Are we made in God's image?

[paddoboy]

Vociferous makes himself out to be a total fool by accusing others of being scientifically illiterate or passing off science as pseudoscience simply because the science of abiogenesis jeopardizes his faith in a god/creator. He isn't just calling out a few folks here, but is actually calling out the scientific community as illiterate and attempting to pass off the science as pseudoscience. How dumb can he be?

Yeah the labels he attaches to any person that happens to see through the myth that is god and ID, is evident of all you say.......atheist, scientific illiterate, scientism, lefties, etc
I suppose we can be thankful that at least he does stay out of the sciences and sticks to his red neck views in religion and politics.

 

[Vociferous]

So you do admit that "good" science is true? Yet you persist in touting the ignorance of refuted "faith in a god/creator".

If you understood anything about science, you'd know that it can't refute beliefs.

Unless your god is scientifically definable, theism does not rest on fact but only on hypothesis.
Do you know the difference between fact and hypothesis?

And? I readily admit that theism is, at best, a hypothesis. Because, unlike you, I do know the difference and have repeatedly demonstrated it on the forum.

 

[paddoboy]

And? I readily admit that theism is, at best, a hypothesis. Because, unlike you, I do know the difference and have repeatedly demonstrated it on the forum.

And it could better be described as an unscientific, mythical concept, fabricated before science/astronomy advanced our thinking.
Abiogenesis of course is the only scientific answer as to how life first arose, although the exact detail and process is still unknown.
One there was no life: Then there was.

 

[Vociferous]

And it could better be described as an unscientific, mythical concept, fabricated before science/astronomy advanced our thinking.
Abiogenesis of course is the only scientific answer as to how life first arose, although the exact detail and process is still unknown.
One there was no life: Then there was.

Boy, you really like repeatedly pissing into the wind.

 

[paddoboy]

Boy, you really like repeatedly pissing into the wind.

Oh, I fully understand and accept that I will never change the mind of a fanatically driven god bothering redneck.
But I will always refute such evil.

 

[Yazata]

So you do admit that "good" science is true?

Not necessarily.

Scientific Realism aims at truth, in the correspondence sense. A scientific statement asserting 'A' is T iff reality is in fact A.

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

This idea of science is contrasted with Instrumentalism, the idea that scientific statements aim not at truth, but at pragmatic usefulness, most typically enabling scientists to predict what observations will be. (Or maybe providing a framework that allows several different areas of scientific study to be theoretically combined, or something like that.)

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

I'm personally very much a scientific realist. However I'm also aware that this is an area of dispute in the foundations of science.

Biologists typically are scientific realists. They assume that organisms, their anatomical structures and their biochemistries actually exist. Astrophysicists believe in the reality of black holes and exoplanets. (They aren't just calculating conveniences to make astronomical observations come out as predicted.)

Theoretical physics on the other hand, can sometimes tend towards instrumentalism. We see that with quantum mechanics, which is very good at predicting what experimenal observations will be (at least statistically) but pretty much a failure at telling us how the micro-world is in and of itself so as to make the observations come out as they do. That's what the many quantum mechanical interpretations seek to provide.

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

Yet you persist in touting the ignorance of refuted "faith in a god/creator".

Why is it "ignorance"? How was it "refuted"? If you are going to sneer at other people and talk down to them, then you need to be able to back it up. I don't think that you can. (No, microtubules have nothing to do with it.)

Unless your god is scientifically definable, theism does not rest on fact but only on hypothesis.

Being a fact is dependent on scientific definitions? How does that work? It seems to me to put the cart before the horse. (Of course I'm a realist, like I said up above.)

Do you know the difference between fact and hypothesis?

Do you? You certainly suggest that you do, so perhaps now is the time for you to explain the distinction. Again, I don't think that you can. It's not going to be easy.

As for me, I'm inclined to define 'fact' as an existing state of affairs. Facts aren't true, they simply are. Truth and falsity apply to propositions, to things said (or written) about the world. According to correspondence theories of truth at least, a proposition is T iff it corresponds to a fact.

A 'hypothesis' is something like an educated guess. It's a statement made tentatively in the absence of convincing justification. Given that the deep foundations of science are anything but nailed down, one can probably make an argument that all scientific statements are hypotheses. Educated guesses made in the absence of entirely sound justification.

 

[(Q)]

Because I've actually refuted ignorance of the science being touted.

If you have refuted all of the papers written by scientists and those who have conducted experiments, why aren't you famous and why do scientists continue to write papers and conduct experiment as if your so-called refutations didn't even exist?

Actual scientists know the difference between fact and hypothesis.

That's the point exactly, yet you are calling their work pseudoscience. You are saying scientists are illiterate about the origins of life and that you, "Vociferous" have refuted them all. Do you realize how insane you sound?

 

[Write4U]

Not necessarily.

Scientific Realism aims at truth, in the correspondence sense. A scientific statement asserting 'A' is T iff reality is in fact A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism

This idea of science is contrasted with Instrumentalism, the idea that scientific statements aim not at truth, but at pragmatic usefulness, most typically enabling scientists to predict what observations will be. (Or maybe providing a framework that allows several different areas of scientific study to be theoretically combined, or something like that.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

I'm personally very much a scientific realist. However I'm also aware that this is an area of dispute in the foundations of science.

