Originally posted by @moonbusI suppose that's where the analogy fails.
Let's take the case of the squashed squirrel under the fallen tree. Yes, a tree might fall on an already dead squirrel. If you stop at "down tree, squashed squirrel," there is no basis for assuming any causal relationship between the two. This does not mean, however, that no causal relationship can be found, or that one speculation about causes is as plausi ...[text shortened]... oing to keep repeating that you have one kind of faith and 'we' have another, then just drop it.
Can you prove life did not originate without a supernatural source?
If not and you reject it anyhow you are not following the spirit of science.
Originally posted by @eladarLet's test some hypothetical models!
I suppose that's where the analogy fails.
Can you prove life did not originate without a supernatural source?
If not and you reject it anyhow you are not following the spirit of science.
Model A - blunt force trauma from the falling tree killed the squirrel.
Model B - a disease or predator killed the squirrel before the tree fell on it.
Model C - the squirrel and the tree appeared that way, fully grown and both dead.
The first two models are easily testable. If rejected, how would you go about testing your model?
I would argue that your model, C, is an untestable and therefore impractical hypothesis. There is no evidence, experiment or measurement that confirms or rejects it. Therefore, this hypothesis isn't relevant and doesn't even qualify as science. I guess you could argue that untestable hypotheses are a limitation of the scientific method, but then we add infinite untestable models including the possibility that none of us are actually here, but living in a matrix of our own emotions and feelings. The squirrel and the tree never existed in the first place. Ugh. I don't want to live in that world. Let's focus on the practical and allow for uncertainty in conclusions.
We know that little g genesis happened because we're here. Scientists are testing theories to explain how. Logically, it doesn't make sense to test a supernatural hypothesis, since we don't have any evidence it exists (obviously, otherwise if we could measure it it'd be natural). And we certainly don't have any way to test or model it. If evidence accumulates, maybe that would offer a window into a experimental design.
Long story short: A hypothesis needs to be testable! It's a fundamental facet of the scientific method.
Originally posted by @eladarWe are getting closer and closer to proving just that, life originating without a supernatural force. Let's suppose for the sake of argument, we are all of us typing here at RHP, alive in say 40 years and it has been proven how life started here on Earth, say meteors slamming into a mud pool with prebiotic molecules now mixing with water and gaining energy from the sun to make even more complex molecules till a tipping point is reached and life starts on its own.
I suppose that's where the analogy fails.
Can you prove life did not originate without a supernatural source?
If not and you reject it anyhow you are not following the spirit of science.
Now, given that scenario, can you honestly say what your reaction will be, aside from the obvious retort, 'that will never happen so I don't have to worry about giving an answer'
Try giving a real answer to that possibility.
Originally posted by @eladarGiven that science cannot prove anything supernatural, it follows that science cannot disprove anything supernatural either. However, if a naturalistic explanation can be tested and confirmed by a sufficiently coherent body of evidence, that obviates the explanatory need for any additional supernatural influences (Occham's Razor).
I suppose that's where the analogy fails.
Can you prove life did not originate without a supernatural source?
If not and you reject it anyhow you are not following the spirit of science.
Originally posted by @moonbusSo why do you claim to know something that may have been of super natural origins? Ocham's Razor?
Given that science cannot prove anything supernatural, it follows that science cannot disprove anything supernatural either. However, if a naturalistic explanation can be tested and confirmed by a sufficiently coherent body of evidence, that obviates the explanatory need for any additional supernatural influences (Occham's Razor).
Because you have Ocham's Razor that tells you how to come to a belief, it in essence is your Bible. That's fine and dandy, but should people then use schools to force beliefs based on Ocham's Razor on young kids? Should the government try to force it upon the people?
Originally posted by @eladarWhoa Nelly. First of all, Occham's Razor does not tell me what to believe or how to come to believe anything. Do you even know what Occham's Razor is?
So why do you claim to know something that may have been of super natural origins? Ocham's Razor?
Because you have Ocham's Razor that tells you how to come to a belief, it in essence is your Bible. That's fine and dandy, but should people then use schools to force beliefs based on Ocham's Razor on young kids? Should the government try to force it upon the people?
Second, it is not my Bible. You evidently are so immersed in your own faith that you assume everyone else must be equally immersed in faith, too -- but some other faith than yours. Wrong. Science is not an alternative faith which just happens to have no God.
Third, forcing people to believe in dogma is the sad history of Christianity, not of the Enlightenment. That is the reason people left Old Europe and settled the New World -- to escape religious persecution. Strange irony that precisely the USA, the land founded on religious freedom, is the country still re-trying the Scopes case and still trying to get creationism on the school curriculum as science.
Originally posted by @moonbusIn my book I am writing, I will give a mathematical proof that Occam's razor is valid
Occham's Razor does not tell me what to believe or how to come to believe anything.
