Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 75
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    83
    Post Thanks / Like

    Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

    For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:


    "the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"


    The reverse of precision is imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactness, which is always the result of an accident or a spontaneous event that happens by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

    "a nonessential event that HAPPENS BY CHANCE and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)



    Notice that an accident, by definition, is something unplanned aka it "happened by chance." Notice the similarity of the definition for "spontaneous" (as in "spontaneous event").


    DEFINITION OF "SPONTANEOUS":

    "Spontaneous means unplanned or done on impulse."
    http://www.yourdictionary.com/spontaneous




    AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

    Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, because both theories rely on accidents or spontaneous events. Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

    Take, for example, the first 60 elements that were discovered on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of those 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms--from which the Earth's elements are made--are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

    The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. Because of the distinct numerical order of the elements, the word LAW is applied to the Periodic Table of the Elements. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) "Periodic Law," from Encyclopdia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography)


    SIDE NOTE: Laws found in nature, as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary, are:


    "a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions."


    QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
    1.
    Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

    2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

    3. Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW"?
    "That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

  2. Likes Will W liked this post
  3. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome.
    Oh? So when a coconut falls from a tree and lands precisely on my head, some intelligent person was mystically guiding it? Precision can happen by chance. The two are in no way mutually exclusive.

    The reverse of precision is imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactness, which is always the result of an accident or a spontaneous event that happens by chance with no one guiding the outcome
    Really? So when I miss a target with a bow and arrow, there was no one guiding the process? When I miscalculate a sum, and am thus being imprecise, no one was guiding that outcome? Again, guided outcomes are not mutually exclusive with imprecision.

    This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, because both theories rely on accidents or spontaneous events. Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.
    1 neither is an accident in the sense of producing an undesirable outcome
    2 there is lots of evidence for the Big Bang being spontaneous
    3 evolution is not spontaneous
    4 precision does not require deliberation, and can be a result of chance

    Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident?
    1 you're mixing up your terms. Spontaneousness does not equate to chance. Furthermore, accident = chance but chance does not = accident.
    2. The relations of the atoms is explained by quantum physics. Certain properties of electrons mean that there are a specific number of energy levels around atoms, or shells, and that a certain number of electrons fill up a certain shell. Atoms with similar outer shell alignments have similar chemical properties. Atoms within certain groups, I.e. vertical columns in the periodic table, have similar chemical properties. This is what allowed Mendeleev and co. to predict the existence of other elements. So it boils down to the properties of electron shells, and the Pauli exclusion principle that means that they can't all fill one shell. We do not know the origin of these properties. Nobody does. But that does not by any means validate a supernatural explanation. It may be that there are an infinite number of universes, as described by the many worlds theory, and the anthropic principle explains that we happen to be in one where the quantum properties were right for the precision of the table. Do not rule out chance.

    3. Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW"?
    Those two theories make no attempt at explaining the periodic table. That is explained by chemistry and quantum physics. Also, there is absolutely no reason to presume that a chance event cannot produce a precise outcome.

  4. Likes libre liked this post
  5. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

    2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

    3. Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW"?
    You could have just said you were bringing up the teleological argument... But let's get down to business. I have a question to counter:

    That things turned out in a specific way doesn't necessarily indicate intelligent design. Wouldn't an entirely different outcome be very specific as well? This argument can be shown to be absurd in that if any possible universe had specific traits, that would indicate intelligent design. And wouldn't it be the most rational conclusion to assume that any possible universe would have very specific traits? This kind of logic boils down to thinking that existence itself must necessitate a creator's existence, which is what I meant by absurd. So what exactly is it about the specific way that things turned out, that indicates intelligent design?

