Can theists be rational?

[cj.23]

No it isn't.

Why?

cj x

 

[RandFan]

You cannot infer anything.

Really?

Unless you checkout multiple ponds...

Hmmm.... there's something wrong here, why would you checkout ponds? Why not sand on the beach?

I think you have your answer. You just don't want to see it.

...which is quite difficult if those ponds are on other planets.

Are you saying it is impossible? We can't detect any evidence from outerspace? Really?

Very interesting, indeed, but not scientific.

Declaring not scientific doesn't make it so. And to be frank it's rather silly.

You need to come up with falsifiable assertions.

If there is bacteria in the pond then we can verify it.

If you're LOST on an ilse, lonely victim of a plane crash. For how long would you keep searching for other surivors? What's your strategy?

I would search as long as I had Island to explore, you?

Science gives you one and eventually tells you "STOP! There ARE NO more survivors!".

Space is a bit larger than the average island.

I would actually be very curious to see a mission to Europe. To drill a deeeeep hole and then to look what the hell is there, under its frost crust.

Scientists do this every day of the year. BTW: We have answered a lot of questions and gathered a lot of information from doing this. I'm geniunely curious, why would it suprise you.

BTW: Observation IS part of the scientific method.

 

[cj.23]

To be fair, words are not physical laws that govern the universe. They are simply a means to convey ideas and information.

Since I introduced the word (I think I did) then I would like to say the usage is theoretical and defined as "Models and abstractions in an attempt to explain experimental data taken of the natural world."

To be "theoretical" the hypothesis must have some explanatory power and cannot simply evoke magic or miracles.

That's a really nice beautifully set out description of a scientific theory, and demonstrates my earlier point. "Models and abstractions in an attempt to explain experimental data taken of the natural world." - in short, assuming cosmological uniformity and adopting methodological naturalism. It's an excellent definition of science, but by its very nature and inherent assumptions precludes supernatural entities. I gave a couple of theological theories - "Models and abstractions in an attempt to explain observations of the data taken of the supernatural world.", because one can not easily experiment on a person or a relationship, only on a force. Theological models can possess vast explanatory power - few can beat Ockham's in that respect - but obviously a science which precludes magic and amiracles by which I assume you mean the supernatural, can not produce a theory that will point to God.

So to then say "Why is there no scientific theory that points to God?" becomes a perfectly circular and meaningless argument: because science assumes methodological naturalism, as anyone who teaches methodology or philosophy of science can easily affirm, and as you have clearly stated.

cj x

 

[Herzblut]

Really?

Yes. Science lives from replication, not uniqueness. And Earth is pretty unique, which makes it a little difficult to come up with a scientific approach.

Hmmm.... there's something wrong here, why would you checkout ponds? Why not sand on the beach?

Because that is not part of your assertion to be verified.

Are you saying it is impossible? We can't detect any evidence from outerspace? Really?

I cannot know, but my gut feeling is: we have to be extremely lucky, to detect anything like that within the next thousands of years. Give me some time please, and I will put together some reasoning, long time I haven't dealt with the subject.

If there is bacteria in the pond then we can verify it.

Your assertion is "There is ET intelligent life", which is not falsifiable. Prove me wrong, if you can.

I would search as long as I had Island to explore, you?

Hmm, depends. Make me visible (fire...). Quickly look for a sweet water resource (or die anyway) and sit around there waiting for maybe a week.

Scientists do this every day of the year. BTW: We have answered a lot of questions and gathered a lot of information from doing this. I'm geniunely curious, why would it suprise you.

Oh, I should have mentioned that I was talking about Jupiter's moon "Europe", not the continent. Does that explain it?

H

 

[Malerin]

Really?

Are you saying it is impossible? We can't detect any evidence from outerspace? Really?

It may be impossible for several reasons:
1. Aliens don't exist
2. Aliens do exist, but communicate in ways we can't measure
3. Aliens do exist, but have devloped ways to mask their existence from civilizations like ours.

If any of the above are true, we can point radio telescopes in the sky forever and never detect any evidence. Furthermore, there are no odds we can put on 1,2, or 3. We have too little information. We have to hope that:
1. Aliens do exist
2. Their existence is detectable.

 

[Bri]

There is a world of difference and it's in one very simple question.

Can we know (or, IOW, is the proposition amenable to scientific inquiry, or, IOW, is it an empirical question)?

ET intelligent life: Yes.
God: No.

Sorry, but we can never know if aliens or gods actually exist until we observe one.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Gathering data is scientific!

Bri, Herz, lets put this to rest. You are both making a monumentally silly claim.

Look, when a paleontologist or archaeologist goes into the field in search of evidence it IS inherently scientific. Your claim that paleontologists and archaeologists (or any scientist) who is searching in places where he or she doesn't know if anything will be found is unscientific is just dumb and for you to continue to claim, ad nauseam, that scientists like paleontologists or archaeologists or any such scientists are not conducting science is bordering on gross ignorance or dishonesty. Perhaps there is another choice but for the life of me I can't think of what it is.

