Posted on 11/10/2005 4:43:24 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
The first sentence is false (What is a miracle then?) The last sentence is false. A scientific standpoint only concerns that for which there is evidence.
Meanings, schmeanings. Science is about evidence, not meanings. "Science" doesn't "understand" anything. Reification.
Science takes what it does not understand and applies what we call "natural" meanings.
For science to consider that there are "supernatural" causes requires proof that the "supernatural" exists prior to the cause, the one thing that cannot be proven.
The application of a meaning, or degree of human understanding, has no effect upon the reality of the thing.
Yes, and science is the process of discovering that "reality."
One may proudly take the stand that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Few scientists go that far.
Of course, to do so would require Proving the Negative.
Science is entitled to explore everything that may be real.
Aye, and therein lies the rub. The "supernatural" - by definition - leaves no evidence of its "existence" in the natural world, i.e., "the real." If it did it wouldn't be SUPERnatural and would simply be natural. This is called a conundrum.
There is nothing unscientfic about inferring a designer where design is present. There is plenty philosophical in asserting design is the product of anything but a designer.
Begs the Question that there is a "design." This is a limitation of language, not fact. To say that a foot is "designed" to assist an animal in walking is inaccurate. To say that a foot "evolved" to assist an animal is more accurate.
An analogy is the "ether" which was once thought to be the medium through which energy traveled. It is a false concept which has no validity. Same for saying that evolved structures are "designed." It is anthropomorphism. There is no evidence of a designer, pure and simple. There is no evidence that anything is "designed."
On the contrary, name any phenomenon that cannot be explained by "natural" causes.
LOL! Read your own posts to me, then get back to me with your apology.
As for the "content" of your post ... well, it would be a stretch to call it that. For example, back to the very root of our disagreement:
You clearly don't have any understanding of the fundamentals of logic. I didn't "invent" Can't Prove a Negative, this is a standard logical fallacy. If you don't understand or accept it, it only proves your ignorance of standard scientific criteria for evidence.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Oh, goodness ... the old "I don't have to prove it but you have to accept it or you're too stupid to understand" ploy. That, truly, takes the cake! You know, it's becoming abundantly clear that you can't prove your assertion, and you're just too prideful to admit it. I never claimed that you "invented" it, but you're claiming special knowledge about the statement.
You said: "you can't prove a negative."
Please prove the statement.
Virgin Birth
Did a Virgin Birth really happen?
If you are either too stupid or too ignorant of logic to understand why this is true then you have violated the three fallacy rule in a single sentence.
For the final time - you cannot prove true that which does not exist and for which there is no evidence.
You can't Prove a Negative.
Can't prove it did.
So your understanding of science is that it may only deal with the proven and provable? Science has yet to prove the cause of gravity.
Sigh. Must you resort to this crap yet again?
For the final time - you cannot prove true that which does not exist
No problem here. This can be demonstrated, by (for example) showing that the assumption of truth leads to a contradiction. Logic says that by demonstrating a contradiction, it's possible to prove certain statements false. (And thereby, incidentally, proving a negative: X does not exist.)
and for which there is no evidence.
This, however, has no place in the discussion. A lack of evidence is not the same thing as "non-existence." Non-existence implies lack of evidence, of course, but the converse is not true. (I'm sure you remember this from your logic classes.)
You can't Prove a Negative.
Symbolically, then, in the form you've provided above, you're saying that "Proofs of Negatives" do not exist. However, "you can't prove a negative" has the unfortunate property that it is a negative.
If you can prove then statement, then it is a false statement -- a classic dilemma.
And of course, if you cannot prove this statement, then it is without meaning: a self-negating statement.
So please curb your unpleasant tendency to toss insults instead of logic, and PROVE YOUR STATEMENT.
Proving the cause of gravity, and that it exists are two different things. Your conflation skills are sloppy.
An in stating that gravity "exists" has science thereby proven gravity to be anything less than supernatural?
You are Conflating proving "statements" false with proving there is no physical evidence for that which does not exist.
BTTT
BTTT
Hi, just curious why you pinged me twice on your BTTT on the ID/Evolution thread. Anything in particular that requires my attention? :-)
The double ping was a mistake. The BTTT was b/c I liked the way you stated the situation as it exists. FReegards
I am merely asking you to prove your statement. You've been blustering for a few weeks now.
Prove that I haven't.
Cop-out. Not unexpected.
ID is an excellent scientific theory. It is, in fact, the only true theory that will soon replace the pseudo theory of evolution.
Evolution is all speculation with zero speciation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.