[Drunkan the Fox]

Re: Hello

Hey there, everyone. ^.^
I just joined, and was hoping I could learn a little more about H
God. Thanks!

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Hello

Hey there, everyone. ^.^
I just joined, and was hoping I could learn a little more about H
God. Thanks!

Please make a thread of your own telling us about your walk with Jesus.

We want to get to know you!

Yours in Christ,

Z. Smyth

[Infinity]

Re: Hello

And how do you reconcile your disgust with that, and so-called Scientific Theory?

You need to let go of the idea that science is about 'truth'. Science is about understanding. Scientific fields are based on empirical evidence. It simply does not admit the possibility of absolute proof. All we can do it test, test and (you guess it) test again. Therefore, proof is found only in non-empirical fields like formal logic and mathematics.

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Hello

You need to let go of the idea that science is about 'truth'.

So do you.

Science is about understanding. Scientific fields are based on empirical evidence.

"Empirical" implies knowledge, and knowledge implies the truth of something. Playing semantic games to bolster your fragile worldview does nothing except assuage your deep-rooted fear of being wrong.

It simply does not admit the possibility of absolute proof.

See above.

All we can do it test, test and (you guess [sic] it) test again.

So the results keep changing despite the tests remaining the same (per your awkward sentence above), and you are comfortable with that?

Therefore, proof is found only in non-empirical fields like formal logic and mathematics.

So in some cases you admit possibility of absolute proof, and in others you deny the possibility of absolute truth.



Interesting that the atheist standards for "truth" are as shaky as their situational standards for morals.

YiC,

Zech

[Infinity]

Re: Hello

"Empirical" implies knowledge, and knowledge implies the truth of something. Playing semantic games to bolster your fragile worldview does nothing except assuage your deep-rooted fear of being wrong.

Empirical evidence is, what we interpret it to prove is a different matter. does not admit the possibility of absolute proof. Empirical evidence drives its data by means of direct observation or experiment. Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

In science, evidence comes in the form of observable facts. Experimentation also yields observations. "observations and experiments."

See above.

You do the same.

So the results keep changing despite the tests remaining the same (per your awkward sentence above), and you are comfortable with that?

Did I state the tests remain the same if the results keep changing?

So in some cases you admit possibility of absolute proof, and in others you deny the possibility of absolute truth.

Astronomy, like all other scientific fields, is based on empirical (observational) evidence. Empiricism simply does not admit the possibility of absolute proof because the very next observation you make may contradict all that came before. For that reason, proofs are found only in non-empirical fields like formal logic and mathematics.

[Deaner]

Re: Hello

You need to let go of the idea that science is about 'truth'. Science is about understanding. Scientific fields are based on empirical evidence. It simply does not admit the possibility of absolute proof. All we can do it test, test and (you guess it) test again. Therefore, proof is found only in non-empirical fields like formal logic and mathematics.

You sound like Curly of the Three Stooges.

Science is not about truth but it is based on empirical evidence (which last I heard, empirical evidence was ultimate truth).

You're nuts.

Do you take drugs or have intercourse with same sex people?

[Infinity]

Re: Hello

Science is not about truth but it is based on empirical evidence (which last I heard, empirical evidence was ultimate truth).

Let's test what you last heard. If I stand on a beach and look out over the ocean, I can conclude, based on the emprical evidence of my sight, that the earth is flat. Is that the ultimate truth? It is emperical. To pick this apart further, if i see a masted sailing vessel coming into sight by approaching from the hozion, I first see the masts and then eventually the entire ship. That would tell me the earth isn't flat. That too is empirical.

The point is, evidence can be "empirical" but be incomplete or of insufficient quality from which it draw a conclusion. It can also be wrong - the instrumentality uised to obtain the evidence may be flawed or of limited capability due to the level of technology involved. To the last point, look at how the speed of light is reported over the past century. You'll actually see a trend that would signal the speed of light is decreasing with time so the "emperical" evidence suggests something fundamentally is changing in physics. But if you look at how the measurements were made and the errors associated with them, you realize that it is the technology the enable the measurements getting better is resulting in the trend.

So you need to choose your evidence carefully, and not generalize. And you also have bear in mind that if we are looking for a certain result, we can consciously or subconsiously design a way to produce it.

You're nuts.

That's funny. I was about to say the same thing to you.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Hello

...You're nuts...

...That's funny. I was about to say the same thing to you.

Let me assure you, Deaner isn't nuts.






He's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond that.