If the Bible was written by God..

IMHO... good post Deckel.

 

Yes, they are taken for granted as the basis of science. It would be counterproductive to have to establish the underlying "objective reality" and its associated natural laws with every hypothesis and experiment. Therefore you can consider these assumptions to be universally agreed upon within the scientific community. Given the results using such assumptions, your semantic argument holds no water.

IIRC, you also have a hard time grasping the difference between the generic use of the word theory and a scientific theory. In this regard your assumption of equivalency is not valid. OTOH, A scientist's assumption that a red hot burner will burn bare skin is valid. Bet you can't spot the difference.

You

 

Given the rules behind the scientific method, the argument I presented points out that along with the numerous hypotheses is also found the attribute of hypocrisy. It is OK for the scientific community to make assumptions, but never OK for others to make assumptions. Being that the scientific community was founded upon assumptions, it is also counterproductive to attempt to force others to agree with those assumptions. Also, you have presented the matter of an appeal to popularity in saying that "you can consider these assumptions to be universally agreed upon within the scientific community." By asking me to do so, you are also making an assumption that I should be overwhelmed and concede the argument due to its alleged popularity. Some scientists do not agree with some of the foundation assumptions of science.

'theory' and "scientific theory" are two horses of a different color. The color changed when you added word 'scientific'. In this regard your assumption of equivalency is not valid.

 

No, assumptions can and are made by the non-scientific community. Without them, our civilization could not function. I fail to see how educating people about science is counterproductive.

No, I didn't present such a fallacy. I merely pointed out that the set of assumptions about objective reality that underlies all of science and almost all human endeavor is not only consensus, but time and again proven to be accurate.

the few scientists that may challenge these assumptions are actually doing science.

OTOH, such ruminations about the assumptions are best left to philosophers - most of whom are not scientists as well.

If I had the energy I'd go back to our various discussions on this subject. I guess you can't spot the difference.

 

What that principle does is cause the people to believe a lie. The lie is the scientific community declaring or leading people to believe that 'objective reality' actually does exist, when the scientific community has no clue as to whether or not objective reality does exist.

Then why have the assumptions not been removed? The assumptions have not been removed because the scientific community has not proven that objective reality does exist. Where is the proof that would dissolve the assumptions? Proof = evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

Well, then it would appear that the remainder of the scientific community are not doing science.

And the scientists cannot answer such questions as 'why was life formed?' In fact, the scientists cannot even agree on a suitable definition of 'life'. So, the philosophers of science play an important role for the scientists who cannot answer such questions. In regard to 'assumptions': http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_13
"Nevertheless, when evaluating an idea in light of test results, it's important to keep in mind the test's assumptions and how well-supported they are. If an expectation generated by an idea is not borne out in a test, it might be because the idea is wrong and should be rejected, or it might be that the idea is right, but an assumption of the test has been violated. And if the test results end up lending support to the idea, it might be because the idea is correct and should be accepted, or it might be because a violated assumption has produced a false positive result. "

I would ask, in view of the above presented information: What tests have been made to prove the existence of 'objective reality'?

Your guess is wrong, as I presented the difference. One included a descriptive adjective "scientific".

 

Now that is funny. Somebody around here certainly has no clue.
The scientific community does have rather a more than just a clue that "objective reality" exists. There is a planet full of evidence to support the existence of objective reality.
Seems you can't tell the difference between philosophy and science.

You seem to feel that an assumption cannot be proven. An assumption is not necessarily a supposition. As for your "compels the mind" argument, nothing like cherry picking a definition from a long list while suggesting that is the only possible definition, despite its actual use.

Proof: noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.

As if you would know.

What tests? Considering that we are surrounded by the results of the application of our understanding of objective reality, take your pick. Perhaps you can figure out why the application of laws such as thermodynamics, motion and gravity, or the theory of relativity have helped create our entire civilization.

Well, I am glad that you have finally achieved an understanding of the difference along the way.

 

I posted a couple of days ago this: Can you give us some examples of scientific falsehoods in the Bible? I don't think you replied.

 

The theory of relativity is being blown out of the water more and more especially by quantum physics (no, I do not understand "entanglement") and with new experiments in the Hadron Collider. It is time to lay the theory to rest, and Einstein with it.

 

plants could not survive without the Sun, and yet plants were created before the Sun

 

Then explain what 'objective reality' is other than a 'planet full of evidence'.

