Science is limited

[livingwordlabels]

Science, by definition, can only accept something which can be proven or tested in some way. It is therefore limited to making conclusions about physical things.
I'm not saying this limitation undermines science as a valid and extremely useful source of knowledge. However, what does undermine its reliability is when people use it to make assumptions and conclusions without acknowledging this limitation.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether God exists or not. God is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science.

Also when people use only what they can observe to explain how mankind was created. This inevitably fails, as they have to limit life to something physical and we get the absurd idea of life evolving out of matter. The Bible offers us a more plausible explanation - that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. If we believe the Bible, we can see that humans are spiritual as well as physical.

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

[livingwordlabels]

I would say that "Spirit is so poorly defined that there is no way to show the word has meaning'.

I don't feel that is the case. See for example Oxford dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... ish/spirit
noun 1 the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul: the non-physical part of a person regarded as their true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation: the non-physical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost: a supernatural being: (Spirit)short for Holy Spirit.
I think the meaning is clear.

And 'There is no evidence spirit exists except conceptually'.

I would further say that 'That which can not be properly defined' God' can not be shown to exist at all.

When you say 'no evidence' of course you mean no scientific evidence, which is exactly the point I am trying to make. There will not be any physical evidence precisely because it is spirit. If you restrict your source of truth to that offered by science you will of course reject it. By the way, most people in the world don't do this.

That is how some people define it. Other people define it differently.

What do you mean by the 'non-physical side of a person'. What is meant by 'soul'?? The seat of the emotions is the brain, and that is physical. ..

so, that definition leaves so much to be desired, since it makes some vague references to other things that can not be verfied, and some outright pieces of claims that can be shown to be false.

OK you may not be familiar with the source I quoted. Per Wikipedia: The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), published by the Oxford University Press, is by a considerable margin the largest dictionary of the English language. In the UK, at least, it is considered an authority on the English language. It is not a Christian source but secular. The definition I quoted above is not my definition but theirs. The dictionary is compiled by countless academics far more knowledgeable than myself - that is why I used it rather than making up my own definition.
I appreciate that definitions of words is debatable and others will define the word 'spirit' differently. But to dismiss out of hand this definition of the word 'spirit' I believe is a mistake.

[Goat]

I would say that "Spirit is so poorly defined that there is no way to show the word has meaning'.

I don't feel that is the case. See for example Oxford dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... ish/spirit
noun 1 the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul: the non-physical part of a person regarded as their true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation: the non-physical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost: a supernatural being: (Spirit)short for Holy Spirit.
I think the meaning is clear.

And 'There is no evidence spirit exists except conceptually'.

I would further say that 'That which can not be properly defined' God' can not be shown to exist at all.

When you say 'no evidence' of course you mean no scientific evidence, which is exactly the point I am trying to make. There will not be any physical evidence precisely because it is spirit. If you restrict your source of truth to that offered by science you will of course reject it. By the way, most people in the world don't do this.

That is how some people define it. Other people define it differently.

What do you mean by the 'non-physical side of a person'. What is meant by 'soul'?? The seat of the emotions is the brain, and that is physical. ..

so, that definition leaves so much to be desired, since it makes some vague references to other things that can not be verfied, and some outright pieces of claims that can be shown to be false.

OK you may not be familiar with the source I quoted. Per Wikipedia: The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), published by the Oxford University Press, is by a considerable margin the largest dictionary of the English language. In the UK, at least, it is considered an authority on the English language. It is not a Christian source but secular. The definition I quoted above is not my definition but theirs. The dictionary is compiled by countless academics far more knowledgeable than myself - that is why I used it rather than making up my own definition.
I appreciate that definitions of words is debatable and others will define the word 'spirit' differently. But to dismiss out of hand this definition of the word 'spirit' I believe is a mistake.

And, it referenced another vague term, and showed that the definiton for spirit is does not line of with, what the rest of us call 'Reality'. That is what SOME believers push as being 'spirit', but it links it to 'soul', and that is another term that can not be shown to be to exist.

[JohnA]

Correct, you did answer, but you did not answer my question. You merely answered a fictitious question grounded in wishful thinking.

No, I answered your question. You only think I didn't because I didn't give you the answer you wanted.

To say your answer was not exactly the way I wanted you to answer is very relevant.

No it isn't. You haven't shown the logical connection between me not answering your question the way you'd like and my argument failing despite your feet stomping to the contrary.

If you claim X is fallacious, then surely need to say what X is?

Here's what I've argued. Now, pay attention so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

If the scientific method employs the fallacy of affirming the consequent then the scientific method is limited in that it cannot prove anything true.

Now tell us again how my argument fails if I don't tell you which specific branch of science?

Failing to answer my question means that you have no argument because [the WHY] you have not lived up to your burden of proof. Surely you understand this Goose? Or are you new to debate?

