Why I don't argue/debate Christians anymore

The circularity both of you seem to imply is exactly the point I’m trying to make. How does one go about testing science? With science? But, to test science with science already assumes that science is a valid process. Otherwise, what point would there be in using it? You can’t use the scientific method to test the validity of the scientific method. This is fallaciously circular (Science is valid, because I used science to show that science is valid, therefore science is valid). So how, then, does one go about validating science without using science?

It may or may not have been scientific for you believe that all chocolate was dark, but the type of reasoning you imploded is the same that is used in science. You reasoned from particular (“all the chocolate I’ve ever seen has been dark“) to universal (therefore all chocolate is dark) This is called induction, and this is exactly how science proceeds. A universal conclusion is reached through limited observation. What this means is that no conclusion is certain since there's always more 'data' to collect, and any contrary piece of evidence would render what you thought you knew, invalid. As Sera Michele said, “…it [science] is in constant flux and it's "truths" change with the introduction of new information…” (Now notice how the conclusions of science run off this principle--that what it finds is always falsifiable-- however, the scientific process itself does not run off this principle, since the process itself is not falsifiable! In fact, one would need to use the process to falsify the process which is self-defeating!) This means that the conclusions reached by induction (and science) can never be held with any certainty. Now the problem becomes how induction can be validated. Can it be validated with science? No, because (1) the conclusions of science cannot be held with any certainty (unless one wants to use faith) since it’s conclusion are “in a constant flux and it's "truths" change with the introduction of new information,” and more importantly (2) using science to validate induction already presumes the validity of induction, and would therefore be circular.

It is not logical to presume the uniformity of the universe with regard to future events in relation to past ones. In fact I challenge you to show me (and everybody else), via deduction, how it is logical to make such an assumption! Not to make your job any harder, but even atheist philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell, would be against you on this point. What you propose is purely inductive. Induction is a formal fallacy, and is therefore not logically sound.

True, but what happens if I go on to flip that coin 10,000,000 more times, and during that time there is only one time in which the coin doesn’t land on the edge? Then what I thought to be a fluke is no longer a fluke, and what I thought to not be a fluke reveals itself to be the fluke. This is induction.


...i need to stop writing late at night while i'm tired!

 

This has got to be the most rediculous logic I have ever heard...


[size=-1]

Science isn't a physical thing itself, so it isn't like you can stick a thermometer in it's ass. It is just a defining word. So I'm not sure I really understand what you are trying to say here...
[/size]
Science (things we are studying scientifically) is validated though study and research - we call this the scientific method. It is validated by testing, and observation and repitition of expeirments.

It doesn't seem like you have a good understanding of what science is.

 

How so? Don't just assert it, show me!

[size=-1]

Part of what we are dealing with is ultimates. For example, if I say that the universe is governed by chance, than chance becomes the ultimate govening principle behind the universe. Ultimately everything is reduced to random chance and bouncing atoms, or whatever.

By ultimate, I mean of higher authority, or otologically prior. If I commit a crime, it is part of the juries job to figure out why I ultimately did it. Was it merely for my own pleasure, or was I forced to commit the crime by someone else, in which cause the crime was ultimately cause by something prior to myself, and I may not be held to blame in that case.

Now apply this to the scientific method. How do you know the method is valid. By what method, that is more ultimate than science itself, can you determine it's validity? If I ask you "How do you know the method is valid?" and you response "Because science has shown it to be so," you're being circular, that is, you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove. If the method you employ to show the viladity of the scientific method, is the scientific method, then you already presume that the method is valid in order to show that method is valid. It is likes me saying "I'm right, because I'm always right, and I say I'm right, therefore I'm right!" or "I know God exists because I can see the perfect order of His Creation, an order which demonstrates supernatural intelligence in its design, therefore God exist!"

 

You are clearly misunderstanding me. I never said science makes the scientific method valid.

[size=-1]

So you want to know how we prove this above method valid for making conclusions about the natural world? The proof is in the puddin. Look at all the shit we now know that we never used to - and believe me, it is all put through this method. Are you suggesting that it is somehow invalid? If you make the claim then it is up to you to show me (not the other way around). Show me how this thorough method is somehow invalid. What kind of test do you apply to your tests? What kind of test do you apply to that test? Talk about circular...

A couple more things about your post.

First off, science doesn't deal with ultimates (unlike christianity). Science evolves as we gain more knowledge of the world around us. One of the best things about science is all the new stuff we get to learn. You open one door of knowledge (like learning the earth is not the center of the universe, for example) and you see a million more doors to open behind it. And the more of those doors you open the more you understand (and the more knowledge you gain) about what you saw in that first door.

Second, the scientific method IS the jury that decides what we consider to be science or not (and the analytical eyes of a scientist's peers could be considered the appeals court, I suppose). It isn't like one scientist says "Look what I found!" and everyone else accepts it as true.