    1. Sure, why not? There would simply be different forms. That is, assuming that such a thing as scientists would exist.
    2. Once again, why not?
    3. They account for it because other possible outcomes can be just as precise.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  6. #4
    TGBSeth
    Guest

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Alter2Ego View Post
    ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

    For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:
    Precision does not have to be the result of a creator, very precise things constantly happen and yet nobody made them happen. Spontaneous precision is a thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alter2Ego View Post
    The reverse of precision is imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactness, which is always the result of an accident or a spontaneous event that happens by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:
    I think you are forgetting that humans are fairly badly designed creatures and so our "design" fits more with there not being a creator rather than there being one. If there was a creator he did not do a very good job.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alter2Ego View Post
    [COLOR="#000080"]AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

    Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, because both theories rely on accidents or spontaneous events. Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.
    The Big Band theory and theory of evolution are fact, we can look under a microscope and see things evolve. And we can see cosmic background radiation that proves the Big Bang occurred. Even most religious people (most Catholics for example) do not still think Evolution is not real.

  7. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    Precision in a natural world as defined by chemicals behaviour in a periodic table has been replaced by Quantum physics. If you understand Quantum physics [I dont] particles interactions can be altered by observation. I dont know how this can support either theories of a creator v nature unless you cherry pick what part of the latest scientific theory fits your argument.

  8. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    83
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Abut77 View Post
    Oh? So when a coconut falls from a tree and lands precisely on my head, some intelligent person was mystically guiding it? Precision can happen by chance. The two are in no way mutually exclusive.


    Really? So when I miss a target with a bow and arrow, there was no one guiding the process? When I miscalculate a sum, and am thus being imprecise, no one was guiding that outcome? Again, guided outcomes are not mutually exclusive with imprecision.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ABUT77:

    You are proving my point with that statement that I bolded in red. Let's refer to the elements on the Periodic Table as the target in the example of the hypothetical "bow and arrow."


    HERE'S HOW YOU PROVED MY POINT WITH YOUR ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
    1. An intelligent being (meaning you) attempted to guide the outcome with the hypothetical bow and arrow, but because of your poor skills, you missed the target despite the fact that you deliberately attempted to hit the target.


    2. Then you turn around and argue that the hypothetical target of the bow and arrow in my OP (the elements on the Periodic Table) were hit every single time by accident or spontaneously so that they show precision, despite the fact nobody deliberately attempted for this to happen.


    Thanks for helping prove my point.
    "That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

  9. Likes Joe Friday liked this post
  10. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    Before I answer this, I have more to say about your OP.
    The reverse of precision is imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactness
    In this case, I must disagree with the dictionary. Precision is NOT accuracy. The two are different. Precision is being exact. Accuracy is being correct. I can say that the Sun is exactly 5.38271058 metres away, which would be strikingly precise, but absolutely inaccurate.


    which is always the result of an accident or a spontaneous event that happens by chance with no one guiding the outcome
    Please support this assertion.

    Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world
    Actually, it does quite the opposite. Quantum mechanics, now generally accepted as the most fundamental form of science, is based on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which undermines precision in nature. I think you mean patterns, not precision.
    Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.
    As stated, precise things can be wholly wrong. They can also be accidental; I can get lost but be in a precise location. Neither does precision require deliberation.

    The atoms--from which the Earth's elements are made--are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.
    Yes. This is not evidence for creation, however, but actually supports the predictions of quantum mechanics, namely the number of electrons in shells relating to chemical properties.

    chance aka spontaneously aka by accident
    Not synonyms

    Now, to your reply:

    HERE'S HOW YOU PROVED MY POINT WITH YOUR ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
    This is a contradiction; if my argument is illogical, it proves nothing, yet if it is logical it refutes yours.

    Then you turn around and argue that the hypothetical target of the bow and arrow in my OP (the elements on the Periodic Table) were hit every single time by accident or spontaneously so that they show precision, despite the fact nobody deliberately attempted for this to happen.
    1. The reason that the elements display certain patterns is because they have to be that way as a result of the laws of quantum physics, not because of some divine guiding hand. They have to exist like that. The properties of the atoms are consequences of the way the universe is, a chance universe out of innumerable possibilities. Nobody designed the elements, no process made them that way, they just are that way.
    2. Again, I don't think that you mean precision, rather pattern. Precision has nothing to do with what I think you are trying to argue.
    3. I did not argue what you said I did. I argued that precision does not necessitate intervention or guidance. There is no need for somebody deliberately attempting to produce an outcome; patterns happen all around us by chance.