I see your POV and I agree. However, I don't see it as an "either/or" question.

Seems to me we can certainly establish the factual truth of some things and the utility of some hypothesis.
Newton's Law of Gravity is a perfect example. It is not perfectly true, but on earth it is has "pragmatic utility".

Biologists typically are scientific realists. They assume that organisms, their anatomical structures and their biochemistries actually exist. Astrophysicists believe in the reality of black holes and exoplanets. (They aren't just calculating conveniences to make astronomical observations come out as predicted.)

It doesn't seem really fair to compare these two examples. Biology we can study down to nano-scale components. We cannot get near a black hole to see what's inside.

Theoretical physics on the other hand, can sometimes tend towards instrumentalism. We see that with quantum mechanics, which is very good at predicting what experimenal observations will be (at least statistically) but pretty much a failure at telling us how the micro-world is in and of itself so as to make the observations come out as they do. That's what the many quantum mechanical interpretations seek to provide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

I submit you do some injustice to the advances in discoveries of "hard facts" from observation, and "hard questions" about phenomena which are not subject direct observation and analysis.

Science is making enormous strides in observing and analyzing the nano-world.
If Tegmark is correct that, based on the evidence, the universe "must" be a collection of repeatable self-formation of regular patterns and that all of observable nature consists of physical values arranged into sets of mathematical patterns, all apparent problems inherent in complex universal patterns and scales can be solved, as many heretofore mysteries are slowly being clarified.

There is always this perceived duality between natural mathematical values and functions and the human symbolization of these naturally occurring mathematical "conversations".

The discovery of a "mathematical universe" is the greatest discovery made by man and allowed man to analyze the mathematical nature of reality.
Without mathematics we are left with spiritual speculation, hence the advent of religion (mythology) and scripture before the establishment of "inquiry based on the scientific method".

Why is it "ignorance"? How was it "refuted"? If you are going to sneer at other people and talk down to them, then you need to be able to back it up. I don't think that you can.

Yes I can cite you a long list, but I already have cited one example of the duplicity when using argument that "the fossil record has no evidence of transitional species", but belief in god is justified in spite of "the fossil record having no evidence of Adam and Eve"

W4U said; Unless your god is scientifically definable, theism does not rest on fact but only on hypothesis.

Being a fact is dependent on scientific definitions? How does that work? It seems to me to put the cart before the horse. (Of course I'm a realist, like I said up above.)

I don't think you are reading this as it was intended to be read (my bad?).
The intent was to show that scientific definitions rest on observed facts, whereas theism does not rest on observed fact but only on "hypotheticals" or "wishful thinking" .
Please understand that I acknowledge religions as philosophic in essence but do not rest on any observable (verifiable) scientific actuality.

W4U said; Do you know the difference between fact and hypothesis?

Do you? You certainly suggest that you do, so perhaps now is the time for you to explain the distinction. Again, I don't think that you can. It's not going to be easy.

Why not?

Definition of fact
1 a: something that has actual existence; space exploration is now a fact
b: an actual occurrence; prove the fact of damage
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality. These are the hard facts of the case.
3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY a question of fact hinges on evidence
4: a thing done: such as
a: CRIME accessory after the fact
b: archaic : ACTION
c: obsolete : FEAT

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

and: The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory

A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory. Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis

As for me, I'm inclined to define 'fact' as an existing state of affairs. Facts aren't true, they simply are. Truth and falsity apply to propositions, to things said (or written) about the world. According to correspondence theories of truth at least, a proposition is T iff it corresponds to a fact.

Sorry, what's T iff ? I'm not familiar with that symbol. (True if?)

But IMO, one can claim a fact is true if you can demonstrate its existence and mathematical properties.
OTOH, one can propose a hypothesis, if you can demonstrate its apparent existence but not all of its mathematical properties. This is how astronomers "discover" the existing mathematics of the universe and all physicists "discover" the mathematics of bio-chemistry and the emerging evidence and probability of abiogenesis when certain "sufficient" physical conditions are met, at which time it is no longer a matter of probability but of "necessity".
and,
We have the "hard fact" that we are here and that we know what the human pattern looks like along with a bunch of other stuff......

A 'hypothesis' is something like an educated guess. It's a statement made tentatively in the absence of convincing justification. Given that the deep foundations of science are anything but nailed down, one can probably make an argument that all scientific statements are hypotheses. Educated guesses made in the absence of entirely sound justification.

I agree.....

 

[Yazata]

Sorry, what's T iff ? I'm not familiar with that symbol. (True if?)

Sorry. Bit of jargon there.

'T iff' means 'true if and only if'

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

It's often how logical definitions are stated.

In the text you quoted, I was saying that according to the correspondence theory of truth, a proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact.

 

[Write4U]

Sorry. Bit of jargon there.

'T iff' means 'true if and only if'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if

It's often how logical definitions are stated.

OK, learned something....

In the text you quoted, I was saying that according to the correspondence theory of truth, a proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact.

Got it and confirms my original POV.......