the models, and are therefore provisional as well.
A bit like Euclidian proofs not (necessarily) being valid in a non-Euclidian geometry.
No one here is relying on the bible. And which bible are you referring to? There are so many of them with an enormous range of interpretation. The Jefferson Bible is a better bible, if you want to pick one to quote. Also good grammar is to use lower case bible when talking about generic bibles and upper case Bible when talking about specific bible like KJV Bible.
You should take up your complaints with @swamidass.
I have no complaints to take to @swamidass. I merely point out PS is not a theist forum for theistic views. PS is a science based forum with people who have a wide range of views on just about anything.
2 Likes
If it isn’t a Theist Forum … where exactly do you direct people who want to talk about de novo creation of Adam and Eve and how it CAN be reconciled with the views of scientists?
Their local church, synagogue, or mosque if they are religious, or the local library if they want to learn the latest results in science.
I see @Mercer as making a point, that science doesn’t actually prove anything. But what’s missing is that the meaning of “prove” also depends on context.
There’s proof in mathematics and logic, which brings certainty (mathematical certainty, logical certainty). And then there’s proof as in “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”. That’s empirical proof. It can be satisfying and reassuring, but it does not have the certainty of mathematical proof.
Perhaps a better way to describe it is that E=mc^2 is derived from first principles. I think that is how it is described in physics.
Yes . . . and no. For example, if species or kinds were independently created by a designer then we would not expect to see those specially created kinds to fall into a nested hierarchy, unless the designer is trying to trick us into believing in evolution. That’s been one of the longest held criticisms against intelligent design going back to Darwin’s time.
You are being silly.
This is not an ID assertion. The argument is that the current evolutionary mechanisms proposed are not likely capable of overcoming the large probabilistic barriers. As a result a new mechanism is proposed.
You can argue that ID is not about God… but until more I.D. folks start writing about alien intelligences visiting Earth, you can understand that nobody takes that “tweak” seriously.
To prove God’s Design is not even slightly easier than proving God’s (any God’s) existence.
When’s the last time you cracked open a Philosophy 101 book?
Sorry Bill but ID-Creationism hasn’t identified any " large probabilistic barriers" evolution needed to overcome. Every last attempt by the ID-Creationists to calculate actual probabilities ends up being worthless because of the sharpshooter fallacy. They always calculate the probability of one specific result, not the probability of there being any working result.
We know you know that. The question is why do IDCers still make the same fallacious “it’s too improbable” claims?
2 Likes
A lot of people understand the argument. Others misrepresent it. You are not making real counter arguments but simply creating straw-man arguments. How many times do you have to be told the identity of the designer is not part of the ID argument. That is a different argument. Whether the arguments carry ideological implications is irrelevant so there is no need to appeal the Philosophy 101.
You again misuse the word prove as all arguments are tentative or contain assumptions.
How many times do you have to be told the “The Designer doesn’t have to be the Christian God” claim was just a dishonest ruse by the DI to get around the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment Establishment Clause? It didn’t work.
The game is up Bill. It’s been up since the DI’s “Wedge Document” was leaked. There’s no point continuing with the “IDC doesn’t say who the Designer was” facade because everyone knows it was just a strategically motivated lie.
2 Likes
It is entirely rational to insist that the identity of the designer is integral to the ID argument, and that the assertions of ID are only sensible in the context of a theistic worldview. Permission need not be granted in order to reject the ID limitation.
1 Like
It may be rational to try and invoke this discussion and there are people who will engage but against Behe’s argument it is a logical fallacy (straw-man fallacy) as it is an attempt to change the argument.
Invoking logical fallacies against Behe’s arguments is nothing new but I usually discount this type of argument as it is outside the scope of proper philosophical discourse. This argument style (use of logical fallacies) is common in politics but is rarely persuasive to me.
Hey Bill, what Behe and the other DI charlatans did in effect was paint DOG on this animal.
Did the paint job change the species of animal it is? Should the DI be allowed to enter this animal in the Westminster Kennel Show?
2 Likes