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.

[bluethread]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?

If A, then B
Not B
Therefore not A

If I am standing under a waterfall, then I am wet
I am not wet
Therefore I am not standing under a waterfall

Valid logic.

Just another reason why science is limited.

God exists because I am afraid of dying.
I'm afraid of dying
Therefore god exists.
EDIT. Disclaimer: I'm not actually afraid of dying.

Sorry, you inverted the logic with you grammar.

A causes B

Fear of dying causes God to exist.

The fallacy would be God exists, therefore, I am afraid of dying.

A deity can exist even if I do not have a fear of dying.

[Goose]

Affirming the consequent - a single consequent - is a fallacy, but if your theory affirms 10 or a 100 or a 1000 consequents chances are you are probably on to something.

Logically speaking, it's irrelevant how many times the consequent is affirmed. It is still irrational to affirm the consequent.

Now, I know what you're driving at. You're driving at the appearance of support for a theory. The more the expected results are confirmed the more we can say that theory is supported. Thus the scientific method is useful to justify belief. I get that.

But again, my point is the limitation of the scientific method is that it cannot "prove" anything because it relies on a fallacy.

[instantc]

But again, my point is the limitation of the scientific method is that it cannot "prove" anything because it relies on a fallacy.

I get your point that science cannot prove things, but it doesn't rely on a fallacy either.

'Certain regularities have always been observed, therefore the same regularities will be observed tomorrow' is a fallacious deduction.

'Certain regularities have always been observed, therefore the same regularities will most likely be observed tomorrow as well' is a reasonable inference, nothing fallacious there.

[bluethread]

But again, my point is the limitation of the scientific method is that it cannot "prove" anything because it relies on a fallacy.

I get your point that science cannot prove things, but it doesn't rely on a fallacy either.

'Certain regularities have always been observed, therefore the same regularities will be observed tomorrow' is a fallacious deduction.

'Certain regularities have always been observed, therefore the same regularities will most likely be observed tomorrow as well' is a reasonable inference, nothing fallacious there.

However, that is not how these things are presented. People are not saying that it is most likely that man evolved from other life forms, or it is most likely that the burning of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic climate change. No, these things are said to be proven.

[keithprosser3]

It is still irrational to affirm the consequent.

Depends what you mean by irrational.

It would seem to me to be irrational to reject something that has overwhelming evidence.

I will offer an example.

There is good evidence that I will, one day, die. However, I can't rigorously prove I will die. Nonetheless, I don't think it is actually irrational to suppose I will die. I rather think it would be irrational to think otherwise, n'est pas?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 4 by unfogged]

You say,

@It doesn't make sense to want to understand something that I see no reason to believe exists. You have to believe there is a god before you can believe that there is something that will help you understand it. I want to understand reality better and for that science has proven to be the best tool identified so far.

Let me say from the start, I have no problem with science. Science, has brought to us many wonderful things, and has improved the quality of life for the most part. So then, my problem is not with science, but rather scientists. Years ago in the past, most scientists, just assumed there was a God, and they worked from that perspective. Now, I am not saying, in any way, science was better, because they assumed there was a God. What I am saying is, that for the most part, this was not a question. Therefore scientists, were free to simply interpret the data, without bias on this question. They could argue their point and let the chips fall as they may. I am not certain this is the case any longer. I have made this case on another thread. I am not so sure, that each scientist, is not bringing a certain bias to the table. And as I said on the other thread, sadly, I have to admit, this includes christian scientists as well. In other words, each scientist can interpret the data, toward the particular agenda, they already have.

So then, you are not putting your faith in science, but rather, you are putting your faith in scientists, who already may have an agenda. So then when you say,

@ I want to understand reality better and for that science has proven to be the best tool identified so far.

My question is. Are you doing the science yourself, or are you putting your faith in scientists?

[Goat]

But again, my point is the limitation of the scientific method is that it cannot "prove" anything because it relies on a fallacy.

I get your point that science cannot prove things, but it doesn't rely on a fallacy either.

'Certain regularities have always been observed, therefore the same regularities will be observed tomorrow' is a fallacious deduction.

'Certain regularities have always been observed, therefore the same regularities will most likely be observed tomorrow as well' is a reasonable inference, nothing fallacious there.

However, that is not how these things are presented. People are not saying that it is most likely that man evolved from other life forms, or it is most likely that the burning of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic climate change. No, these things are said to be proven.

It comes to what is easy for people to understand. Evolution is proven.. the alleles have been obersved to change over succeeding generations. Now, the TOE as a model is only 99% there.

As for AGW, that is in slightly less doubt, but it is beyond the point of reasonable doubt.

[bluethread]

However, that is not how these things are presented. People are not saying that it is most likely that man evolved from other life forms, or it is most likely that the burning of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic climate change. No, these things are said to be proven.

It comes to what is easy for people to understand. Evolution is proven.. the alleles have been obersved to change over succeeding generations. Now, the TOE as a model is only 99% there.

As for AGW, that is in slightly less doubt, but it is beyond the point of reasonable doubt.

Howie, it's conjecture. There are way too many variables that can not be observed and/or isolated for either of these to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone fact.

[OnceConvinced]

Go out and talk to any devout Christian, I guarantee you that they are not believing just because they want to avoid going to hell.

Of course they won't be because they believe they are saved and going to Heaven. If you believe you are going to Heaven why would you fear Hell? That doesn't mean that it wasn't the fear of Hell that led them to becoming Christians in the first place.

I bet you that if they start to lose their faith then the fear of Hell will become a big factor.

[bluethread]

Go out and talk to any devout Christian, I guarantee you that they are not believing just because they want to avoid going to hell.

Of course they won't be because they believe they are saved and going to Heaven. If you believe you are going to Heaven why would you fear Hell? That doesn't mean that it wasn't the fear of Hell that led them to becoming Christians in the first place.

I bet you that if they start to lose their faith then the fear of Hell will become a big factor.

For me hell had nothing to do with it. It was more of a matter of finding a world that was not dominated by egocentric hedonists.