In any event, you are wrong. Flat out wrong. Gathering evidence in an attempt to answer an empirical question IS science. That's not controversial in the least. Please stop trying to make it so.

 

[RandFan]

Yes. Science lives from replication, not uniqueness. And Earth is pretty unique, which makes it a little difficult to come up with a scientific approach.

Nonsense. It's quite easy to come up with a scientific approach. See SETI.

Your assertion is "There is ET intelligent life", which is not falsifiable. Prove me wrong, if you can.

See my post on Archeology and palentology. And prove me wrong.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, but we can never know if aliens or gods actually exist until we observe one.

But we have a theoretical basis to believe we can observe ET intelligent life (again you ignore the premises). If we find a signal (the equivalent of a picture of a giraffe) then we could answer the question.

God? Nothing. There is no theoretical basis to believe that we can empirically answer the question of does god exist.

 

[fls]

"Models and abstractions in an attempt to explain observations of the data taken of the supernatural world."

Can you give some examples of observations of the data taken of the supernatural world?

Linda

 

[cj.23]

Can you give some examples of observations of the data taken of the supernatural world?

Linda

Mysticism? For example the incredibly detailed maps of states of consciousness and union with the Divine created by the Hindu and some early Christian mystics (I'm thinking of the Hesychasts here)? Mysticism is boring, I've used that before - let me just get the chapter i'm revising sorted and reply with some more different examples.

cj x

 

[Paulhoff]

So, can theists be rational.

No.

Haven't seen it with the ones posting here.

Paul

 

[fls]

Mysticism? For example the incredibly detailed maps of states of consciousness and union with the Divine created by the Hindu and some early Christian mystics (I'm thinking of the Hesychasts here)? Mysticism is boring, I've used that before - let me just get the chapter i'm revising sorted and reply with some more different examples.

cj x

Okay. And can you also elaborate on the vast explanatory power of Mysticism (or whichever example you wish to use)? I may be confusing your meaning with 'useful' or 'predictive', though.

Linda

 

[RandFan]

Mysticism? For example the incredibly detailed maps of states of consciousness and union with the Divine created by the Hindu and some early Christian mystics (I'm thinking of the Hesychasts here)? Mysticism is boring, I've used that before - let me just get the chapter i'm revising sorted and reply with some more different examples.

Patterns in the noise are not enough (see why pulsars are not proof of ET inteligent life). You've got to demonstrate that it means something and do so scientifically. To date these incredibly detailed maps have not yielded anything that is scientifically significant as to cause any consensus of those who don't already believe in the phenomenon (see confirmation bias).

 

[yy2bggggs]

I apologize if I disappointed you!

No need to apologize. All you're doing is shutting me off, though.

 

[RandFan]

It may be impossible for several reasons:
1. Aliens don't exist
2. Aliens do exist, but communicate in ways we can't measure
3. Aliens do exist, but have devloped ways to mask their existence from civilizations like ours.

Did dinosaurs live in a previously unexplored area? Did an ancient civilization live in a previously unexplored area?

It may be impossible to know for several reasons:

1. Dinosaurs and ancient civilizations in that area never existed.
2. Dinosaurs and/or ancient civilization did exist but they did not leave behind any evidence of their existence.

Therefore: Archeology and paleontology are not scientific.

If any of the above are true, we can point radio telescopes in the sky forever and never detect any evidence. Furthermore, there are no odds we can put on 1,2, or 3. We have too little information. We have to hope that:
1. Aliens do exist
2. Their existence is detectable.

If any of the above are true then archaeologists and paleontologists have too little information to justify searching in any area.

And FTR: Archaeologists and paleontologists often come up empty. So by your logic they are not scientific endeavors and are a waste of time.

The lengths you folks will take to discredit scientific inquiry is amazing.

 

[Herzblut]

So, can theists be rational.

Women cannot. Blondes in particular.

 

[RandFan]

I would actually be very curious to see a mission to Europe. To drill a deeeeep hole and then to look what the hell is there, under its frost crust.

Scientists do this every day of the year. BTW: We have answered a lot of questions and gathered a lot of information from doing this. I'm geniunely curious, why would it suprise you.

Given that this has been such a huge and benificial source of scientific data I would really like a response. Why would it surprise you that scientists would drill a really deep hole to find out what is there?

 

[blobru]

So, can theists be rational.

Women cannot. Blondes in particular.

Unlike theists, the fairer sex (and shade in particular) would rather have worshippers than be... imho.

 

[Herzblut]

Given that this has been such a huge and benificial source of scientific data I would really like a response. Why would it surprise you that scientists would drill a really deep hole to find out what is there?

Hmm, will probably be my bad English, but when I say "I'd be curious to see" I actually mean that ..eh.. "I'd be very interested to know the results of". You know "curious", like these:

http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&la...h&pinyin=diacritic&search=neugierig&relink=on

How do you come up with "surprise"?

PS. If that helps in any way, I just see the moon is called Europa in English, sorry for that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)