Scientific theory and scientific method: Are they applicable to God?

Originally posted by Templares
This is more a demonstration of circular reasoning rather than the scientific method.

Templares, buddy ole pal you are right, I went back and re-read my conclusion and you know what? It does sound like circular reasoning. What I should have concluded was that The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they evince evidence of design; therefore, there must be a Designer and my hypothesis is supported. That is how I should have worded my conclusion.

Originally posted by Alliance
[B...Thanks, please close this thread. [/B]

Originally posted by Alliance
😆

btw...thats the version of the scientific method they teach to 10 year olds.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SUPERNATURAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO OBJECTIVELY OR CONCLUSIVELY TEST THE SUPERNATURAL.

Thanks, please close this thread.

You don't need to necessarily in the case that I announce in my hypothesis.

its not a hypothesis. A hypothesis must be testable.

Originally posted by Alliance
its not a hypothesis. A hypothesis must be testable.

Hypothesis: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them.

My hypothesis is testable. Besides, who invented scientific theory? God? No? Then it is not absolute and is subject to change or modification.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]Hypothesis: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by SOMEONE Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them.

My hypothesis is testable. Besides, who invented scientific theory? God? No? Then it is not absolute and is subject to change or modification. [/B]

You can't test that hypothesis. Fail.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
You can't test that hypothesis. Fail.

Is scientific theory absolute? No? Then it is subject to change or modification.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Is scientific theory absolute? No? Then it is subject to change or modification.

What does that have to do with your hypothesis being flawed?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
What does that have to do with your hypothesis being flawed?

It's not.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
My hypothesis is testable. Besides, who invented scientific theory? God? No? Then it is not absolute and is subject to change or modification.

Flaws:

1. That hypothsis is not testable. (if you think differently, explain your experiemnt to conclusively prive your hypothsis)

1.5. That means that its not a hypothesis.

2. If God is absolute, then he invented the Scientific METHOD (not theory di'kut)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It's not.

But it is, I'm sorry to say.

Edit: The scientific theory may not have been made by god, but that doesn't mean that you're allowed to manipulate it to suit your needs.

Originally posted by Alliance
Flaws:

1. That hypothsis is not testable. (if you think differently, explain your experiemnt to conclusively prive your hypothsis)

1.5. That means that its not a hypothesis.

2. If God is absolute, then he invented the Scientific METHOD (not theory di'kut)

I cannot determine that the universe had a starting point, that fundamental forces can be harnessed and studied using the scientific method, that the earth is the only habitable planet in our solar system, that one cell has more information than a 1,000 volume encyclopedia (by the way information requires an intelligent mind), and that the human brain, heart, mind, and body are so complicated that there is no way that it could have just came into being on its own from inorganic matter?

Well, you are wrong.

God is absolute and I believe that He created matter and life with the capability for study so that it could point us straight to Him (God and His omniscience does it again).

Originally posted by AngryManatee
But it is, I'm sorry to say.

Edit: The scientific theory may not have been made by god, but that doesn't mean that you're allowed to manipulate it to suit your needs.

Tell that to the Enron executives, Martha Stewart, and Bill Clinton.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I cannot determine that the universe had a starting point, that fundamental forces can be harnessed and studied using the scientific method, that the earth is the only habitable planet in our solar system, that one cell has more information than a 1,000 volume encyclopedia (by the way information requires an intelligent mind), and that the human brain, heart, mind, and body are so complicated that there is no way that it could have just came into being on its own from inorganic matter?

Argument from personal ignorance

logical fallacy

you must provide evidence that proves definitively that any one of those things you named will forever be unexplainable by natural causes, which is impossible because by definition science cannot say anything definitive about the future,

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]Hypothesis: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them.

My hypothesis is testable. Besides, who invented scientific theory? God? No? Then it is not absolute and is subject to change or modification. [/B]

Basically youre saying:
1.The universe is complicated because its created by an intelligent designer.
2.This intelligent designer exists and the complexity of the universe is proof of its existence.
Therefore, the universe is created by an intelligent designer.

Theres a breakdown of logic right there in #2. Youre mistake is that you use the same unproven assumption in your hypothesis to justify your conclusion without outside, corroborative evidence apart from itself, hence circular reasonong.

Originally posted by inimalist
Argument from personal ignorance

logical fallacy

you must provide evidence that proves definitively that any one of those things you named will forever be unexplainable by natural causes, which is impossible because by definition science cannot say anything definitive about the future,

Ignorance about what? What logical fallacy? Do evolutionists have definitive evidence of macroevolution? Wait...they don't have any evidence of macroevolution (they would need billions of years for this) and yet evolution is hailed as the dominant theory to explain the origin of life. They have violated scientific theory shamelessly and yet they walk around acting as though they have actually accomplished something. They have not proven definitively, conclusively, or even feasibly that macroevolution is possible let alone that it has occurred. They would rather believe a hoax than concede that God is responsible for life's complication and the universe's complexity (they would probably rather die than admit this).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Tell that to the Enron executives, Martha Stewart, and Bill Clinton.

Now are they scientists? lolz no.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Ignorance about what? What logical fallacy? Do evolutionists have definitive evidence of macroevolution? Wait...they don't have[B] any evidence of macroevolution (they would need billions of years for this) and yet evolution is hailed as the dominant theory to explain the origin of life. They have violated scientific theory shamelessly and yet they walk around acting as though they have actually accomplished something. They have not proven definitively, conclusively, or even feasibly that macroevolution is possible let alone that it has occurred. They would rather believe a hoax than concede that God is responsible for life's complication and the universe's complexity (they would probably rather die than admit this). [/B]

this is not evidence for why life cannot possibly be of natural origin

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Now are they scientists? lolz no.

Originally posted by Templares
Basically youre saying:
1.The universe is complicated because its created by an intelligent designer.
2.This intelligent designer exists and the complexity of the universe is proof of its existence.
Therefore, the universe is created by an intelligent designer.

Theres a breakdown of logic right there in #2. Youre mistake is that you use the same unproven assumption in your hypothesis to justify your conclusion without outside, corroborative evidence apart from itself, hence circular reasonong.

No, I am hypothesizing that the universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. show evidence of design because they are very complicated (that is how I should have phrased it).

As far as #2 is concerned, I concur. No, you have failed to include my statement relative to experiment or observation.

[COLOR=blue]Experiment or Observation : Analyze the universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc.

Objective analysis, examination, and study is not based on assumption, but on impartial, indifferent, research. My conclusion will be based on the results of my experiments. [/COLOR]