Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

Tosh wrote:So, if either of our two defenders of the faith would like to detail their scientific objections to macro evolution, then please proceed. I wish to hear the science behind their claim it has not been proven.

If not, we will consider it an evidence based fact, and join every science academy and education system in the modern world.

Macro-evolution is unproven.

No proof exists that unproven macro-evolution is “micro-evolution over a long period of time.

Evidence is not proof. I have evidence that some of my West African ancestors were Yoruba, bot, as there are no records, I have no proof.

he concept of proof is whats at stake here,and where thats concerned,it has long been an (the?) issue in philosophy, that proof is a rather moveable feast,as is 'truth'.....................deducing a thing from overwhelming,(in the case of evolution)evidence, isnt the same as knowing it to be true;

Evidence is not proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.

Evidence is not proof.

I have proof of my grandparents’ birth in the places at which they were born. Paperwork, verbal testimony, all verify that each was indeed born in the places at which they were born.

I have proof of my grandparents’ birth in the places at which they were born. Paperwork, verbal testimony, all verify that each was indeed born in the places at which they were born.

Paperwork and verbal testimony are only proof because you accept it as such. I could easily say that the paperwork is a forgery and the testimonials are lies. I could go at this all day. It is also where confirmation bias comes into play. If I want to believe that your grandparents were NOT born in those places, I can simply doubt your evidence and proof ad infinitum.

in spite of paperwork and testimony,

Tosh wrote:

he concept of proof is whats at stake here,and where thats concerned,it has long been an (the?) issue in philosophy, that proof is a rather moveable feast,as is 'truth'.....................deducing a thing from overwhelming,(in the case of evolution)evidence, isnt the same as knowing it to be true;

Science is not interested in philosophical truths, it is interested in testing evidence and testing any conclusion or deduction against the evidence. Science accepts the probable nature of knowledge precisely because future evidence may alter the deduction.

When youre bonking your favorite wife/GFwhatever,

Do you know, Tosh..............I think wher e we're going with this, is that I have reservations about both science AND religion, whereas you think that science is able to give you the answers that religion cant ......but.......an answer which is just in words and numbers, however cleverly they are put together, doesnt hit the spot....................When youre bonking your favorite wife/GFwhatever, youre not stringing words together or doing sums- youre lost in the bliss of the moment,and wouldnt give a fart for all the fancy theorems in the world,even if they had Isaac Newtons name attached to them!

science(or to be exact, the method of analysis which we believe in( 'the scientific method'), as its known) was originally indistinguishable from art and religion and philosophy(Leonardo?),and used whatever means came to hand to 'discover truth'.............Im not sure that truth(Truth?), can be divided into different types of truth,scientific or philosophical..........we're into semantics at this point, I believe,BTW............

Thirty wrongfully uncharged beasts might yet roam throughout Dallas County Texas and beyond because of evidence that was adjudged proof in a Texas criminal court of law. How could that be? Since The Innocence Project hooked up with Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins shortly after Watkins’ election in 2006, thirty (30) wrongfully convicted men, each of whom was proven guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, have been DNA-exonerated, have had their sentences overturned, and have been freed from incarceration, which means that thirty (30) beasts that actually committed the heinous crimes for which the wrongfully convicted were incarcerated have wrongfully roamed free for decades.

Tosh wrote:

Do you know, Tosh..............I think wher e we're going with this, is that I have reservations about both science AND religion, whereas you think that science is able to give you the answers that religion cant ......but.......an answer which is just in words and numbers, however cleverly they are put together, doesnt hit the spot....................When youre bonking your favorite wife/GFwhatever, youre not stringing words together or doing sums- youre lost in the bliss of the moment,and wouldnt give a fart for all the fancy theorems in the world,even if they had Isaac Newtons name attached to them!

Egg,

I haven't a clue what you are alluding to, I accept reality, I accept reality is based on probability, I accept knowledge is subject to revision, my mind is open to all possibilities.

I do not accept Deities or ghosts or psychics or any other belief we inherited from our dumb ass ancestors because there is not one iota of supporting evidence, and these claims contradict all evidence.

Forget evidence, give me one reason why I should even consider these supernatural phenomena exist, it doesn't even have to be scientific just reasonable.

not trying to persuade you of supernatural things,at all, not trying to persuade u of anything, really, other than accurate thinking...............if you see me put the orange into the box and close the lid, you have no proof at all that it is in there;only faith................... the best you can say, is that it is very likely that it is in there, based on the evidence available to you; the same goes for the big bang, evolution;, jesus and all the saints and the devil too,are even less likely than the orange...............(much less.................... Surprised )

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[2] The strategy also aims to affirm God's reality.[3] Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4] The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log to represent an aggressive public relations program to create an opening for the supernatural in the public’s understanding of science.[5]

Intelligent design is the religious[6] belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as natural selection. Implicit in the intelligent design doctrine is a redefining of science and how it is conducted (see theistic science). Wedge strategy proponents are opposed to materialism,[7][8][9] naturalism,[8][10] and evolution,[11][12][13][14] and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.[15][16] The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention when the Wedge Document was leaked on the Web. The Wedge strategy forms the governing basis of a wide range of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns.

Theistic science, also referred to as theistic realism,[1] is the viewpoint that methodological naturalism should be replaced by a philosophy of science that is informed by supernatural revelation,[2] which would allow occasional supernatural explanations particularly in topics that impact theology; as for example evolution.[3] Supporters of this viewpoint include intelligent design creationism proponents J. P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, Stephen C. Meyer[4][5] and Phillip E. Johnson.[1][6][/q

According to Johnson, true knowledge begins with the acknowledgment of God as creator of the universe, the unifying characteristic of which is that it was created by God. Theistic realism relies on a concept of God which involves that He is real, personal, and acting in the world through mechanistic creationism.

Isn't it true though, that all 'knowledge' is only provisional? (i.e. we can only 'know' something until further evidence comes along to prove our 'knowledge to be partial or wrong)?

Do you know how many scientific theories have been found to be completely false since the modern scientific method ?

To say that a cow is a 4-sided figure with a leg in each corner is inarguably correct, but a cow is also so much more than that;the science is correct,as far as it goes