    Thanks for helping prove my point.
    How so? I don't think I've proven your point. In fact I'd say I've indicated that you don't have a decent point at all.
    Last edited by Abut77; March 9th, 2013 at 03:53 PM.

  11. Likes libre liked this post
  12. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    What a lot people forget is that science is not an exact and neutral evidence driven way of describing the world. For all its logic based assumptions its only a vehicle to put forward new Ideas that can usually be usurped and refuted by the next "fashionable" Idea. A sort of Kate Moss meets Dawkin Big Brother.

  13. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    83
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Abut77 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alter2Ego View Post
    Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world
    Actually, it does quite the opposite. Quantum mechanics, now generally accepted as the most fundamental form of science, is based on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which undermines precision in nature. I think you mean patterns, not precision.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ABUT77:
    I will tell you exactly what I told an atheist at another website who presented this identical fallacious argument: Quantum Mechanics aka Quantum Physics is a scientific theory. Theories are merely attempts at explaining why or how a phenomenon occurred or is occurring. I presented facts in my OP, accompanied by citations to scientific sources. Whereas scientific fact is accompanied by evidence and accepted as true, theories are nothing more than educated guesses aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven." To put it simply, you cannot overcome the scientific facts in my OP by telling me about Quantum mechanics theory, because theories are speculations.

    Not only that, Quantum Theory relies on predictability despite the appearance that it is dealing strictly with randomness. For instance, one of the five premises of Quantum Physics is as follows:


    "It is physically impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely one is known, the less precise the measurement of the other is."
    (Source: Oracle Think Quest Education Foundation)
    http://library.thinkquest.org/3487/qp.html



    Notice that the above quoted source indicates that at some level, there is a need for something being "precisely known." It goes so far as to state that either the position or else the momentum of a particle is required to be known, although both are never known at the same time. Once something is known, and then that foreknowledge is used for other purposes, the claim of randomness is an illusion. Notice how another source, specifically NOVA, confirms what the previous source said:

    "So a quantum treatment of electron scattering needs to include not only the quantum nature of the electrons, but also the quantum nature of the photon. Well, you can calculate the properties of the photon that must be emitted to scatter the electrons. "



    As you can see, NOVA clearly indicates scientists must know the quantum nature of the electrons as well as the quantum nature of the photon, and this foreknowledge is then used to "calculate the properties of the photon" that will be emitted. In other words, they know certain things ahead of time and can then use that foreknowledge to make calculations. That's not randomness, that's an aspect of precision.
    "That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

  14. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    Quantum Mechanics aka Quantum Physics is a scientific theory. Theories are merely attempts at explaining why or how a phenomenon occurred or is occurring
    Wrong. A scientific theory, quote wikipedia, is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment", and, might I add, generally accepted as true. Quantum mechanics is a branch of science that has passed every test, and it continues to be the best descriptor of the quantum world. It is a brilliant theory that explains a vast array of phenomena. What you are describing is a hypothesis, which is a mere conjecture with little or no support. Quantum mechanics is certainly not one of those.

    I presented facts in my OP, accompanied by citations to scientific sources
    You presented very few facts, aside from definitions.

    Whereas scientific fact is accompanied by evidence and accepted as true, theories are nothing more than educated guesses aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven."
    Absolutely not. Look up 'scientific theory' for your answer.

    To put it simply, you cannot overcome the scientific facts in my OP by telling me about Quantum mechanics theory, because theories are speculations.
    I think I can; quantum physics perfectly explains the patterns in the periodic table. It works. Don't try and deny it, because there are thousands of physicists who know far more than you or I and who can conclusively prove you wrong.