So are you attempting to convince others or yourself that you have the ability to know what I feel? Your use of the term 'seem' would indicate that there is a level of guesswork going on in that mind of yours.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof
"proof
n.1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

3. a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
5. Law a. The establishment of the truth or falsity of an allegation by evidence.
b. The evidence offered in support of or in contravention of an allegation.

6. The alcoholic strength of a liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present.
7. Printing a. A trial sheet of printed material that is made to be checked and corrected. Also called proof sheet.
b. A trial impression of a plate, stone, or block taken at any of various stages in engraving.

8. a. A trial photographic print.
b. Any of a limited number of newly minted coins or medals struck as specimens and for collectors from a new die on a polished planchet.

9. Archaic Proven impenetrability: "I was clothed in Armor of proof" (John Bunyan)."

Gee... it looks like we are both guilty of 'cherry picking' a dictionary: so which selection of the dictionary is more accurate... mine, yours, or that of someone else?

Based on your previous comment, I do know what those other scientists are doing.

If you have such an understanding of what 'objective reality' is, then why do you continue to evade the request for you to provide "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. " or why do you continue to evade the request for you to provide " The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."?

Along the way? That is also an assumption on your part which is beyond your capability to show PROOF.

 

Sorry, 'and God said let there be light, and there was light.' Genesis 1:3
Before he put plants on the earth.

Is this the only example you can come up with????? Your entire thread is based on this example?

 

Science is not about what people say they believe.

 

Now that is some kinda rocket surgery.

 

Are you suggesting that scientists do not believe what they say they are doing?

 

Well we can start with the computer in front of you as evidence of objective reality.
We can follow that to the plug in the wall.
We can follow the wires in the plug all the way back to a power transformer.
We can follow the power transformer all the way back noting the various distribution control mechanisms to a power generator.

Or go walk to a hospital along the sidewalk made of concrete, and upon arriving examine the multiplicity of diagnostic equipment available.

Its called the world beyond the end of your nose.

No, not at all. It is an observation based on your comments. I used the term "seem" because I don't have the ability to know what you feel. For somebody who retreats to semantic arguments ad nauseum, its ironic how you misinterpret simple English so regularly.

I guess context isn't a big thing with you. And no, I am not cherry picking. I am applying an appropriate definition of the word based on its contextual use. You should try it some time.

I admire the ability to leap huge logical chasms in a single bound.

I did provide proof.

Take a red hot burner, place bare hand on said burner, observe reaction. Repeat until hand is wholly carbonized. Get back to me if it worked.

Not at all beyond my capability, merely my interest.

 

Incorrect as I made my ignorance clear then I asked you clarifying questions that you then dodged.

Moot point as I am not a Christian. How do you objectively tell if another has the holy spirit in them? How do you make such an assessment without bias tainting your objectivity? By what authority do you make such assessments of others? Do you believe your assessment to be any more valid than the assessment of other Christians? If different Christians come to different conclusions on the subject of the holy spirit then how is it decided for all who is right and by what authority?

 

Not a moot point, as you also professed to having been a Christian at an earlier point in your life. So, as a former Christian, you should know the answers to those questions. Or, was your claim to having been a Christian a false claim on your part?

 

The bible was suposed to be all that (perfect and written by a perfect being) but once people were no longer able to deny its flaws, suddenly it was written by men, without divine intervention and can't be taken literaly, etc.

Still, it is a great book, with great stories and parables, some of which if they weren't rewritten or discribed in the bible we would forget about, and forgetting/losing history isn't good.

 

Says who and by what authority? Again you dodged the five questions I asked you.

There is no binary either "or" as I am not confined by the box of your thinking.

 

Yet you dodge the issue of you having declared previously that you were a Christian, which is at the basis of this discussion.

 

lol, you do not get to decide for me what the basis of this discussion is.

 

It is my choice on what points you have made that I will challenge you on.... thus it is my choice. You cannot dictate to me what points I can challenge you on.

 

People being turned into pillars of salt?

A single boat that held 2 of every species in the world for months on end? How could Noah tell the difference between a male gnat and female gnat? How did he get their little legs apart?

How do you suppose 2 koalas got all the way from Turkey to Australia, across all those mountains, valleys, rivers and ocean before they even mated?

 

are you questioning the power of God????

 

Do you believe that a man lived inside a big fish, or a whale? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious.