Rational and civil debate between members of all religions and world views

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Next

Reply to topic

Is faith/belief logical?
Yes
29%
 29%  [ 8 ]
No
70%
 70%  [ 19 ]
Total Votes : 27

KingandPriest
First Post
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:04 am  Is faith logical? Reply with quote

Although I am still relatively new to this forum, I have posted an interacted with multiple theist and non-theist. The conversation typically breaks down when faith/belief is introduced. This prompted a question about which rules apply to faith and which rules apply to logic.

1. Is faith/belief logical/rational? (simple yes or no should suffice)

2. If yes, what rules of logic apply to faith/belief?

3. If no, can any 'rules of logic' apply to faith?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 251: Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:57 am
Reply

Like this post
MadeNew wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

.
MadeNew wrote:

You can read my last post, you can read about Logos and logic, you can read prophesies and historical documents about Christ, you can observe science and what we can just "assume" to be true, and you can open your eyes and look around, evidence is all around you.

Preaching noted.

Kindly present verifiable evidence to support the contentions / speculations.

It is NOT honorable and reasoned debate (or presenting evidence) to tell people to go look for evidence.



There is no reason i should even amuse such things, you ask for evidence but you don't want it and you fight against it... Go look it up yourself.


Warning Moderator Final Warning

Your previous final warning earned you probation status. This one could well trigger a suspension vote. Your post is uncivil and antagonistic. If you want to stay with us, consider co-operating with forum rules, and that includes providing evidence when challenged.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 252: Thu Oct 13, 2016 12:19 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 248 by KingandPriest]



Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Confusing claims for evidence, and ignorance of the scientific method while trying to explain it,
Part 2



KingandPriest wrote:


None of these inflated balloons have ever inflated faster than the speed of light.



Yeah, balloons don't, usually.

KingandPriest wrote:


The theory of inflation is that the universe expanded uniformly faster than the speed of light. No empirical evidence that the universe expanded uniformly faster than the speed of light.



A theory and facts are two different things. Theories explain facts.
Inflationary theory has to be hypothetical, because people can't go there to observe all facts and observe all mechanisms before the BB. Not YET, anyway.

Apparently, some apologists claim to KNOW that a god is before the BB and making it happen.. by "miracle".

So, yes, you are right in that inflation theory is hypothetical.. but, that doesn't mean it relies on faith.

I don't really know what you MEAN when you use the word "faith".

Scientists don't kneel in science churches and pray for their observations and speculations. Scientists do more than just preach from an old book. You would have to prove that scientists somehow just have faith in stuff.. and go back home to pray about what they have faith in or something.. WHO KNOWS what you mean by faith?

KingandPriest wrote:


Also no explanation as to why inflation slowed down. There was no friction or resistance, but yet an expanding universe slowed down with no explanation.



Ignorance isn't the same as faith.
OR.. is it?

Is that what you think that faith is?

It might be very STRANGE to you that scientists don't know absolutely everything there is to know. So, because they don't know everything, do you imagine that they somehow use "faith"?

A lot of words have been written about scientific methods.. A LOT.
Could you find some sources for your claim that faith has anything to do with scientific methods?


Blastcat wrote:

As for an inflationary universe.. yah.. they have empirical evidence.
That's why they HAVE a BBT.. because it explains the empirical observations that they have. All scientific theories explain facts... which have been observed. This method has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

You couldn't be more wrong.


Why don't you try to get me on the defensive.. because there's nothing better than a good OFFENSE, right? Forget about defending YOUR proposition here...

KingandPriest wrote:


Please provide supporting evidence for your claim that there is empirical evidence of the universe expanding faster than the speed of light and then slowing down.

Not empirical evidence of other theories, but specifically for cosmic inflation.



Fine, fine, fine.
Since you can't seem to provide any evidence for your stunning claims, why don't you challenge ME to provide YOU with some evidence? Let's COMPLETELY forget about your burden of the proof here... WHY NOT?

Attempting to shift the burden of the proof is SUCH a popular apologetic tactic, after all... BUT just remember, getting your OPPONENT to prove his claims does NOTHING to prove your own. BUT.. since I intend to debate HONORABLY.. I will provide some evidence for my claim that there is empirical evidence for the Inflation Theory.

In this subforum, when one makes a claim, and is challenged, one must provide evidence or DROP THE CLAIM.

Evidence for an inflationary universe around the time of the BB:

1. Any successful theory of the origin of the universe must somehow lead to the result that it contains at least 1090 particles. The fundamental theory on which the calculation is based, however, presumably does not contain any numbers nearly so large. Calculations can of course lead to factors of 2 or π, but it would take very many factors of 2 or π to reach 1090. Inflation, however, leads to exponential expansion, and that seems to be the easiest way to start with only small numbers and finish with a very large one.

2. The second reason is the Hubble expansion itself - the fact that the universe is observed to be in a state of uniform expansion. An ordinary explosion, like TNT or an atomic bomb, does not lead to expansion that is nearly uniform enough to match the expansion pattern of the universe. But the gravitational repulsion of inflationary models produces exactly the uniform expansion that was first observed by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s and 30s.

3. Inflation is the only theory that we know of that can explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe

4. Inflation goes a very long way to resolve what is known as the is known as the flatness problem. It is concerned with the closeness of the mass density of our universe to what cosmologists call the critical density.

5.The fifth reason for believing the inflationary description is the absence of magnetic monopoles. Grand unified particle theories, which unify all the known particle interactions with the exception of gravity, predict that there should be stable particles that have a net magnetic charge.

6. The prediction that the inflation theory makes for the detailed structure of the cosmic background radiation. That is, inflation makes very definite predictions not only for the uniformity that we see around us, but it also predicts that there should be small deviations from that uniformity due to quantum uncertainties.

But don't take my word for it.. You might have heard of Alan Guth.
http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/evide-frame.html

Go argue with the theoretical cosmologists about it.. and while you are doing that.. ask them how they use faith in their work. Did you NOTICE any mention of "faith" in the above evidences?

NOW..

What about YOUR claim?
Thought we'd forget?

I challenge you to provide evidence for your REMARKABLE claim.

KingandPriest wrote:


Yes there is lots of empirical data, but no empirical evidence of cosmic inflation. Empirical data of an expanding universe that is not expanding faster than the speed of light.



Somehow.. you seem to think that empirical DATA can't be empirical EVIDENCE.

Yep, people just don't know everything.. darn, eh?
So, therefore, scientists use FAITH?

Did you find some evidence for that startling discovery yet?
It should make headline news.

Maybe a science prize or two..

Blastcat wrote:

People have come to the conclusion of an expanding universe based on empirical evidence. Scientists don't sit around making stuff up.

You have a very weird view of what science is and how it works.
A view which happens to be very wrong.



KingandPriest wrote:


Guess you have never seen theoretical physicists theorizing. When they are coming up with new ideas or theories, they are making them up. They then test their made up ideas by running various simulations and mathematical calculations.



In science, there is a word for "making things up". It's called making a hypothesis.
It's a very useful tool. But that doesn't mean they make things up from whole cloth.. they BUILD on what they already know. They build their hypotheses on what is ALREADY KNOWN... not already IMAGINED... For that kind of story telling... we would need preachers or novelists.

As far as I know, forming a scientific hypothesis is not using faith.
But I will stand corrected if you provide something to back up your claim that it does. Right now, we would just have to accept your stunning statement in order to be convinced. Would you like it if everyone just accepted everything that you pronounce?

Debate isn't the place for it.
In this subforum, we are expected to provide evidence when asked for. As I just did.. remember that long tedious list from a scientist who IS a highly regarded cosmologist ?

You have made your accusation.. and now we are discussing theoretical cosmology as if EITHER of us has a clue about that. I don't happen to BE a theoretical cosmologist, are YOU? Contact Alan if you want to debate his science.

You wanted to prove that science uses faith... And NOT prove that the inflation theory is unfounded.

SO DO THAT.. or drop the charge.
All of us are waiting.


KingandPriest wrote:


String theory was just a crazy idea of a few physicists years ago. Now it has gained some traction alongside multiverse theory. You look at the end result of a confirmed theory and ignore all the made up theories which were wrong along the way. There are hundreds of theories which were made up and discovered to be incorrect.



Yes, that's why science works, except that string theory is at this time MERELY hypothetical.. nobody claims to have any evidence.

What does this have to do with FAITH?
You were going to prove to all of us that science somehow relies on faith to get things done.

PLEASE DO SO or drop the charge.


KingandPriest wrote:


Without this claim of faith, the BBT cannot even be modeled or conceptualized.



You seem to be conflating "faith" with "hypothesis" again.
In order for your argument to have any hope, you would have to demonstrate that they are the same. We have rigorous definitions for what a scientific hypothesis is.. but none so far for "faith".

I suggest that before you just keep repeating your claim that you try to define your terms. I'm not sure that scientists form their hypotheses the same way that believers form their faith.. or use their faith.. or whatever it is you are talking about. I have to apologize, I should have asked you to define your terms from the very start.
Sometimes, I'm not always as sharp as I'd like to be.Repeating your claim like that is not evidence for the claim. You might imagine saying "I'm right because I'm right" is good evidence, but I don't.

You seem to BELIEVE that you are right.. and that's fine.
Have your belief. But since it's kindof a RULE to back up our claims with some EVIDENCE when asked..

Could you DO THAT?
Or drop the accusation.

We keep waiting.


KingandPriest wrote:


Now you are attempting to change your question. Your request was:
Blastcat wrote:
Could you elaborate just a little more on how the BBT is founded on faith?




Then SORRY.. you can answer the original question as phrased originally.

I take it that most scientists agree that the BBT is good science.Could you PLEASE explain to us how BBT uses faith in any way whatsoever? There must be LOTS of data about the faith in the BBT and the faith in Expansion Theory. Or how faith was instrumental in forming the BBT.

Give us some evidence to support your charge,

OR JUST DROP THE CHARGE.

KingandPriest wrote:


You asked to elaborate how the BBT was founded on faith. Now you attempt to change the question to reputable scientific source talking about how they needed to have faith to do good science. Your attempt at bait and switch did not work here.



How did they USE FAITH to form the BB theory?


KingandPriest wrote:


I have already demonstrated that the theory for cosmic inflation is not supported by empirical evidence. It is believed to be true because it is the best explanation that fits the model.



"Believed to be true".

Do you imagine that cosmologists can't change their minds if what they "believe to be true" is falsified?

Cosmologists aren't in the business of PRESERVING A FAITH in something..
Cosmologists aren't in the business of PROMOTING FAITH, but knowledge about the cosmos.
Cosmologists are in the business of trying to figure out very complex observations and finding their mechanism. They want answers, but more importantly, they want GOOD answers.

If cosmologists EVER used confirmation bias, the way that you suggest.. using a "Faith".. that would be BAD science and is almost a guarantee of poor cosmological answers.

Do you imagine the conversation below is representative of good science?

Scientist A: "Why do you believe this cosmological theory?"
Scientist B: "Because of my faith."
Scientist A: "Good enough for me, I believe it too, here, grab this here Nobel Prize for Physics, your faith is awesome."


KingandPriest wrote:


It is a statement that physicists have to accept by faith. Accept with no empirical evidence.



I am not aware that anyone needs to somehow accept ANYTHING in science by "faith". Please provide some evidence for your fantastic claim.

You keep making the claim that scientists have to use faith. That's not the case at all.
You are just confused with words and how science actually works. You seem all mixed up as to what "Faith" means, too. Odd that... for a theist who probably thinks about what faith means a lot... Could you provide us with a clear definition of how you use the word "Faith"?

I should have asked you before.
You know.. defining your terms before debating them?

Scientists use THEORIES.. and HYPOTHESES.. and FACTS and MATH and PHYSICS and INSTRUMENTS.... and LOGIC.... and so on. Scientists try to disprove theories.. because disproving something like the inflation theory would gain them a NOBEL PRIZE in physics. Disproving a strong theory gets NOTICED in science, you see.

Even in cosmology..

Your argument about how science relies on faith is nothing more than a STATEMENT that it does. Repeating the statement isn't going to prove your weird and wonderful belief that science uses faith as part of its methodology.

I don't think that peer review would accept a scientific paper which had "And I proved this theory by FAITH".

KingandPriest wrote:


The main evidence that supporters of cosmic inflation use is the observation of uniformity in the universe. In summary, the view goes like this. I observe the universe to be fairly uniform in dispersion of matter. Conclusion, it must have inflated uniformly like a balloon faster than the speed of light.



You forgot to include ALL OF THE SCIENCE between the premise and the conclusion.. between observations and conclusions. And then, much worse, you seem to think that once scientists form a theory that they are STUCK with it forever.


KingandPriest wrote:


What is the difference from a theist making a claim, the universe is uniform. Conclusion, God did it.



Scientific observations is the difference.
Scientists didn't just COME UP with the BBT theory out of nowhere.

The BBT doesn't pop out of some thousand year old science book...
A LOT of knowledge and careful observations of the actual cosmos had to take place FIRST before the theory could HOPE to explain the observations.

Now, they hit a bit of a snag with expansion. I think you are right.. I think we can't observe the actual expansion.. so we would need some kind of direct evidence in order to say that it's a fact. Right now, I would LOVE to have an actual cosmologist say that the inflation theory is a FACT. I think that ( if you would bother to find evidence for it ) that you would quickly discover that the Inflation Theory is described as a HYPOTHESIS, but NOT a fact. What we have now is INDIRECT evidence... But it's like you imagine that cosmologists are DOGMATIC about the expansion theory.. but dogmatism is NOT a methodology used in science or specifically in cosmological science.

Dogmatism would HINDER research.. not help it. FAITH would get in the way of an unbiased approach. That's why cognitive biases are SHUNNED in science.

But, cognitive biases are applauded in apologetics, right?
Is that why you imagine that science uses cognitive biases as method ?


KingandPriest wrote:


Both lack empirical evidence.



Sorry, but there IS such a thing as the "known universe" out there for scientists to observe. Of course, ONCE AGAIN, I feel that it is necessary to point out to you that even scientists, as clever as they may be, DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.

But they know a lot.
Inflation theory fits in with all of that... if it's disproved one day by some evidence.. then they discard the theory, and try try again until they get it right.

Scientists ( at least the honest ones ) want to have GOOD explanations, and not just any old explanation that MIGHT possibly fit. Like Cinderella's shoe.. it has to be a DARN GOOD FIT.

You STILL have not explained how scientists use faith in their work..
But we ALL know how preachers use faith...

Preachers can't seem to STOP talking about faith this and faith that.. and how you just gotta have faith... for some reason.

Do you imagine that scientific papers usually include phrases like "You just gotta have faith"?


KingandPriest wrote:


See clarification above. The theory of cosmic inflation has no supporting empirical evidence.



That does NOT imply that science uses "faith".
It just means that nobody knows absolutely everything.

Ignorance doesn't imply faith somehow... or at least, you haven't demonstrated that it does.


KingandPriest wrote:


A claim that God caused the expansion is just as valid. Both are claims of faith. The BBT hinges on a claim of faith.



Just because religious people use faith... somehow... doesn't mean that any scientific method includes "faith".

Repeating yourself isn't helping you prove your point.
Provide evidence.. a source... not JUST your religiously motivated opinions about science, please. We already KNOW your opinion concerning faith and science.

Now, PROVE the accusation has any merit or drop it.
How about a scientific paper explaining to us heathens how, when doing science, one just has to have faith.


KingandPriest wrote:


The claim of faith that the BBT hinges on that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, and then slowed down. No evidence, just a claim.



It's not just an unsupported claim.
It's a hypothetical theory that FITS very well with the REST of what the scientists know about the cosmos, oh, and the math works, too.

It explains how we got here, and it does it WELL. They didn't just read that in some old book... Cosmologists formed the theory using ALL of their tools and previous observations.... now.. your job is to convince us that ONE of these valuable tools is FAITH.

And some evidence of that would be nice.
Because your assertions are not evidence.

Your belief isn't enough to convince us that your beliefs have any merit.
It's EASY to disparage something without offering any proof.

You try to put down science so that you have a more even playing field, so you can say something like :" Well, scientists do something foolish, too, they also use faith, so why can't I do the same foolish thing as they do?"

1. You would have only demonstrated that faith is a bad method to know how the world actually works as it doesn't rely on empirical methods.
2. You demonstrate an unenviable misunderstanding of science.
3. You don't seem to realize that a "tu quoque" argument is self-defeating.
4. Not knowing about logical fallacies makes you more prone to use them in your arguments. Nobody is going to be convinced by poor reasoning. I suggest learning how to avoid logical fallacies in the future.
5. Critical thinkers don't just repeat their claims... they provide evidence for their claims.
6. Critical thinkers don't just repeat their claims expecting that magically, it's going to be true.... by repetition.
7. You get yourself confused a lot. That's understandable with debate newbies. For example, and there are many such examples available for your confusions.. is when you seem to think that IGNORANCE demands FAITH... when scientists don't know something for sure, you seem to be telling us,, they "just must "be using faith... As if "faith" was a scientific method...
8. You display an unfortunate lack of imagination as well... I've been trying to point out to you that JUST BECAUSE religious people somehow tell each other they they "use faith" in order to test the truth of their beliefs, it DOES NOT MEAN that outsiders to the faith use faith, NOR does it mean that the scientific method advocates faith in any way. That's why I could easily title this little diversion "I believe something, therefore everyone else must believe it too, and all I have to do now, is to repeat what I believe ... they'll get it sooner or later.. my job is done. Preaching proves. "

9. Well, sorry, preaching does not prove.


KingandPriest wrote:


The science of the BBT relies on the faith of many who accept inflation as true. They accept inflation as true with no empirical evidence.



Quote:
Who on earth are you TALKING about?
Claims are easy to make.
Please back them up or drop them.


KingandPriest wrote:


Sorry, I forgot you do not allow context when reading a post.



Moderators don't allow sarcasm.
I suggest you drop that brand of humor. It doesn't help your case. and it makes you look bad.

But WHO are you talking about?
WHO is using faith in their scientific work?

You got sidetracked there...
How about you back up your spectacular claim or,

DROP IT?

KingandPriest wrote:


Those who accept the BBT as true also accept cosmic inflation as true with no empirical evidence. By accepting a claim as true with no empirical evidence, they have relied on faith.



It might be beneficial to your argument if you took the time to figure out how "truth" and "hypothesis" is handled in science. You might be pleasantly surprised.
You must imagine that cosmologists just accept things are true.. and move on from there. You might have HEARD of "doing actual science, and testing hypotheses".

You might have HEARD of how sound theories can be used to PREDICT.
We can observe if a theory correctly PREDICTS or not. That would be indirect evidence. Empirical, but indirect. Ever heard of indirect evidence?

Now, having said all of that about cosmology.. I would like to point out that I am NOT your science teacher. If you are trying to make a scientific case... then DO it. But I won't take you as MY science teacher, either.

Deal?

So, I hope that we steer away from the INFLATION THEORY now.. and get to your actual POINT.

If you want to demonstrate that the scientific method uses faith, do so.
DEMONSTRATE IT.. don't just keep REPEATING the accusation... and getting side tracked with theoretical cosmology.

Prove your point or,
DROP IT.


KingandPriest wrote:


If you believe my claim to be false, please present counter evidence rather than making requests for me to drop it. You are great at asking questions but rarely presenting an actual position. Easy to defend nothing I guess.



You made the REMARKABLE claim that science uses faith.
Not me.

Prove your claim true or drop it.
We are waiting for your proof.

What you have provided isn't proof at all... what you have offered us is a series of invalid arguments. One such is an elaborate ( and quite messy ) argument from ignorance that goes something like this:

" Scientists don't know everything, THEREFORE... they use faith in their work."


Blastcat wrote:

Back up your large claims or drop them.


KingandPriest wrote:


Already did.



You can believe that.
Convincing others, however, might be a little more difficult than convincing yourself.
I am quite confident in your ability to convince yourself of your own opinions.


Smile

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 253: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:59 pm
Reply

Like this post
Zzyzx wrote:

.
KingandPriest wrote:

You claim pseudoscience like any religious belief must be accepted on faith. This is not true. There is often corroborating evidence to support what some may call pseudoscience.

Kindly provide examples of the 'evidence' supporting pseudoscience.

KingandPriest wrote:

The evidence may not follow the scientific method, but the evidence may be genuine.

The 'evidence' may also be bogus. How does one distinguish between genuine and bogus EXCEPT by testing the evidence for truth and accuracy?

KingandPriest wrote:

Psychological evaluations do not follow the scientific method. These evaluations would fall short of fulfilling the scientific usage of the term empirical evidence. Yet, we no longer deem psychological evaluations as pseudoscience. In the recent past, this was considered pseudoscience but now because their is supporting evidence we accept the diagnosis of psychologist.

Those who are more than vaguely familiar with sciences are aware that a distinction is made between Natural Science and Social Science.

Quote:
Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on observational and empirical evidence. Mechanisms such as peer review and repeatability of findings are used to try to ensure the validity of scientific advances.
Natural science can be divided into two main branches: life science (or biological science) and physical science. Physical science is subdivided into branches, including physics, astronomy, chemistry, and Earth science. These branches of natural science may be further divided into more specialized branches (also known as fields).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science


Quote:
Social science is a major category of academic disciplines, concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. It in turn has many branches, each of which is considered a "social science". The main social sciences include economics, political science, human geography, demography, psychology and sociology. In a wider sense, social science also includes some fields in the humanities[1] such as anthropology, archaeology, jurisprudence, history, and linguistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science

Methodology employed differs significantly between Natural and Social sciences.

Pseudoscience is not limited to the natural sciences.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 254: Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:23 pm
Reply

Like this post
.
KingandPriest wrote:

Pseudoscience is not limited to the natural sciences.

THAT is your total response to my post #240? Readers may be interested in hearing response to:

Zzyzx wrote:

Kindly provide examples of the 'evidence' supporting pseudoscience.

The 'evidence' may also be bogus. How does one distinguish between genuine and bogus EXCEPT by testing the evidence for truth and accuracy?

Methodology employed differs significantly between Natural and Social sciences.

The intent here IS to debate, isn't it -- and not to just throw stuff at the wall and see if any of it sticks?

Notice that in reasoned and honorable debate if one makes statements that are challenged and/or supporting evidence is requested, they are expected and required to provide supporting evidence. See Forum Rules if in doubt.

That is one of the differences between debating and preaching.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 255: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:01 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 252 by Blastcat]

It seems you have already forgotten the question you asked, and are begging me to "drop the charge" because you are standing on sinking ground. Here is a brief summary in case you forgot:

Blascat wrote:
MadeNew wrote:

Actually science itself is founded on faith, we wouldn't have science without it.


What an astounding statement.
Could you elaborate?


KingandPriest wrote:
The statement is not astounding unless you are confusing modern science (19th century forward) with science as a whole.
...
Even today, modern science still relies on a bit of faith. Today we use the word hypothesis instead of faith or believe.
...
The science of the modern BBT is founded on a claim of faith.
ref:Is faith logical?: Post 226
Blastcat wrote:
Could you elaborate just a little more on how the BBT is founded on faith?
ref:Is faith logical?: Post 227
KingandPriest wrote:
the BBT relies upon the concept of inflation. There is no empirical evidence for inflation...
The concept of cosmic inflation is a statement of faith.

Without this claim of faith, the BBT cannot even be modeled or conceptualized.

Blastcat wrote:
You never watched a balloon inflate?
Ever?

That would be empirical evidence for inflation...

You couldn't be more wrong.

I am amazed that you believe a balloon inflating is empirical evidence for cosmic inflation. The faith required to make this connection is amazing. Nevertheless, I challenged to you back up your claim that I couldn't be more wrong and present empirical evidence for cosmic inflation.
Blastcat wrote:
A theory and facts are two different things. Theories explain facts.
Inflationary theory has to be hypothetical, because people can't go there to observe all facts and observe all mechanisms before the BB. Not YET, anyway.

So, yes, you are right in that inflation theory is hypothetical.. but, that doesn't mean it relies on faith.

I don't really know what you MEAN when you use the word "faith".

Scientists don't kneel in science churches and pray for their observations and speculations. Scientists do more than just preach from an old book. You would have to prove that scientists somehow just have faith in stuff.. and go back home to pray about what they have faith in or something.. WHO KNOWS what you mean by faith?

Is this your best defense. You don't know what I mean when I use the word faith. Although I have presented a definition of what I mean when I use the word faith several times on this same discussion thread, all of a sudden you no longer understand what I mean when I use the word faith.

Would you like me to prove you are conveniently lying to ignore the question by quoting you directly to show that you understand what I mean when I use the word faith?


Blastcat wrote:
It might be very STRANGE to you that scientists don't know absolutely everything there is to know. So, because they don't know everything, do you imagine that they somehow use "faith"?

Scientist use statements based on faith all the time to fill in the gaps. We have no direct empirical evidence of the composition or even presence of a iron core at the center of the earth. It is a best guess based on the available evidence. Any statement of the composition of the earths core is a statement of faith. The same evidence that supports this belief could also support the belief that Hell is at the center of the earth. Both are statements of faith due to the lack of empirical evidence to support them.

Quote:
Establishing and determining a factual Geophysical model of planet Earth’s interior has been a considerable challenge for the intellectual community. Given our rapid technological advancement, one would think that determining the makeup of Earth’s core would be simple, but it’s not. Earth’s core is the most inaccessible part of our planet. Several prominent individuals have supported the hollow Earth theory, and it is no joke of a list. A number of physicists, astronomers, mathematicians and high ranking military personnel share the same belief. They share their stories through experience, research and more. There really is some mind blowing information that suggests the Earth could actually be hollow.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/26/mind-blowing-research-suggests-th...

Compare that to https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/earths_core.html

Blastcat wrote:
Could you find some sources for your claim that faith has anything to do with scientific methods?

Already presented. You conveniently skipped over the blatant claims where physicists and cosmologist state that they believe inflation to be the best explanation.

KingandPriest wrote:
Please provide supporting evidence for your claim that there is empirical evidence of the universe expanding faster than the speed of light and then slowing down.

Not empirical evidence of other theories, but specifically for cosmic inflation.


Blastcat wrote:
Evidence for an inflationary universe around the time of the BB:

1. Any successful theory of the origin of the universe must somehow lead to the result that it contains at least 1090 particles. The fundamental theory on which the calculation is based, however, presumably does not contain any numbers nearly so large. Calculations can of course lead to factors of 2 or π, but it would take very many factors of 2 or π to reach 1090. Inflation, however, leads to exponential expansion, and that seems to be the easiest way to start with only small numbers and finish with a very large one.

2. The second reason is the Hubble expansion itself - the fact that the universe is observed to be in a state of uniform expansion. An ordinary explosion, like TNT or an atomic bomb, does not lead to expansion that is nearly uniform enough to match the expansion pattern of the universe. But the gravitational repulsion of inflationary models produces exactly the uniform expansion that was first observed by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s and 30s.

3. Inflation is the only theory that we know of that can explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe

4. Inflation goes a very long way to resolve what is known as the is known as the flatness problem. It is concerned with the closeness of the mass density of our universe to what cosmologists call the critical density.

5.The fifth reason for believing the inflationary description is the absence of magnetic monopoles. Grand unified particle theories, which unify all the known particle interactions with the exception of gravity, predict that there should be stable particles that have a net magnetic charge.

6. The prediction that the inflation theory makes for the detailed structure of the cosmic background radiation. That is, inflation makes very definite predictions not only for the uniformity that we see around us, but it also predicts that there should be small deviations from that uniformity due to quantum uncertainties.

But don't take my word for it.. You might have heard of Alan Guth.
http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/evide-frame.html

Do you call this emprical evidence. The evidence you presented is
1. Inflation "seems to be the easiest way to start with only small numbers and finish with a very large one."
2. Universe is expanding. Expansion from a explosion does not explain observed uniformity, so it must have inflated like a balloon.
3. Inflation is the only way.
4. Inflation solves most of our mathematical problems
5. Believe in inflation because it unifies all of the known particle interactions except for gravity. (Don't ask about gravity)
6. Inflation predicted that there would be cosmic background radiation. Since there is cosmic radiation, it must be true.

Now, if I were to switch out the word inflation for God, you would argue that none of these reasons are empirical evidence.
1. GOD "seems to be the easiest way to start with only small numbers and finish with a very large one."
2. Universe is expanding. Expansion from an explosion does not explain observed uniformity, so it must have inflated like a balloon. GOD blew up the balloon.
3. GOD is the only way.
4. GOD solves most of our mathematical problems
5. Believe in GOD because it unifies all of the known particle interactions except for gravity. (Don't ask about gravity)
6. GOD predicted that there would be cosmic background radiation. Since there is cosmic radiation, it must be true.

Even in the link you provided, the author begins by describing a defense for a belief system.
Quote:
So far I have tried to describe how inflation works, but now I would like to explain the reasons why many scientists - including certainly myself - believe that inflation really is the way that our observed universe began.
http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/evide-frame.html

Did you skip the VERY FIRST sentence in the link you provided as supporting evidence?
The entire paper is a defense of a belief.
Blastcat wrote:
In this subforum, when one makes a claim, and is challenged, one must provide evidence or DROP THE CLAIM.

I agree, if you make a claim that I couldn't be more wrong and there is empirical evidence for cosmic inflation, AND cannot provide such empirical evidence you should DROP THE CLAIM.

Blastcat wrote:
What about YOUR claim?
Thought we'd forget?

I challenge you to provide evidence for your REMARKABLE claim.

What about my claim. I supported the claim made by MadeNew to show that science has relied on faith in the past. I also showed that modern science (19th century forward) still relies on statements of faith and beliefs which are not empirically validated.

I also provided evidence showing that modern science relies on statements of faith. I specifically showed how the BBT relies on the statement of faith/belief in cosmic inflation. Without the concept cosmic inflation, the BBT as we know it would fall apart.

Blastcat wrote:
Yep, people just don't know everything.. darn, eh?
So, therefore, scientists use FAITH?

Did you find some evidence for that startling discovery yet? It should make headline news.

What makes headline news is beyond me these days, but that is off topic.

Atheists like to claim that Christians present a God of the gaps argument. Scientist present wild "theories of the gaps" all the time to support a well established phenomena.

Like the example above, about the composition of the ore of the earth. Our current understanding about the makeup of Earth’s core is a theory, based on certain assumptions, it is taught as fact. The evidence for the composition of the Earth’s core is decent, however indirect. We have no means for directly sampling the deep interior of the Earth.

Often we fail to recognize that what we so often regard as truth is based on theory and assumption. What science regards as the truth about the composition of the earth is based on theory and assumption. In other words, based on the faith that what most geologists have assumed is correct. Their assumptions could also be wrong.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 256: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:16 pm
Reply

Like this post
Zzyzx wrote:

.
KingandPriest wrote:

Pseudoscience is not limited to the natural sciences.

THAT is your total response to my post #240? Readers may be interested in hearing response to:

Zzyzx wrote:

Kindly provide examples of the 'evidence' supporting pseudoscience.

The 'evidence' may also be bogus. How does one distinguish between genuine and bogus EXCEPT by testing the evidence for truth and accuracy?

Methodology employed differs significantly between Natural and Social sciences.

The intent here IS to debate, isn't it -- and not to just throw stuff at the wall and see if any of it sticks?

Notice that in reasoned and honorable debate if one makes statements that are challenged and/or supporting evidence is requested, they are expected and required to provide supporting evidence. See Forum Rules if in doubt.

That is one of the differences between debating and preaching.

No, I wrote a longer reply, but it got erased accidentally and I got lazy. I was working on another response which got quite long.

Will do better next time.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 257: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:24 pm
Reply

Like this post
.
[Replying to post 256 by KingandPriest]

Condolences. Losing writings to computer / internet glitches can be frustrating.

I learned long ago to compose everything in a word processor document (with frequent automatic backup to external hard drive) and when finished transfer to Forum text box. Even in a worst case scenario only a few minutes of work can be lost.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 258: Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:07 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 255 by KingandPriest]

Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Confusing claims for evidence, and ignorance of the scientific method while trying to explain it,
Part 3

Playing with the meanings of words, Part 2


Oh, by the way, please forgive the ridiculous length of these posts. The material at hand IS very complex, and the claims are numerous. I try to be thorough. And witty.
Meow/Grrr. ( see what I did there? I was being thorough and witty )


KingandPriest wrote:


The statement is not astounding unless you are confusing modern science (19th century forward) with science as a whole.
...
Even today, modern science still relies on a bit of faith. Today we use the word hypothesis instead of faith or believe.



Could you give us your definition for "hypothesis", "faith" and "believe" so that we can compare the three? Because you seem to think they have identical meanings.

Here are mine:

______________________________

Hypothesis:

1. "A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. ‘his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe’

1.1Philosophy A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. ‘the hypothesis that every event has a cause’"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypothesis

Faith:

1. "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. ‘this restores one's faith in politicians’"

2 . "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith

Believe:

1. "Accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
‘the superintendent believed Lancaster's story’ ‘some 23 per cent believe that smoking keeps down weight’"

1.1 "Accept the statement of (someone) as true. ‘he didn't believe her’"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/believe

______________________________

Do you see what I did there?
I have to admit that it took a LITTLE bit of an effort.
I urge you to make a little bit of an effort, too.

I CLEARLY helped you understand what I mean by those three words. Now, you might DISAGREE.. and have alternate meanings. That would be FINE.. but I cannot DISCUSS the meaning of a word if you don't TELL ME what you want the meaning to BE.

In debates, and especially in philosophical debates, it's pretty much "Be clear, or Begone".

( by "begone" I mean you lost the debate.. not that you can't carry on digging yourself deeper by continuing to argue the same losing position )

I don't know about you, but I see a bit of a difference between those three words.
Do you think the guys and gals at Oxford got those bits about hypothesis and faith wrong?

You say that modern science RELIES on faith "a bit".
Have you adjusted your initial claim? I thought that you said science ITSELF is founded on faith.

I don't think you tried to explain that one..
These are your words, in case you forgot:

"Actually science itself is founded on faith, we wouldn't have science without it. "
"Even today, modern science still relies on a bit of faith."
"The science of the modern BBT is founded on a claim of faith.
"

I can't tell by these statements if you're saying that science relies on a bit or a whole lot of faith, or really , what kind of "faith" you are even talking about.

Why bother insisting on the word FAITH, if modern science methodology doesn't USE that concept?

Are you still insisting that faith=hypothesis=belief ?

Your explanations are really getting harder and harder to figure out. But allow me to guess at your meaning.. maybe you DO equate faith with scientific hypothesis.

In science, they use empirical TESTS to find out if a hypothesis has any merit, and then discard the hypothesis if it doesn't. So, what kind of empirical TEST do you propose to evaluate the God hypothesis? Because we don't all agree that the hypothesis has been demonstrated to have any merit.

I am not aware of a scientific consensus on the existence of any god.

But in any case, here are some questions concerning the "God Hypothesis" you might like to clear up:

    Is the God Hypothesis able to be revised, like scientific hypotheses are?
    Is the God Hypothesis a dogmatic belief that cannot be discarded if proven false?
    How CAN the God Hypothesis be falsified?
    By what MECHANISMS can scientists evaluate the God Hypothesis?



KingandPriest wrote:


The concept of cosmic inflation is a statement of faith.



Oh, good.
I almost forgot that you mentioned that about a dozen times, and that it's the topic of our fun debate.

By "faith" do you mean "hypothesis"?
It's really hard to tell, you know.

But just for the record, "cosmic inflation" describes a scientific THEORY.. and is not a "statement of faith" in some sciency church. I am NOT aware of a prayer to "cosmic inflation", or a Cosmic Inflation Creed.

You seem to paint everything with a religious brush, which I assure you, is mistaken.

KingandPriest wrote:


The faith required to make this connection is amazing. Nevertheless, I challenged to you back up your claim that I couldn't be more wrong and present empirical evidence for cosmic inflation.



Fine, fine.
If challenged, I must provide evidence in support of my claim.

The "cosmic inflation" theory is still being tested.
It is the ONLY theory that explains all the known fact about the cosmos.

But I don't think it's called the "Inflation FACT", right? Although, you might imagine that scientists take hypotheses as TRUE, most good scientists use SOUND reasoning, and do not confuse what is a hypothesis with what is a fact.

FYI. a hypothesis is not the same word as a FACT.

Just a quick check with Wikipedia would have cleared this up for you.. you even QUOTED the article, as I recall:

"Inflation theory was developed in the early 1980s. It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).[2] Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the Universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed.

The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known. The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most scientists, who believe a number of predictions have been confirmed by observation;[3] however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Please note that the THEORY explains empirical DATA. It makes PREDICTIONS, it's a good theory. It may be WRONG.. and then REVISED.

Can the God Hypothesis make predictions about the BBT?
Can the God Hypothesis be revised by believers, or must they follow some CREED?

Also notice that it says MOST scientists accept the theory, and the article goes on to say that a sizeable minority do NOT accept it. That's GREAT for science. It appears that holding on to science DOGMA isn't happening in the case of the Inflation Theory.

Do you have any evidence that scientists on one side or the other are making TRUTH claims about the Inflation Theory? Do you think that good scientists would say they have found this "truth" and move on to something else to study?

Or is it still just a hypothesis that yields good predictions about the state of the cosmos at it's origins? The Bible seems to have that covered already in Genesis, right?

Nothing new to learn IN THERE...
In the beginning, apparently, God created the heavens and the earth, and then populated the earth with nice people and plants and animals.

The nice people became bad people.
And that's why people suffer... so believe in God or else.

End of STORY.

Well, that's a nice creation story.
Now what about HOW it happened?

What does the "God Hypothesis" have to tell us about THAT?

However, we DON'T find that any scientist take the Inflation theory as a fact.. or do we?
If you found reputable cosmologists who claim to know for a fact that the inflation theory is TRUE.. please.. that's the kind of evidence I'm talking about.

Good, sound, empirical evidence for your claim.
You say that somehow, science relies on FAITH.. it should be easy to find quotes from reputable scientists. There might BE a few.. I can think of a few.. some scientists are apologists, after all, and THEY rely on faith.. at least, for their religious beliefs, they do.

Maybe THEY will play with the meaning of the word faith like you do. Like Paul Davies.
He's very GOOD at playing with words.


KingandPriest wrote:


Is this your best defense.




It's not a defense at all.
I'm not DEFENDING anything.. I am QUESTIONING your astounding assertions.

For example, I am challenging your assertion that science itself relies on faith.
But you keep making more assertions that are highly questionable to back up your initial assertion that was highly questionable.

KingandPriest wrote:


You don't know what I mean when I use the word faith. Although I have presented a definition of what I mean when I use the word faith several times on this same discussion thread, all of a sudden you no longer understand what I mean when I use the word faith.



Yes, my forgetfulness was all of a sudden.
Blastcat be old, yo!

Please be so kind as to re-iterate for this forgetful cat your definition for the word "faith". Meow

KingandPriest wrote:


Would you like me to prove you are conveniently lying to ignore the question by quoting you directly to show that you understand what I mean when I use the word faith?



Yes.

Since you make the claim, I would like you to prove I am conveniently lying to ignore the question by quoting me directly to show that I understand what you mean when you use the word faith

If you make a claim, and are challenged, you must provide evidence in support.
Please do so or drop the charge. In fact, I suggest that every time you make a claim that you back it up right away, as that would save us a lot of time and SPACE here on the forum.

Why should I keep having to DEMAND evidence?
It's a rule in the forum, so how about just doing it... ?


KingandPriest wrote:


Do you call this emprical evidence. The evidence you presented is ...



I don't know how good or bad the science is ... But thanks for your critical analysis of theoretical cosmology. But I'm not sure your training in apologetics makes you more of an expert than Alan Guth.

You might be.

However, I remain a LITTLE bit skeptical, so if you make the claim, please provide some evidence in support of that too.

But to answer your question, yes. I presented what I think to be empirical evidence for the Inflation Theory. I can't do better.. if you want more evidence, I suggest you do the research. I'd start with Alan Guth, of course. And I would URGE you to find and quote where Alan, or any OTHER renowned cosmologist uses the word "FAITH". Try this for starters:

http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_02_cosmology.pdf

Blastcat wrote:
In this subforum, when one makes a claim, and is challenged, one must provide evidence or DROP THE CLAIM.



KingandPriest wrote:


What about my claim. I supported the claim made by MadeNew to show that science has relied on faith in the past. I also showed that modern science (19th century forward) still relies on statements of faith and beliefs which are not empirically validated.



No, you did NOT give evidence that "science" has relied on faith in the past. You merely asserted it. And you did NOT give any evidence that modern science relies on faith but again, merely stated your opinion that it does.

If science relies on faith as you CLAIM, please provide evidence.
Your opinions are not evidence for your opinions.

Find some other evidence, or drop the claim.
Opinions from apologetic sources don't really count as proof that science itself "relies" on faith.

KingandPriest wrote:


I also provided evidence showing that modern science relies on statements of faith. I specifically showed how the BBT relies on the statement of faith/belief in cosmic inflation. Without the concept cosmic inflation, the BBT as we know it would fall apart.



Yes, I read what you call "evidence" for your apologetic opinion, all of which are OTHER apologetic opinions.

But you didn't provide any evidence that any scientific theory relies on faith, other than your opinion, and perhaps, the opinion of other apologists.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish an opinion from a fact.
I'm asking for facts, not your opinion, if you know what I mean.

We already KNOW your apologetic opinion.


KingandPriest wrote:


What makes headline news is beyond me these days, but that is off topic.



Again, although you have a right to your opinion about what makes headline news these days, your opinion about it doesn't constitute a fact.

Are you making a claim that all news media in the world is somehow hiding remarkable news from everyone on the planet? But I agree.. that's off topic. It's just that we don't have any evidence for your claims of any SORT, other than anti scientific apologist opinions. Those opinions must count for SOMETHING, right?

You have opinions about science.. apparently, in your opinion, scientific methods rely on "faith". That's your opinion, isn't it?

I think most people reading this will by now REALLY get your opinion.
How about you move on to your evidence in support of it?

KingandPriest wrote:


Atheists like to claim that Christians present a God of the gaps argument. Scientist present wild "theories of the gaps" all the time to support a well established phenomena.



Well, once again, you state something about science that is wrong.

Theories do not "support" well established phenomena. Scientific theories try to EXPLAIN phenomena. You don't seem to know what a scientific theory is, either. Here, try reading this, it's pretty basic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

But you still presume to lecture us about science, while getting most of it wrong.
And you don't think that people will find out about the miserable state of your scientific knowledge? ... sorry.. many people here have STUDIED science. You may want to ASK questions about science instead of lecturing.

Do you imagine that a scientific theory like the Inflation Theory does not rely at all on empirical observations, physics and math? If you think that science works that way.. you are mistaken. I suggest that your hopes of being a science lecturer may be a bit premature.

Because you seem to mistake scientific progress, empirical observation, physics, scientific theory, scientific hypothesis and math for FAITH.

I'd call that SUPER-CONFLATION.

KingandPriest wrote:


Often we fail to recognize that what we so often regard as truth is based on theory and assumption. What science regards as the truth about the composition of the earth is based on theory and assumption.



"What science regards as the truth?"
But why don't you tell us your opinion about what science has to say about "truth"?

I like this opinion:

"No, science does not equal truth. Science equals error correction. Still, that makes scientific findings more likely to be true than religious doctrines. Religions often enshrine their errors in dogma, uncorrected indefinitely. The scientific process, by contrast, may not protect us from erring initially, but it does protect us from erring forever."
- thomas_1969
https://richarddawkins.net/2013/08/does-science-equal-truth/

For fairness how about the other side:

Notice how one religious website talks about science and truth.. apparently, they think that science has already found the ABSOLUTE truth !!!

" Scientific knowledge is not a collection of subjective opinions. Rather, it is a collection of explanations about objective reality that is based on observed or predicted phenomena. In addition, the explanation must be verified repeatedly to confirm that it correctly models reality.

As our technical ability to observe reality improves, we are able to increase the quality and quantity of our observations. Better-observed data challenge our explanations, some of which will no longer fit the observed facts. New theories are then formed and either verified or falsified.

While our scientific knowledge changes rapidly, the absolute reality that is being modeled has never changed. The scientific method assumes an absolute reality against which theories can be verified.
"

http://www.icr.org/scientific-knowledge

And they should know about science, after all, they sometimes call themselves creation scientists !!


KingandPriest wrote:


In other words, based on the faith that what most geologists have assumed is correct. Their assumptions could also be wrong.



Do you imagine that scientific methods include CERTAINTY, or in ABSOLUTE truth like some religious creationist dogma? Because you would be wrong about that.. OF course science doesn't do that.. that's why it WORKS so well. Religion stagnates and defends... science improves and revises.

Scientific theories aren't "believed in" in some "faith based initiative". Scientific theories are used to make PREDICTIONS. And if the predictions don't turn OUT.. then the theories go OUT the door in science. Can we do that kind of thing with the God Hypothesis that actually DOES rely on faith?

You made a clever play on words.. but nothing else.
    Faith in religion? .... yes, of course.
    Faith in science? .... You make the claim.


I guess I could say that you have faith in faith in science.
I could also guess that by this time you have REALLY convinced yourself of your own opinion. Am I guessing right about that?

Here is another article I found interesting on the topic:

"Faith, by definition, is the belief in something despite insufficient knowledge to be certain of its veracity. Some beliefs require small leaps of faith (the example that the Sun will rise tomorrow), as the body of evidence supporting that prediction is overwhelming, while others – the existence of dark matter, the inflationary origin of our Universe, or the possibility of room-temperature superconductivity — may still be likely, but may also reasonably turn out to be wrongheaded. Yet in every case, there are two key components that make the prediction scientific:

The prediction, or the belief that the outcome can be accurately predicted, is predicated on the existence of quality evidence.
As the evidence changes — as we obtain more, newer and better evidence — and as the full suite of evidence expands, our predictions, postdictions and entire conceptions of the Universe change along with it.

There is no such thing as a good scientist who isn’t willing to both base their scientific belief on the full suite of evidence available, nor is there such a thing as a good scientist who won’t revise their beliefs in the face of new evidence.

(...)

The fundamental question is neither what the object of humanity’s faith will be nor how far it will extend, but rather how far you’re willing-and-able to test your most deeply held beliefs, and whether you’ll have the courage to change your conclusions to follow where the evidence guides. That is what separates science from anything faith-based, and why any faith-based belief system will never be considered scientific.
"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/03/08/science-is-not-faith-base...

Apparently there is considerable debate about if science relies on faith or not.
One of the problems is that the word faith is hard to pin down... people use it all kinds of ways.

One such way is to make charges against science, like the one we are debating now.
But the argument relies on a MISREPRESENTATION of good scientific methodology, and so fails. Apparently, religious people find it very often difficult to revise their biases.
Some religious people rely on faith, so therefore, some conclude, so must we ALL.

That's very fallacious reasoning, if that's how they think.

Smile

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 259: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:59 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 258 by Blastcat]

Blastcat wrote:
Could you give us your definition for "hypothesis", "faith" and "believe" so that we can compare the three? Because you seem to think they have identical meanings.

Here are mine:

______________________________

Hypothesis:

1. "A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. ‘his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe’

1.1Philosophy A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. ‘the hypothesis that every event has a cause’"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypothesis

Faith:

1. "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. ‘this restores one's faith in politicians’"

2 . "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith

Believe:

1. "Accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
‘the superintendent believed Lancaster's story’ ‘some 23 per cent believe that smoking keeps down weight’"

1.1 "Accept the statement of (someone) as true. ‘he didn't believe her’"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/believe


Hypothesis
: same as yours
1. "A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. ‘his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe’

Faith slightly different
Acceptance of something as true based on some evidence resulting in trust

Believe similar to yours
Accept statement as true, often without additional evidence

If I remember, you stated in an earlier post you are a skeptic and rarely if ever place complete trust in anything, so your definition of faith does not include "complete".

Blastcat wrote:
I don't know about you, but I see a bit of a difference between those three words.
Do you think the guys and gals at Oxford got those bits about hypothesis and faith wrong?

I also see a bit of difference between those three words. That is why each word is unique.

I do think the folks at oxford have overstepped some definitions and others are lacking. No dictionary is perfect so we accept the balance of the excellent definitions with the weak definitions. As it pertains to the three words we are discussing, I think there are better definitions available for faith and believe.

Blastcat wrote:
You say that modern science RELIES on faith "a bit".
Have you adjusted your initial claim? I thought that you said science ITSELF is founded on faith.

Science as a whole, which includes ancient knowledge does rely on faith. Modern science has attempted to move away from faith with the advent of the scientific method. Modern science relies on a bit of faith, while science as a whole has relied on faith. Modern science only relates to the past 200 years or so of knowledge and discovery. We know that records exist back to over 3000 years ago. By comparison, 2800 years of science which relied on claims of faith, compared to 200 years of recent history which has relied less on faith, it is safe to say that science is founded on faith. 93% of the history of science was founded on claims of faith.

The word science is synonymous with the word knowledge. Science is the segmentation of knowledge. There are different types of knowledge which we call science. There is knowledge about finances, government, family issues, religion, nature. All of these types of knowledge are types of sciences. This is why universities offer degrees in science of a branch of knowledge. A person can graduate with a Bachelors or Doctorate in the science of business.

If you want to specify the natural sciences as the only type of science, you have made an error. Natural sciences is one of the many sciences which exist. When I affirm MadeNews claim that science (as a whole) is founded on faith, I am looking at all types of knowledge/science and not just natural sciences.

When I segment the branch of science known as modern science (which deals exclusively with the natural sciences) I make a delineation that this branch relies on a bit of faith, and not the same as science as whole.
Blastcat wrote:
Actually science itself is founded on faith, we wouldn't have science without it. "
"Even today, modern science still relies on a bit of faith."
"The science of the modern BBT is founded on a claim of faith."

I can't tell by these statements if you're saying that science relies on a bit or a whole lot of faith, or really , what kind of "faith" you are even talking about.

Why bother insisting on the word FAITH, if modern science methodology doesn't USE that concept?

Those statements were articulating the difference between science as a whole, and the more recent interpretation of the word science. When you read the word science, do you only think of the natural sciences or the intellectual activity encompassing the systematic study of a branch of knowledge.

The word science is the systematic study of a branch of knowledge. Most commonly it is the study of the natural world, but there are branches of science which focus solely on theoretical concepts.

I bother insisting on using the word faith, because I try to call things what they are. If you are wearing a red shirt, and I say to you I like your red shirt. You may reply, this shirt is not red but crimson. Does your choice to call the color a different name make my analysis wrong. What you call crimson, another person calls red.

What some scientist call a theory, I call a statement of faith. Both rely on belief. Both lack direct empirical evidence supporting the claim. Both often rely on assumptions of other events as true, even if these events have never been observed by anyone.

Blastcat wrote:
Are you still insisting that faith=hypothesis=belief ?

I never said faith=hypothesis=belief. I do insist that faith, hypothesis and belief are all synonyms. As such, when appropriate the words can be substituted. This is the power of synonyms. Like above, red and crimson are synonyms. You can call a shirt crimson, and I can call it red. Because the two words are synonyms, we can use different words and both be correct in our analysis.

If you look up synonyms for faith, you will see belief as one available synonym. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/faith?s=t

If you look up synonyms for hypothesis, you will also see belief as an available synonym. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hypothesis?s=t

If you look up synonyms for belief, you will find both faith and hypothesis. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/belief?s=t

Hence why I claim modern science is still founded on a bit of faith. Modern science needs to make certain assumptions or beliefs in order to perform testing. This belief, what ever it may be is synonymous with a claim of faith. For example, cosmologists believe inflation is the best theory which explains the current disbursement of background radiation we see today. This word believe is littered all over modern scientific research just like it is littered all over biblical claims. Because of some evidence X, we are told to believe Y. This is true for both modern science and the religious claims you refute.

Blastcat wrote:
Is the God Hypothesis able to be revised, like scientific hypotheses are?
Is the God Hypothesis a dogmatic belief that cannot be discarded if proven false?
How CAN the God Hypothesis be falsified?
By what MECHANISMS can scientists evaluate the God Hypothesis?

1. Yes, and it has been revised. In the ancient past people used to have a hypothesis that included many Gods for any and every occasion. It was then revised to monotheism.
2. I dont know. This is a question of opinion. Whether something is dogmatic is subjective and relative to a persons perspective.
3. Prove that God does not exist
4. So far all of our scientific mechanisms have proven to be inadequate. No mechanism has been able to disprove or falsify the hypothesis. For a long time, some scientist relied on a hypothesis of an eternal universe. This hypothesis was then disproved. The old theory was not rejected by many in the scientific community until it was disproved. So far, the God hypothesis has not been disproved, so it can't be rejected.

If in the future it is disproved, then we can reject. Often some in science have moved too quickly to dismiss a hypothesis because it does not look promising. Only to find that the person who remained entrenched in an old hypothesis is proven correct years later. Theists have the belief that they will be proven correct years later.

Blastcat wrote:
KingandPriest wrote:
The concept of cosmic inflation is a statement of faith.
Oh, good.
I almost forgot that you mentioned that about a dozen times, and that it's the topic of our fun debate.

By "faith" do you mean "hypothesis"?
It's really hard to tell, you know.

But just for the record, "cosmic inflation" describes a scientific THEORY.. and is not a "statement of faith" in some sciency church. I am NOT aware of a prayer to "cosmic inflation", or a Cosmic Inflation Creed.

You seem to paint everything with a religious brush, which I assure you, is mistaken.

So if I use the word faith outside of a religous context, you assert I have made an error. By your own words, you claim to use the word faith in a secular context. So that means faith can be used in a secular context.

Faith, whether used in a religious or secular context is used the same way. I have faith in God. You have faith in politician X. What is the difference in the usage of the word faith?

When Alan Guth writes about his beliefs, is he not arguing about the faith he has in those beliefs?

When I argue in favor of my beliefs, I am defending the faith I have in those beliefs. I am presenting examples as to why I think my belief is justified.

What is the difference between defending a belief?
Is defending a belief the same as defending ones faith in that belief?

Blastcat wrote:
But to answer your question, yes. I presented what I think to be empirical evidence for the Inflation Theory. I can't do better.. if you want more evidence, I suggest you do the research. I'd start with Alan Guth, of course. And I would URGE you to find and quote where Alan, or any OTHER renowned cosmologist uses the word "FAITH". Try this for starters:

Alan does not use the word faith, but uses the word believe quite often. As I have shown above, the word believe is synonymous with faith.

For example Alan Guth writes "So far I have tried to describe how inflation works, but now I would like to explain the reasons why many scientists - including certainly myself - believe that inflation really is the way that our observed universe began."

If I change out the word believe for faith, the statement is exactly the same. This is the power of synonyms.
"So far I have tried to describe how inflation works, but now I would like to explain the reasons why many scientists - including certainly myself - have faith that inflation really is the way that our observed universe began."

Not using the word faith, does not negate the implications of ones writing. Both statements whether using believe or faith say the exact same thing.

Blastcat wrote:
No, you did NOT give evidence that "science" has relied on faith in the past. You merely asserted it. And you did NOT give any evidence that modern science relies on faith but again, merely stated your opinion that it does.

If science relies on faith as you CLAIM, please provide evidence.
Your opinions are not evidence for your opinions.

Find some other evidence, or drop the claim.
Opinions from apologetic sources don't really count as proof that science itself "relies" on faith.

So far, I have not presented any apologetic sources. I do not need to. I presented evidence from wikipedia on the history of science. This was not my opinion.

Here it is again:
Quote:
Science in a broad sense existed before the modern era, and in many historical civilizations. Modern science is distinct in its approach and successful in its results: 'modern science' now defines what science is in the strictest sense of the term.

Science in its original sense is a word for a type of knowledge, rather than a specialized word for the pursuit of such knowledge. In particular it is one of the types of knowledge which people can communicate to each other and share. For example, knowledge about the working of natural things was gathered long before recorded history and led to the development of complex abstract thinking. This is shown by the construction of complex calendars, techniques for making poisonous plants edible, and buildings such as the pyramids. However no consistent conscientious distinction was made between knowledge of such things which are true in every community and other types of communal knowledge, such as mythologies and legal systems.
...
Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[15] Philosophy of science seeks a deep understanding of what these underlying assumptions mean and whether they are valid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

These basic assumptions are on par with statements of faith.

Blastcat wrote:
The "cosmic inflation" theory is still being tested.
It is the ONLY theory that explains all the known fact about the cosmos.

Really, the only theory. I think not.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4731

Quote:
Another alternative is the Eternal Inflation theory. After the Big Bang, the universe expanded rapidly during a brief period called inflation. The Eternal Inflation theory posits that inflation never stopped, and has been going on for an infinite length of time. Somewhere, even now, new universes are coming into existence in a vast complex called the multiverse. Those many universes could have different physical laws.

The Oscillating model of the universe involved an endless series of Big Bangs, followed by Big Crunches that restarted the cycle, endlessly. The modern cyclic model involves colliding "branes" (a "membrane" within a higher-dimensional volume called the "bulk").

Implications found in quantum gravity and string theory tantalizingly suggest a universe that is in reality nothing like how it appears to human observers. It may actually be a flat hologram projected onto the surface of a sphere, for example. Or it could be a completely digital simulation running in a vast computer.
http://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html

Neither of these are apologetic sources that present alternative theories.

In addition, there is still that hypothesis hanging around that God is the progenitor of the universe. Still being claimed by billions around the world, and has yet to be disproved.

Blastcat wrote:
But I don't think it's called the "Inflation FACT", right? Although, you might imagine that scientists take hypotheses as TRUE, most good scientists use SOUND reasoning, and do not confuse what is a hypothesis with what is a fact.

FYI. a hypothesis is not the same word as a FACT.

Never said hypothesis is the same as fact. Never even insinuated that a hypothesis is a fact. I did insinuate that some hypothesis and theories are taught as facts in schools. This is not a fault of physicists or cosmologists, but it has resulted in false doctrines being taught even in a secular school system.

Blastcat wrote:
Please note that the THEORY explains empirical DATA. It makes PREDICTIONS, it's a good theory. It may be WRONG.. and then REVISED.

Can I make a slight modification to your sentence.

Please note that the THEORY attempts to explains empirical DATA. It makes PREDICTIONS, it's a good theory. It may be WRONG.. and then REVISED.

The attempt to explain empirical observations is what a good theory should do. It is an attempt until proven.

Blastcat wrote:
Can the God Hypothesis make predictions about the BBT?
Can the God Hypothesis be revised by believers, or must they follow some CREED?

Yes, predictions can be made. If God created the universe, we can make several predictions and observations. So far so good for creation scientists. They begin with a theory, test it and then validate their findings.

Can the God hypothesis be revised by believers? Yes. Should the hypothesis be revised is a separate question. I argue that the only times humans have been at odds with natural science is when believers have revised the hypothesis that God is responsible for creation. When the catholic church added to the bible and made predictions that were not founded on actual scripture, the church was proven to be in error. When the church relied solely on what was written, the predictions were validated.

Creeds are created by men. There is no such creed in scripture. The closest thing to a creed you can find in the bible is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. And to love your neighbor as yourself"

I do not think this creed would impact any scientific research.

Blastcat wrote:
Also notice that it says MOST scientists accept the theory, and the article goes on to say that a sizeable minority do NOT accept it. That's GREAT for science. It appears that holding on to science DOGMA isn't happening in the case of the Inflation Theory.

Do you have any evidence that scientists on one side or the other are making TRUTH claims about the Inflation Theory? Do you think that good scientists would say they have found this "truth" and move on to something else to study?

Or is it still just a hypothesis that yields good predictions about the state of the cosmos at it's origins? The Bible seems to have that covered already in Genesis, right?

Same thing for claims in the bible. Some believe creation of the earth as described in the bible to be literal and correct, while others do not. So balance exists in both sects of knowledge.

Blastcat wrote:
Nothing new to learn IN THERE...
In the beginning, apparently, God created the heavens and the earth, and then populated the earth with nice people and plants and animals.

The nice people became bad people.
And that's why people suffer... so believe in God or else.

End of STORY.

Well, that's a nice creation story.
Now what about HOW it happened?

What does the "God Hypothesis" have to tell us about THAT?

This is a horrid summary, but if you want to know how it happened, there are two options.
1. Ask God
2. Do the work and find out on your own

Blastcat wrote:
However, we DON'T find that any scientist take the Inflation theory as a fact.. or do we?
If you found reputable cosmologists who claim to know for a fact that the inflation theory is TRUE.. please.. that's the kind of evidence I'm talking about.

I never presented an argument claiming that cosmologist claim the theory of inflation is true. You are asking for evidence for a claim that was never presented. My claim was that modern science relies on a bit of faith. By presenting inflation as something that needs to be believed in, Alan Guth is verifying that cosmic inflation is a claim of faith and not a verifiable fact.

Blastcat wrote:
Good, sound, empirical evidence for your claim.
You say that somehow, science relies on FAITH.. it should be easy to find quotes from reputable scientists. There might BE a few.. I can think of a few.. some scientists are apologists, after all, and THEY rely on faith.. at least, for their religious beliefs, they do.

Maybe THEY will play with the meaning of the word faith like you do. Like Paul Davies.
He's very GOOD at playing with words.

No need to play with words. I have taken direct quotes from Alan Guth to show that he believes cosmic inflation is true.

When I say I believe God is real, you take this as a statement of faith.
When Alan Guth says he believes cosmic inflation is real, I take this as a statement o faith. What else is it?

Blastcat wrote:
Here is another article I found interesting on the topic:

"Faith, by definition, is the belief in something despite insufficient knowledge to be certain of its veracity. Some beliefs require small leaps of faith (the example that the Sun will rise tomorrow), as the body of evidence supporting that prediction is overwhelming, while others – the existence of dark matter, the inflationary origin of our Universe, or the possibility of room-temperature superconductivity — may still be likely, but may also reasonably turn out to be wrongheaded.

So when Alan Guth says he "believes inflation is the way that our observed universe began", despite a lack of empirical evidence to be certain of its veracity, can I call this statement a claim of faith?

Though his reasoning may include very good reasons, that does not move the veracity of the claim from being a claim of faith to a fact. Just like the article you presented, when a person says the sun will rise tomorrow, this is a statement of faith because there is no way to be certain this will occur. By our own calculations, only the next 8 minutes of sunlight are guaranteed. Outside of this, the sun may have already imploded and we don't know yet.

The prediction can be accurately predicted, but it is still a faith statement that can be predicted and justified. When those like Alan Guth write about inflation, they are writing statements of faith which can be justified.

Assumptions about the universe are also statements of faith.
Quote:
Astronomers make three assumptions about the universe based on theory and observation:

• The laws of physics are universal and don’t change with time or location in space.
• The universe is homogeneous, or roughly the same in every direction (though not necessarily for all of time).
• Humans do not observe the universe from a privileged location such as at its very center.
http://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html

When astronomers make these assumptions, there is insufficient knowledge to prove these assumptions correct. These are the foundation assumptions (claims of faith) that some branches of science rely on.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 260: Mon Oct 17, 2016 8:56 pm
Reply

Like this post
KingandPriest wrote:

Quote:
Astronomers make three assumptions about the universe based on theory and observation:

• The laws of physics are universal and don’t change with time or location in space.
• The universe is homogeneous, or roughly the same in every direction (though not necessarily for all of time).
• Humans do not observe the universe from a privileged location such as at its very center.


When astronomers make these assumptions, there is insufficient knowledge to prove these assumptions correct.


There are a kind of supernovae called type Ia, that result when a white dwarf pulls 1.4 solar masses of gas from a companion star. These explosions have the same intrinsic brightness and other characteristics and are used as "standard candles" to estimate distance. If the laws of physics changed from time and location in space, we would only see these supernovae in one small region of the universe.

The COBE satellite determined the cosmic microwave background is indeed homogeneous to within 1 part in 100,000 after the sun's motion around the galaxy, and the galaxy's motion with respect to the CMB rest frame is accounted for.

The fact that our local group of galaxies moves at 630 km/sec with respect to the CMB rest frame itself is evidence we do not occupy a privileged "center" of the universe, or that if we once did, we are rapidly moving away from it.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version