    Notice that the above quoted source indicates that at some level, there is a need for something being "precisely known." It goes so far as to state that either the position or else the momentum of a particle is required to be known, although both are never known at the same time.
    This is a misinterpretation; there is no requirement of knowledge. The principle of uncertainty states that the more accurately position is known, the less accurately momentum is known, and vice versa.

    Once something is known, and then that foreknowledge is used for other purposes, the claim of randomness is an illusion
    There is no foreknowledge; we make a measurement about a particle, and we know something about it at the time of measurement; after that, we know nothing of what it is doing. A quantum measurement cannot be used to predict anything that will happen in the future without using probabilities (and, even then, all you know is the likelihood of a certain event), such is the uncertainty of the quantum world. There are many weird things happening at the quantum level; phenomena such as the observer effect and the double slit experiment are testimony to the unpredictable and probabilistic nature of the quantum world. However, this doesn't render it incapable of explaining things; quantum physics accurately fits observation and provides mathematical explanations of the uncertain workings of the quantum world. Just because we cannot determine the path an electron will take, doesn't mean we cannot infer things from observation and form theories about the general behaviour of things in the quantum world or the properties of quantum systems and form a body of science that passes every test we have so far thrown at it. My point in a nutshell is that trying to refute quantum physics and its intrinsic uncertainty with your misconceived fallacies is a bit of a waste of time.

    In other words, they know certain things ahead of time and can then use that foreknowledge to make calculations
    They know nothing ahead of time; they make measurements. Sure, those measurements can add to their model, or prove an idea, but they cannot be used to make concrete predictions about the future of a particle. Make as many calculations as you want, you cannot change the uncertain nature of quantum phenomena. You can measure certain trends, but the quantum world is fundamentally uncertain. Additionally, your source does not mention using any foreknowledge to make calculations, it simply states that calculations can be made about the photon in this scenario.

    That's not randomness, that's an aspect of precision.
    Why this affinity to precision? I don't think precision has anything to do with what you are arguing; if the sum total of your argument is "there are precise things, therefore god exists", then it needs a rethink.

    P.S. To any quantum physicists, I'm not an expert (yet ), and even though I've tried to be free from misconceptions, please could you point any out if you spot any
    Last edited by Abut77; March 10th, 2013 at 01:40 PM.

  15. Likes libre liked this post
  16. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    83
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Abut77 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alter2Ego View Post
    Quantum Mechanics aka Quantum Physics is a scientific theory. Theories are merely attempts at explaining why or how a phenomenon occurred or is occurring
    Wrong. A scientific theory, quote wikipedia, is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment", and, might I add, generally accepted as true. Quantum mechanics is a branch of science that has passed every test, and it continues to be the best descriptor of the quantum world. It is a brilliant theory that explains a vast array of phenomena. What you are describing is a hypothesis, which is a mere conjecture with little or no support. Quantum mechanics is certainly not one of those.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ABUT77:
    Theories are educated guesses (a group of hypotheses); therefore, they can be disproven when new evidence is discovered that debunk the current theory. At that point, the theory is replaced by an updated theory... until more evidence shows up that disprove even the updated theory, etc. Therefore, your assertion that theories are "generally accepted as true" is misleading.

    A theory attempts to explain why or how an event occurred. Below is another definition of "scientific theory," accompanied by the definition of "scientific fact." Notice the words that are bolded within both definitions.



    IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

    Definition of "Scientific Theory":
    "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."
    http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm



    Definition of "Hypothesis":
    "A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true."
    http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm



    Definition of "Scientific Fact":
    "An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is ACCEPTED AS TRUE (although its truth is never final)."
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact


    BTW: Since you don't believe Quantum mechanics/Quantum physics is a theory (instead of a fact), go look it up online and you will find dozens of websites telling you that it is merely a theory. Remember, theories attempt to explain why or how a phenomena occurred, whereas facts are accompanied by evidence to prove the phenomena actually occurred.
    "That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

  17. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    Therefore, your assertion that theories are "generally accepted as true" is misleading
    No it is not, since a theory is a hypothesis that has been elevated to a state of being a theory by explaining phenomena and being supported by evidence. I didn't say that they couldn't be disproved, either. I said that quantum mechanics hadn't been.

    A theory attempts to explain why or how an event occurred. Below is another definition of "scientific theory," accompanied by the definition of "scientific fact." Notice the words that are bolded within both definitions.
    Hypotheses are attempts at explaining, theories are successful attempts because they have been supported by evidence.

    BTW: Since you don't believe Quantum mechanics/Quantum physics is a theory (instead of a fact), go look it up online and you will find dozens of websites telling you that it is merely a theory.
    I never said that is is not a theory, only that it is a pretty damn good one.

    "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."
    By trying to refute my claim that theories are generally thought of as true, you've actually cited a source that backs me up.

    Even though quantum mechanics is, as you insist, and as i have not in any way denied, a theory (although not by the misconceived definition you've somehow managed to glean from perfectly decent sources), it is still one that has not yet been disproven, and has vast reserves of empirical and mathematical support, and to not make use of it because you say that it can still be disproven (as can every single morsel of information we have theorised and tested about nature) is foolhardy. Without quantum mechanics, you wouldn't have the computer you are typing your responses on, you wouldn't have lasers, LEDs, MRI... It's just too useful to be discarded without basis.

    Additionally, it would be a pleasant change to see you try to tackle some of the other arguments I have posited, and refutations I have made, instead of focusing on a few things.
    Last edited by Abut77; March 10th, 2013 at 03:24 PM.

  18. Likes libre liked this post
  19. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    83
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Abut77 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alter2Ego View Post
    Therefore, your assertion that theories are "generally accepted as true" is misleading
    No it is not, since a theory is a hypothesis that has been elevated to a state of being a theory by explaining phenomena and being supported by evidence. I didn't say that they couldn't be disproved, either. I said that quantum mechanics hadn't been.


    Hypothesis are attempts at explaining, theories are successful attempts because they have been supported by evidence.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ABUT77:
    That's what you've chosen to believe. You will not find that definition in any dictionary or from any credible scientific source. Even the Wikipedia definition that you previously gave does not go beyond stating that a theory is:



    Quote Originally Posted by Abut77 View Post
    "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"
    ALTER2EGO -to- ABUT77:
    Notice that the Wikipedia definition is talking about an "explanation" of what has been observed. What is being observed is a phenomena, and the phenomena is not part of the theory. The theory is trying to explain why or how the phenomena occurred. Sometimes the explanation (the theory/group of hypotheses) is proven wrong when new evidence is discovered that disproves it.
    "That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

  20. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    That's what you've chosen to believe
    I have, numerous times, shown the definition of a scientific theory, not my belief. You are mislead. I will find it in every credible source or dictionary that I look in.

    Notice that Wikipedia definition is talking about an "explanation" of what has been observed.
    No, it's talking about an explanation backed up by what is observed. You're garbling the source.

    What is being observed is a phenomena, and the phenomena is not part of the theory. The theory is trying to explain why or how the phenomena occurred. Sometimes the explanation (the theory/group of hypotheses) is proven wrong when new evidence is discovered that disproves it.
    This is both garbled and irrelevant. You have also taken certain aspects of the Wikipedia quote out of context, and a reading of it all the way through will show that it describes exactly what I have been trying to demonstrate. And about theories trying to explain; that is the purpose of the humble hypothesis. A theory has been backed up empirically and repeatedly.

  21. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    83
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Abut77 View Post
    I have, numerous times, shown the definition of a scientific theory, not my belief. You are mislead. I will find it in every credible source or dictionary that I look in.


    No, it's talking about an explanation backed up by what is observed. You're garbling the source.


