Originally posted by Adam_PoE
^ This argument sounds familiar:
Because it's a centuries old and hotly debated issue? Of course you're totally ignorant of that. Amirite?
This guy just sounds like he's been reading Van Til, Frame, Bahnsen, etc., etc.
---------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, if we are talking about induction in the mathematica sense it is an axiom that it works.
Axioms are themselves assumptions.
Originally posted by Bardock42
...not in mathematics. They don't have to be self evident at all.
Either way, they're assumptions and are accepted without proof.
Anyway, theologan Gordon Clark argued that the truths of scripture were axiomatic. I doubt you're going to simply accept that.
So, axioms are kind of useless in this sort of debate.
Originally posted by Ytse
Either way, they're assumptions and are accepted without proof.Anyway, theologan Gordon Clark argued that the truths of scripture were axiomatic. I doubt you're going to simply accept that.
So, axioms are kind of useless in this sort of debate.
I will not deny the usefulness of science, but maybe I understand what you are trying to say:
For example, science uses empiricism to justify itself. Empiricism says that knowledge comes from experience rather than faith or intuition, but technically empiricism in itself is used like an axiom made true to make science work.
In this sense, it is true that that science requires some type of faith or intuition or whatever, since after all we can just assume that empiricism is true. Everything needs a starting point, so there will always be something assumed without proof, something that is prior to experience. That happens for everything not just science.
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.
Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.
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.
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.
Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science.The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.
Originally posted by Alliance
Don't be so presumptuous.
Well, sorry. You just come off as antagonistic sometimes. Maybe it's my problem that I take it that way.
You said your argument was an apolgetic. Is that not what you meant?
I was just making the contrast there by saying that I am not trying to justify why god may have done this or that but only trying to demonstrate that science and Christianity aren't necesarily opposed. And so, by making that contrast I'm saying that while it may be superfluous for god to justify induction in a materialist or physicalist worldview, I am defending the Christian theistic worldview.
Originally posted by Ytse
Who exactly are you arguing with here? You're quoting me but responding to somewebsites...
I asked a question, What's a theistic worldview?
Since you didnt answer my question, i proceeded to find the answer for myself . . . . and it suck as$. I hope you have a better explanation.
And yes, subjective and unreliable supernatural explanations (god did this, god did that, god is capable of this and god is capable of that) are still waaay inferior in terms of use and explanatory power, to the objective and verifiable scientific explanation than science offers.
Originally posted by Templares
I asked a question, What's a theistic worldview?Since you didnt answer my question, i proceeded to find the answer for myself . . . . and it suck as$. I hope you have a better explanation.
And yes, subjective and unreliable supernatural explanations (god did this, god did that, god is capable of this and god is capable of that) are still waaay inferior in terms of use and explanatory power, to the objective and verifiable scientific explanation than science offers.
Science offers what?
All science has done at this juncture is confirm what the Bible has stated all along: life is not the product of random, chance occurrence (studies are strongly in favor of creation and not random evolution). Look up the statistical probabilities of life emerging by chance (which by the way is a relatively scientific, but definitely mathematical approach to determining likelihood of an event occurring).
😄
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Science offers what?All science has done at this juncture is confirm what the Bible has stated all along: life is not the product of random, chance occurrence (studies are strongly in favor of creation and not random evolution). Look up the statistical probabilities of life emerging by chance (which by the way is a relatively scientific, but definitely mathematical approach to determining likelihood of an event occurring).
😄
What particular study?
The only creationist statistical probablity study i could remember is Henry Morris and his 200 good mutations. And he's a douchebag because he assumed that the 200 good mutations have to occur consecutively . Mutations, good or bad, occur at the same time. His statistical study is both rigged and flawed and didnt pass peer review.
Originally posted by Templares
And yes, subjective and unreliable supernatural explanations (god did this, god did that, god is capable of this and god is capable of that) are still waaay inferior in terms of use and explanatory power, to the objective and verifiable scientific explanation than science offers.
What I meant was in a theistic worldview there are certain presuppositions the believer makes about reality and one of those things is the truth of scripture. Scientific evaluation is entirely ineffectual in determining if scripture really is divine revelation.