I've already proven with logic that the scientific method commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent when it attempts to prove anything true. This is a limitation of the scientific method.

And no, I can assure you, I'm not new to debate. Not that that would matter even if I was. Why do ask anyway? We're you preparing to mount an ad hominem argument if I was new?

But the scientific method does not set out to prove or disprove anything!

You don't seem to grasp the logic behind the scientific method. It can't prove anything true because when it attempts to do so it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It can, however, prove a hypothesis false via Modus Tollens.

This is basic philosophy of science. You should know this.

Then why do you refuse to answer my questions?

I did answer. Get over it.

Be clear, or run like you did refusing to answer my questions after I exposed your faulty reasoning.

You still haven't shown us why my argument fails if I don't answer your question the way you'd like. Repeatedly demanding that I answer your question or my argument fails isn't a refutation no matter how much you want it to be.

Sigh.

If the scientific method employs the fallacy of affirming the consequent then the scientific method is limited in that it cannot prove anything true.

I showed that you showed your own conditional statement wrong by your assertion:

Science is limited to more than that which exists. It's limited, as you've stated, because it formally can't prove anything

And you are correct again, science only deals with reality (things that exist). Why would think there is more that exist than can exist, as known already? This is just an admission from you that your dogma deals with things that do not exist! A nice admission from you that your god does not exist.

The scientific method does not set out to prove or disprove anything! And you admitted it! Btw, The scientific method applies to all of science, not just a branch of science. So you whole argument falls flat, like a deck of cards, AGAIN, still! It's all over the table and floor, Goose.

I've already proven with logic that the scientific method commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent when it attempts to prove anything true. This is a limitation of the scientific method.

How is this possible since you admitted that science can not prove anything. You just admitted that your fallacious proof will not be accepted by science. And you are correct, again! How you can you prove it when science can not prove anything? So, you are providing and rely on unscientific dogma to show that science can not prove anything to try and show that science may be based on something that it is not! You just admitted that you did not prove it because you can not! And I agree, science does not set up to prove anything as it can not and never claimed it can. LOL.

prove a hypothesis false via Modus Tollens.
This is basic philosophy of science. You should know this.

Correct, it is philosophy of science, not science. You just admitted again that science can not prove or disprove anything! It merely offer support or no support for a hypothesis. You clearly do not know this!


What I do not get is how can you write (You did author this, remember):

I'm not arguing science relies on a fallacy.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 308#607308

I have no issue with science that employs valid and sound reasoning.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 211#607211

I have an issue with any branch that attempts to prove a theory true via fallacious reasoning.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 254#607254

So, you recon that that there is some branch of science that do not use the scientific method and that science does not rely on fallacy since a brach of sceince is part of science! So you whole argument falls flat, like a deck of cards, AGAIN, still! Not only that, you admitted indirectly that your dogma deals with things that do not exist!


It's over Goose.
It seems to me that you share the traits that Winepusher pontificate, you do not realize that your dogma is merely your acceptance of someone else's faith. That person's reason filter has been installed for so long that it fails to filter out the noise that rational people's filter do. Am not quite sure why anyone would adopt such a filter, unless of course the person do not realize that the filter is broken, has been installed so long that it makes the person worry that being rational would make him/her less of a person. Will, it would not, I can assure you. A working filter of reason would make one reject drivel pontification.

[Star]

LWL, Oxford is a dictionary, not a science journal. They define words, which are just sounds/letters we use to describe things. They're not helpful in teaching us about reality. They tell us what people think they are, not what they actually are, or even whether they're real.

Even still, Oxford provides different meanings. Spirits could be a soul that appears as an apparition shortly after death, a ghost, or something that possesses people and must be cast away by a priest! Yikes.

It could also mean the Holy Spirit, supernatural spirits in nature, or even peoples moods and attitudes.

The only common theme is that they're "non-physical".

How does this help?

[livingwordlabels]

LWL, Oxford is a dictionary, not a science journal. They define words, which are just sounds/letters we use to describe things. They're not helpful in teaching us about reality. They tell us what people think they are, not what they actually are, or even whether they're real.

Even still, Oxford provides different meanings. Spirits could be a soul that appears as an apparition shortly after death, a ghost, or something that possesses people and must be cast away by a priest! Yikes.

It could also mean the Holy Spirit, supernatural spirits in nature, or even peoples moods and attitudes.

The only common theme is that they're "non-physical".

How does this help?

I'm not quite sure what the issue is here. Is it the use of the word 'spirit'? I agree it can be used in different ways, but is that a problem? It is not a word exclusively used by Christians and I don't particularly have any arguments with the way it is defined by the OED.

[bluethread]

So, is this your working hypothesis or something more definite? How is it that we know what will happen tomorrow, if this working hypothesis proves to be the case?

We don't know what will happen tomorrow. Another asteroid or comet could hit us. Yellowstone could blow. This would then all be a moot point.

What we do know is humankind is releasing a lot of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere over a relatively short period of time, particularly CO2. Greenhouse gas traps heat. Life does better when the climate is stable. These are facts.

When has the climate ever been stable? In 1968, Spokane. WA had 3 to 4 feet of snow. About three years ago it happened again. There have been years when there was little or no snow. What is stable about that?

[keithprosser3]

You shouldn't try to confuse other people about the difference between climate and weather. It's a debating trick used so often it should have a Latin tag.

[Star]

So, is this your working hypothesis or something more definite? How is it that we know what will happen tomorrow, if this working hypothesis proves to be the case?

We don't know what will happen tomorrow. Another asteroid or comet could hit us. Yellowstone could blow. This would then all be a moot point.

What we do know is humankind is releasing a lot of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere over a relatively short period of time, particularly CO2. Greenhouse gas traps heat. Life does better when the climate is stable. These are facts.

When has the climate ever been stable? In 1968, Spokane. WA had 3 to 4 feet of snow. About three years ago it happened again. There have been years when there was little or no snow. What is stable about that?

"Stability" as it pertains to climate is a relative term.

The Earth's climate has never been absolutely stable, but that's not what I meant. I'm concerned with the relative rate of change because it raises extinction intensity. Life needs time to adapt.

The weather in Spokane on certain dates doesn't really matter. Weather is not climate.

[bluethread]

So, is this your working hypothesis or something more definite? How is it that we know what will happen tomorrow, if this working hypothesis proves to be the case?

We don't know what will happen tomorrow. Another asteroid or comet could hit us. Yellowstone could blow. This would then all be a moot point.

What we do know is humankind is releasing a lot of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere over a relatively short period of time, particularly CO2. Greenhouse gas traps heat. Life does better when the climate is stable. These are facts.

When has the climate ever been stable? In 1968, Spokane. WA had 3 to 4 feet of snow. About three years ago it happened again. There have been years when there was little or no snow. What is stable about that?

"Stability" as it pertains to climate is a relative term.

The Earth's climate has never been absolutely stable, but that's not what I meant. I'm concerned with the relative rate of change because it raises extinction intensity. Life needs time to adapt.

The weather in Spokane on certain dates doesn't really matter. Weather is not climate.

Yes, I was just trying to determine the basis for your assertions. As I suspected, it is statistical analysis. Evangelicals and enviromentalists use doomsday scenerios gain converts. As you said there are many things that could do so. Admittedly, the likelihood of a meteor or comet hitting us or Yellowstone blowing up are relatively unlikely. However, given that we have a society that runs on "fossil fuels", what is likely is that any significant decrease in their use would cause serious economic consequences. Also, the only ones being restrained are Europe and North America. There are trainloads of coal coming through here from Montana to China multiple times a day. So, is coal burned in China have any less effect on the environment than coal burned in these United States. As alternative forms of energy become cost effective, they will be used. However, currently science has not developed the technology to even come close in most places.

It is interesting that we are discussing in the Christianity and Apologetics forum.

[JohnA]

So, is this your working hypothesis or something more definite? How is it that we know what will happen tomorrow, if this working hypothesis proves to be the case?

We don't know what will happen tomorrow. Another asteroid or comet could hit us. Yellowstone could blow. This would then all be a moot point.

What we do know is humankind is releasing a lot of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere over a relatively short period of time, particularly CO2. Greenhouse gas traps heat. Life does better when the climate is stable. These are facts.

When has the climate ever been stable? In 1968, Spokane. WA had 3 to 4 feet of snow. About three years ago it happened again. There have been years when there was little or no snow. What is stable about that?

"Stability" as it pertains to climate is a relative term.

The Earth's climate has never been absolutely stable, but that's not what I meant. I'm concerned with the relative rate of change because it raises extinction intensity. Life needs time to adapt.

The weather in Spokane on certain dates doesn't really matter. Weather is not climate.

Yes, I was just trying to determine the basis for your assertions. As I suspected, it is statistical analysis. Evangelicals and enviromentalists use doomsday scenerios gain converts. As you said there are many things that could do so. Admittedly, the likelihood of a meteor or comet hitting us or Yellowstone blowing up are relatively unlikely. However, given that we have a society that runs on "fossil fuels", what is likely is that any significant decrease in their use would cause serious economic consequences. Also, the only ones being restrained are Europe and North America. There are trainloads of coal coming through here from Montana to China multiple times a day. So, is coal burned in China have any less effect on the environment than coal burned in these United States. As alternative forms of energy become cost effective, they will be used. However, currently science has not developed the technology to even come close in most places.

It is interesting that we are discussing in the Christianity and Apologetics forum.

Are you denying that humans are responsible for the climate change and that it is harming the planet?