Look, it's best we follow some sort of protocol when researching phenomena scientifically. We can't just have everyone making up their own definition of what kind of research and knowledge can be considered scientific.

It seems to be that you either don't have a very good idea of what science is, or you are just playing word-games to discredit the most honest form of knowledge about the natural world we have (probably because of your religious beliefs).
[/size]

 

Uh huh. Ok. Not even going to get into this one.

But consider this. What do you know. Why do you know it?

 

and,

Now forgive me, but it sounds an awful lot like you’re describing the scientific method here, and are at least implying that the scientific method is validated by the scientific method. If this isn’t what you meant, then what did you mean.

First off, you seem to be equivocating on the word “ultimate.” I assume by “ultimate” you’re talking about “absolutes” or “universals,” in which case you’re wrong; science does deal in universals, such is the state of it’s conclusions. What do you think a scientific law is? (And as for ultimate reality, what do you think many scientific theories deals in? Science deals both in universals and in “ultimates.”).

And second, what I think you mean to say is that all scientific conclusions are falsifiable; that just because scientist think nature acts in one way, doesn’t mean years down the line they won’t find that it operates in another. The door’s always open for more knowledge to be gained. Nothing’s certain… You’ll find no argument with me on this, I believe that science does operate in this way, for the most part anyhow. But this raises a problem. If the doors are always opening, and knowledge is always changing, to point where what you thought you knew today may very well be "proven" wrong tomorrow, how do you even know if what you know is true? And Is science our only means of gaining knowledge?

When did I say that?

First off, I never claimed that it was invalid, second, the burden of proof would actually be on you had I did. Your positive claim would be logically prior to mine. I could never claim that the method was invalid had such a method never been proposed. And third, even when one carries out my argument to it’s logical conclusion, he still can not claim that science is invalid, only that one cannot know if science is valid or not. Just because one cannot show that something is valid, it doesn’t follow that it is invalid. And actually I don’t believe science is invalid, but only when coupled with a God of the universe, and that if one, such as an atheist, makes the claim that there is no God, then science becomes hopelessly circular in which case he logically cannot know if science is valid or not. You see, if he cannot know if science is valid or not, yet he chooses to carry on as if it were, then he is showing faith that it is valid (Of course I’m sure I’d be hard-pressed to get you, much less any scientist, to admit this). You’ll recall that my first post (#3) was about how even the atheist displays faith (and yes I know you agreed with me on this), and that my assertion was met with the challenge “How do you mean?" (#4) But at any rate, perhaps you can prove me wrong. How can you non-fallaciously show that science is valid?

Well you’ve have to be a bit more specific. But generally speaking, at best you’re just showing a scientific pragmatism or instrumentalism. In math a student can reach a right answer by working through the problem invalidly. It doesn’t follow that just because something works that it’s true. It doesn’t follow, for example, that just because proposing an intelligent designer behind the universe, then invoking “God of the gaps,” works, doesn’t mean it’s true.

Don’t forget that I’m Christian (praise God!), and so I’m not afraid to admit that I have faith.

 

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here. That if you accept science you are accepting it through faith?

As far as the first definition, I guess you could say that most have faith that scientists are representing their research honestly when we learn of it.


Although I think the "faith" the original poster was speaking of is the second definition listed here, "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Scinece doesn't ask for, or need, that kind of faith. Science operates entirely on logical proof and material evidence.



As far as validation of the scientific method - What, to you, would validate a procedure? A heart surgeon preforms a procedure every time he does a bypass...what validates his proccedure? (Oh, and it isn't faith)


The scientific method isn't a little miracle powder scientists dust over their expiriment to come to the conclusions they do. It isn't a belief system. It isn't an ideology. It is a process, a procedure for creating results. Standards for what is considered scientific. If there were no standards then we could call anything science. What makes it valid? Well, what makes a recipe for chocolate chip cookies valid, or the surgeon's bypasss? The results


I dont think anyone is saying knowledge is only gained though science. Science only studies the "how" of the natural world. If you want to learn how something works, science can help you. Science didn't create the knowledge of meditation, it existed long before science, but science can help us discover HOW meditation affects our bodies, and how meditation works to make us feel better. That's the type knowledge you'll gain from science. Science won't help you learn to be a good husband or get you published as a poet.

 

The Eastern Gate - REFUTE IT!

 

You asked me to prove that the Bible was inspired by God.

The eastern gate gives evidence towards the inspiration of the Bible. How did Ezekiel know that the gate would be sealed and that it would be the porch of the gate that would be sealed hundreds of years before the porch was built and sealed?

You have not answered those questions yet and I am STILL waiting

 

Porches are generally not ABOVE gates, JD4U. Twist reality as much as you do and any prophecy can be fulfilled. Porches are not above gates. My front door is not buried underneath my porch...His prophecy isn't so accurate unless you make the submission that a building overtop of another buried building is a porch.

But I am not going to go into this, there has been plenty of refutation of the east gate prophecy in another thread.

 

Perhaps you should take a basic art class or architech class.

OR atleast look up the definition...

THE VERSE:

Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, "This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it. 3 The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the LORD. He is to enter by way of the portico of the gateway and go out the same way." (EZEKIEL 44:1-3)


PROTICO:

A porch or entrance to a building consisting of a covered and often columned area
PORCH: A porch or walkway with a roof supported by columns, often leading to the entrance of a building. [Italian, from Latin porticus, from porta, gate. See per-[size=-1]2[/size] in Indo-European Roots.]


The PORTICO or the PORCH of the EASTERN GATE...

 

I don't base my whole faith on the Eastern gate... It is just one of many evidences that points the validity of the Bible. I keep asking you because you refuse to give me a legitimate answer. Saying it is a historical site does not answer how Ezekiel knew that it would be sealed and it would be the porch that would be sealed hundreds of year before the porch was built.

 

This thread isn't about the porch.

If you want to discuss the porch please go and post in that thread.

 

There is plenty of refutation for the east gate prophecy in this thread here:
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15337&page=1&pp=10

 

Well how did the writers of Ezekiel know there would be a porch added on to Jerusalems East Gate, and how did they know it would be sealed?
YOUR LEGITIMATE ANSWER, DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. Thats OK,

WE KNOW YOU CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION, SO JUST SAY NONSENSE, THAT USUALLY WORKS FOR YOU.

 

IF YOUR STATEMENT WAS TRUE, WHY DOES GOD DESCRIBE WHAT WILL BE HAPPENING AT THE END OF THE WORLD? WHY DOES GOD TELL US THAT AT THE TIME OF THE END THE JEWS WILL RETURN TO ISRAEL, AND RETAKE JERUSALEM? WHY DOES GOD SAY THAT IN THE LAST DAYS PERILOUS TIMES WILL COME TO THE EARTH? WHAT BIBLE HAVE YOU READING? WHY ARE ALL THE END TIME PROPHECIES BEING FULFILLED IN THE DAY THAT WE LIVE? WHY DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT AT THE TIME OF THE END, ENTIRE CITIES WILL BE BURNED AND DESTROYED IN ONE HOURS TIME?

 

you could argue that some of the prophesies were self-fulfilled by Christians themselves, the Jews been sent back to Israel was by humans after the second world war, mainly the British gave them the land in Israel, and as Britain was mainly a Chrsitian country with the head of the Church of England, why could this not be self-fulfilled. The East Gate- the new part or "porch" could of been built because of the prophesy not to make prophesy. And it isn't the strongest arguament to argue that entire cities will be destroyed because it has not happened yet, and even if it did, it isn't that surprising really, as cities have been destroyed throughout mankind.

I will admit it to be impressive, if these cities were destroyed in exactely an hour, and I would admit to being wrong if this is true, but it seems very unlikely. I just believe you have convinced yourself that it is true, and can't even comprehend that maybe it is not. Maybe we are ignorant in not believing, but so are you in not even considering the possibility that maybe you may be wrong.
peacex

 

No. 1. The Old East Gate was not just a Gate, it was both a Gate and a building.
No. 2. Porches are additions to buildings. They can be found on top, in the front, and on the sides of buildings. The prophecy was stateing, that the Prince to come, would not enter through the Old East Gate, but would enter through the sealed addition, of the Old East Gate. And it just so happens, that the East Gate we see to day is the addition to the Old East Gate, and it is sealed just like the Bible said it would be. And all attempts to break through it have failed, just like the Bible said they would. The Old East Gate is intact, and if the dirt was washed away, we would see two fully intact Gates. Only the top Gate is sealed, as the prophecy stated. Sera, I'm sorry, but you are the one, who does not see reality.

 

Porches are not built on top of a doorway. They are built at the entrance, so one must cross the porch to enter. Your gate is buried under this new building, so how can this new building be the porch to the old gate? I think you are really pulling at strings here.

 

Cities have not been destroyed in one hour? If you recall the war we had with Japan, you might recall what two cities were destroyed, and in less that one hour. And it should be of some surprise, because only in the time that we now live, can whole cities be destroyed in one hours time. And the Jews were not sent back to Israel, they had to fight their way back, and many of them died trying to get back there. And if you recall, the British only left when the Jews blew up the King David motel and killed 80 British officers. The Bristish had machine gunned a number of Jewish woman and children trying to get from the port to Israel proper. And the proch of the East Gate was sealed, not by those who supported the Bible, but by Moslems who do not support the Jewish belief. Sorry, I know my Bible, and my History. I'm not wrong on this one.