    This is both garbled and irrelevant. You have also taken certain aspects of the Wikipedia quote out of context, and a reading of it all the way through will show that it describes exactly what I have been trying to demonstrate. And about theories trying to explain; that is the purpose of the humble hypothesis. A theory has been backed up empirically and repeatedly.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ABUT77:
    It seems your way of dealing with reality is to remain in denial by claiming the rebuttal is "garbled".

    An explanation backed up by what is observed is still a theory, because what is being observed is not part of the theory. The theory is attempting to explain why or how the thing or the phenomena being observed is occurring. A theory is based upon what is being observed at a that point in time. If something that was previously overlooked is later observed, then the original theory ends up being disproven because the inclusion of the newly discovered element changes everything. Below is part of our earlier conversation along this line to which I will now respond. During my response, I will be elaborating on the aforementioned.



    Quote Originally Posted by Abut77 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alter2Ego View Post
    "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."
    By trying to refute my claim that theories are generally thought of as true, you've actually cited a source that backs me up.
    ALTER2EGO -to- ABUT77:
    You conveniently ignored the portion that I bolded in red within my above quotation and selected only the last sentence that appeals to you, so that you can claim victory. You insist on believing a theory is a done deal and that theories are equivalent to facts. Below are two more definitions of "theory" for the benefit of the forum.



    DEFINITION OF "SCIENTIFIC THEORY" #2:
    "Definition: In the context of science, a theory is a well-established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result." (Source: Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.)
    http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis...definition.htm


    Remember, a theory is a group of hypotheses. According to the above quoted source, if just one of the hypotheses within the theory is disproven, the remaining hypotheses that make up the theory can fall apart because they are interrelated. Below is another definition of "scientific theory."


    DEFINITION OF "SCIENTIFIC THEORY" #3:
    "Theory Definition

    The most important feature of scientific theories is that they are not discovery but invention. This common statement, which is widely accepted (see for example, Theoretical Pluralism), seems somehow strange to many scientists, as they believe they are discovering the laws of Nature. This is exactly the point, as the laws of nature are not discoverable by scientists or philosophers.

    Scientists create new theories based on their knowledge, imagination, etc; and such theories will interpret the natural phenomena to some extent. Thus, every theory is true from some standpoints in some cases. There is no ultimate theory explaining the whole Nature.

    In history of science, there are many examples that two scientists have independently proposed two different theories explaining a single phenomenon. It is like inventing two machines in different factories, doing the same work."

    http://www.examiner.com/article/defi...entific-theory



    Notice in the last paragraph of the third example that it speaks of two scientists proposing two different theories for the same phenomenon. Obviously, both of them cannot be correct. This is how theories get discarded and replaced by new ones.
    "That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

  22. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    An explanation backed up by what is observed is still a theory, because what is being observed is not part of the theory. The theory is attempting to explain why or how the thing or the phenomena being observed is occurring. A theory is based upon what is being observed at a that point in time. If something that was previously overlooked is later observed, then the original theory ends up being disproven because the inclusion of the newly discovered element changes everything. Below is part of our earlier conversation along this line to which I will now respond. During my response, I will be elaborating on the aforementioned.
    A theory explains a phenomenon. It is then backed up by further observations and experiments. This is what the wiki source said:
    "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"
    Confirmed through observation and experiment. A theory differs to a hypothesis or a mere conjecture as it is backed up empirically and repeatedly.

    ALTER2EGO -to- ABUT77:
    You conveniently ignored the portion that I bolded in red within my above quotation and selected only the last sentence that appeals to you, so that you can claim victory. You insist on believing a theory is a done deal and that theories are equivalent to facts. Below are two more definitions of "theory" for the benefit of the forum.
    I have not said anything of the kind. I said that theories, if unproven, backed and apparently working, are generally accepted as true. I didn't say that they equated to fact. There is a large difference between "done deal" and "generally accepted as true"; the first is absolute, the second is for practical purposes.