...only to then, ironically, explain why we so often mustn't use it.
A vindication followed by a condemnation.
I bet that will make some readers wonder where I am going with this; the answer is I don't know myself....at least not yet.
Originally posted by @wildgrassWhich limits it to how nature works, nothing more.
Let's test some hypothetical models!
Model A - blunt force trauma from the falling tree killed the squirrel.
Model B - a disease or predator killed the squirrel before the tree fell on it.
Model C - the squirrel and the tree appeared that way, fully grown and both dead.
The first two models are easily testable. If rejected, how would you go about ...[text shortened]... ory short: A hypothesis needs to be testable! It's a fundamental facet of the scientific method.
Let us imagine a thought experiment. A chamber is constructed with nothing inside. Absolutely nothing: no matter, no energy, zero degrees Kelvin. It is so shielded that not even neutrinos or gamma rays penetrate. Never mind that human technology is not capable of actually constructing such a chamber — just imagine it. The chamber is fitted with windows allowing spectators to look inside. Never mind that Heisenberg says that merely observing sub-atomic particles changes them — because there aren't any sub-atomic particles in this imaginary chamber. Now we invite the world's great theologians and religious leaders of all faiths to come and pray for God to work a miracle. Scientists of all major branches are invited, too: biologists, astronomers, evolution theorists, etc., and of course, a crew of agnostics and atheists, to observe and record the outcome. The world's religious believers then pray that God should create a universe in miniature, with a duplicate mini-Earth and a duplicate mini-Adam and all the rest of it, in six days.
One of two things happens:
Outcome 1. A miracle occurs, a universe is created ex nihilo.
Outcome 2. Nothing happens.
In case of outcome 1., it would be strong evidence in favor of the account in Genesis, that creation ex nihilo is possible; a 'proof of concept' as they say in engineering.
What about outcome 2.? Would that be evidence disproving Genesis? Would that prove that creation ex nihilo is impossible? No. Because the lack of a miracle happening could be attributed to any of several other causes. For example, not because creation ex nihilo is impossible, but simply because God didn't feel like indulging us with a miracle that day. He could have done, he just didn't. Or because the faithful had not prayed fervently enough; had they done so, God would have granted their wish. Or because God intended to perform the miracle later, we haven't waited long enough. Or because the presence of atheists and infidels near the chamber interfered with the prayer and prevented the miracle from coming to fruition. Etc.
What this thought experiment shows is that the hypothesis of creation ex nihilo, by divine fiat, is not falsifiable.
Now, what conclusion follows from the non-falsifiability of a proposition?
Given that the alleged creation alluded to in the Book of Genesis was sui generis (there was only one such creation event and only one universe), the hypothesis is not testable either. There is no 'control' case of a universe coming into existence without miracles for comparison.
Now, what follows from a proposition which is neither testable nor falsifiable? Logically, what follows is that it lacks explanatory significance.
Originally posted by @sonhouseLet me know when "we've" done it, the I'd agree that it could be done.
We are getting closer and closer to proving just that, life originating without a supernatural force. Let's suppose for the sake of argument, we are all of us typing here at RHP, alive in say 40 years and it has been proven how life started here on Earth, say meteors slamming into a mud pool with prebiotic molecules now mixing with water and gaining energ ...[text shortened]... o I don't have to worry about giving an answer'
Try giving a real answer to that possibility.
At the moment any belief in abiogenesis is nothing more than children believing in Santa Claus because there are presents under the tree.
Originally posted by @moonbusYou really can go on and on and say absolutely nothing. You are full of so much prejudice combined with so little knowledge.
Let us imagine a thought experiment. A chamber is constructed with nothing inside. Absolutely nothing: no matter, no energy, zero degrees Kelvin. It is so shielded that not even neutrinos or gamma rays penetrate. Never mind that human technology is not capable of actually constructing such a chamber — just imagine it. The chamber is fitted with windows allo ...[text shortened]... her testable nor falsifiable? Logically, what follows is that it lacks explanatory significance.
Originally posted by @eladarBut YOU are the bastion of reason I guess. You blindly believe in your god because of words written by men in an ancient bible which just proves YOUR gullibility in buying all those fairy tales. And you have the gall to tell real scientists they are all basing their work on assumptions. Try looking in a mirror sometimes and see who is actually living on assumption salad.
You really can go on and on and say absolutely nothing. You are full of so much prejudice combined with so little knowledge.
Originally posted by @eladarHow is that different from believing you're going to heaven because you believe in Jesus?
... At the moment any belief in abiogenesis is nothing more than children believing in Santa Claus because there are presents under the tree.
Just because you believe Yahweh really exists and Santa Claus doesn't, doesn't make it so. Take it to Spirituality. This is the science forum.