    "Definition: In the context of science, a theory is a well-established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result." (Source: Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.)
    You're the one who is cherry picking from definitions. This one supports my saying that theories are considered good explanations, supported by evidence. Of course theories an be disproven, but of what relevance is that? Everything we know about science can be disproven.

    Notice in the last paragraph of the third example that it speaks of two scientists proposing two different theories for the same phenomenon. Obviously, both of them cannot be correct. This is how theories get discarded and replaced by new ones.
    Sure, this happens all the time. I have never doubted that theories are not absolute. all I am saying is that quantum mechanics is as of yet supported by lots of evidence, and we cannot see it being discarded very soon.

    Could we please return to the refutations I have made about your original argument?

  23. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    "There is lots of evidence for the Big Bang being spontaneous" A lot of evidence supporting a theory doesn't make it infallible. Eg. the theory of evolution.
    "An accident in the sense of producing an undesirable outcome."; "Precision does not require deliberation, and can be a result of chance."; "The relations of the atoms is explained by quantum physics." All of these truths fall under a superior umbrella truth - the ultimate source of these truths - the intelligent Being that designed all these realities...kinda like a video games company designing a virtual universe hence giving existence to created chance...
    ...

  24. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    All of these truths fall under a superior umbrella truth - the ultimate source of these truths - the intelligent Being that designed all these realities...kinda like a video games company designing a virtual universe hence giving existence to created chance...
    Could you support this; at the moment, its just an assertion. Please support your claim that there is an intelligent being who is an ultimate truth, since it is not an argument unless you lend support, empirically or logically.

  25. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    Please don't paraphrase...I said "ultimate source" not "ultimate truth" (there's a difference btw the two) and I don't think God will ever be definitively proven to exist or even not exist, as science primarily deals with things that can be measured or studied by physical means, whereas God is totally invisible to the human eye even when assisted with equipment and immeasurable by all human means. Science is discovering new things continually but I doubt it will ever definitively prove or disprove God's existence, which is related to the possible reality of another plane/ realm, namely the world of spirits. People at the end of the day, either believe by faith (supported by some evidence) that He exists, is totally non-existing or even a mutually-exclusive possibility of one of the two.
    Last edited by Will W; March 12th, 2013 at 07:24 AM. Reason: To strengthen and rephrase my argument.

  26. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

    Please don't paraphrase...I said "ultimate source" not "ultimate truth
    All of these truths fall under a superior umbrella truth
    I would say that 'umbrella truth' indicates a certain degree of superiority over all other truths, and so I would say that you are in fact saying that god is an ultimate truth in the sense of being above everything else. If I am mistaken, could you please clarify what this statement about umbrella truths was intended to mean?
    science primarily deals with things that can be measured or studied by physical means
    Don't jump to conclusions; many areas of modern science delve into the realm of speculation about things that we cannot measure or study by physical means, at least with science in its current status. An example is the many-worlds interpretation; whilst it is a very intriguing thought, at the moment it is only a hypothesis. However, I do agree that proving god is nigh-on impossible, since many accounts of theist doctrines insist that he is either outside the universe or undetectable by scientific methods. This is one flaw with the god hypothesis, namely that it is unfalsifiable, and unfalsifiable conjectures are deemed unscientific.

    either believe by faith (supported by some evidence
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to present me some evidence for blind faith, since faith itself is a term that is generally used to refer to belief in absence of evidence or proof.

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 102
    Last Post: March 12th, 2013, 07:36 AM
  2. The Nature of God, for atheists and theists
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Religion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: September 25th, 2008, 09:36 AM
  3. Nature of God
    By Montalban in forum Religion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: August 12th, 2006, 06:40 PM
  4. The Nature of God
    By Apokalupsis in forum Religion
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: June 11th, 2004, 09:09 AM
  5. The nature of thinking about the nature of X (god)
    By F1Fan in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2004, 02:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •