Are the assumptions of science justified?

[Metacrock]

specifically empirical observation and verification.

So not on the same grounds as the assumptions of science, which are based solidly on testing of predictions.

testing is not an assumption it is based upon assumptions that involve empirical observation, this is more basic to science even than testing,

Of course we would have to make predictions that some chance of being negated. Predictions about the informative effects of experience could be negated. I mean by that falsified.

So what are you saying are the predictions here? If mystical experiences come from God then..?

the effects they have upon those who have them

(1) Tillich's correlation
...
Predictions about the informative effects of experience could be negated. I mean by that falsified.

So nothing actually specific about doctrine. No surprise there then.

are you even willing to think about it?

Sure.

he subjected doctrine to that criterion

Are you? I ask, because your response about Tillich's correlation has nothing to do with Tillich's correlation. It is not my job to suggest how Tillich's correlation relates to your claim. You made the claim, the onus is on you to support it

.

why din;t it ? I think you just don't know enough about or you don't want to see it, that's it thi all very obvious you just don't want to see it,

Doesn't have to be specifically for humanity to be fine tinned or life bearing. We can also predict that intelligent life will be extremely rare,

Sure, we can "predict" that the universe will be just like this.

when we have something to predict you act like it's really no big deal as though you didn't demand predictions,

That is quite different to how the assumptions of science are justified, however. Those assumptions are based on predictions that are necessary consequences of the hypothesis.

That is right in one with the correlation it is a scientific procedure, you just don't want it see it that way you exaggerating differences to desultory the analogy,

Your prediction is based on what you want the theory to predict to justify it.

no not an assumption but a dataum

It's based upon theological perimeters what eases should it be based upon? ,we are talking theology, your scientism leads you to impose that it be a total duplicate of since because that is what you think knowledge is. you can't allow any other kind of knowledge to exist.

So why list is as an assumption?

I think any honest person could see immediately see the salient features of sicence in the empirical approach but your ideology wont let you acknowledged it,

It doesn't have to use the same methodology because that's not the grounds. on the grounds means general principle of empirical observation and that entails a degree of falsifiability. you are threatened by this because it marks a depth you didn't expect to find that makes you angry you have to bash it, to do that have to make extreme comparisons amd reject general general comparisions between the two but it's really not reasonable.

I am not saying religion is science so it does't have to be.
but it does have some things working for it you would expect only science to have.

So when you said "the assumptions of science are justified but many assumptions of theism are justified on the same grounds" you meant grounds that look similar at a casual glance, but actually are not.

Which is what I thought from the start.

do you not know words like general principle? you realistically that it is scientific and you can't stand that it is so you are to contrast any little difference you can ignore the analogous aspects,

[Metacrock]

you never deal with the initial arguments on the terns they were given you try to transmogrify all inquiry to yuor party line so you can deal with it according to the truth regieme

[sgttomas]

For Metacrock.... viewtopic.php?f=3&t=160#p1926

[Metacrock]

why don't you think my answers and those of wordgazer worked?

[The Pixie]

testing is not an assumption it is based upon assumptions that involve empirical observation, this is more basic to science even than testing,

Testing the predictions is how the assumptions are justified. In science, anyway.

So what are you saying are the predictions here? If mystical experiences come from God then..?

the effects they have upon those who have them

So what is the prediction? If mystical experiences come from God then they have effects upon those who have them?

(1) Tillich's correlation
...
he subjected doctrine to that criterion

So give one prediction.

I do not think you can. Further, I am pretty sure you know you cannot, which is why you are dancing around it so much.

why din;t it ? I think you just don't know enough about or you don't want to see it, that's it thi all very obvious you just don't want to see it,

As I said, dancing around it so much...

Metacrock: Doesn't have to be specifically for humanity to be fine tinned or life bearing. We can also predict that intelligent life will be extremely rare,

Pix: Sure, we can "predict" that the universe will be just like this.

Metacrock: when we have something to predict you act like it's really no big deal as though you didn't demand predictions,

What I am asking for is bold predictions that are a necessary consequence of the hypothesis.

If the hypothesis is that the universe was designed and created for intelligent life, then a prediction from that would be that the universe would be convivial for intelligent life.

And that is not the case.The vast majority of the universe is deadly to intelligent life (of course, you could say it is possible intelligent life could exist in any conditions, but then your prediction is nonsense).

That is right in one with the correlation it is a scientific procedure, you just don't want it see it that way you exaggerating differences to desultory the analogy,

If you believe a correlation is a prediction, then show it. Show that it is a necessary consequent of the theory.

It's based upon theological perimeters what eases should it be based upon? ,we are talking theology, your scientism leads you to impose that it be a total duplicate of since because that is what you think knowledge is. you can't allow any other kind of knowledge to exist.

And there it is. It was bound to happen.

Metacrock, you said many assumptions of theology are based on the same grounds as those of science. Why are you now objecting if I challenge that claim?

So why list is as an assumption?

I think any honest person could see immediately see the salient features of sicence in the empirical approach but your ideology wont let you acknowledged it,

Any honest person would answer the direct question. Why did you list it as an assumption if you do not think it is an assumption?

Sad that your duplicity has led to you questioning my honesty.

It doesn't have to use the same methodology because that's not the grounds. on the grounds means general principle of empirical observation and that entails a degree of falsifiability. you are threatened by this because it marks a depth you didn't expect to find that makes you angry you have to bash it, to do that have to make extreme comparisons amd reject general general comparisions between the two but it's really not reasonable.

I am not saying religion is science so it does't have to be.
but it does have some things working for it you would expect only science to have.

So can we agree that the assumptions of theology - unlike those of science - are not based on the grounds of extensive testing of bold predictions?

[met]

Okay, so what is the assumption here? Is the assumption that God created the universe especially for mankind? If so, then the prediction would be a universe we can inhabit, not a universe where 99.99999+% is deadly to us. ?

Why? Because if God is not a total candy-machine, then there is no God? If it's not entirely about us (at least the end) then there is no God?

If the universe was designed and created for us, then yes, God is, in effect, a total candy machine.

Otherwise, talk me through it. What is the prediction?

How about "a universe where mankind [sic] gets an opportunity to have a place if they don't blow it?"

How does that explain why 99.99999+% of the universe that God designed especially for us is deadly to us? Do we get the ability to breathe vacuum and ignore hard radiation if we do not blow it?

So an assumption of theology is the empirical sense of God's presence? What predictions do you draw from that assumption? How have they been con firmed

Cf Meta's book....

Read the book, and get back tp me when you can tell me how he drew predictions from the hypothesis.

In social sciences, sometimes you can't do that? You can't always induce conditions In people - like, say PTSD - just to test a hypothesis constructively, so you have to proceed by observations and/or sometimes self-reporting only. But ironically, in Meta's case he was actually looking at whether "induced experiences" of a certain kinds had the same effect as "naturally occurring" ones.....

As far as the fine tuning point goes, a certain version Of God - one with SOME benevolence but also some Otherness - might have created an environment much vaster than necessary, and also unapproachable, as a demonstration of that difference or Otherness - of his or her transcendence of the much tinier, livable portion given to the creations for their concerns?

[The Pixie]

In social sciences, sometimes you can't do that? You can't always induce conditions In people - like, say PTSD - just to test a hypothesis constructively, so you have to proceed by observations and/or sometimes self-reporting only. But ironically, in Meta's case he was actually looking at whether "induced experiences" of a certain kinds had the same effect as "naturally occurring" ones.....

I agree that some things are not amenable to the scientific method, however Metacrock said many assumptions are grounded in the same way as those in science.

As far as the fine tuning point goes, a certain version Of God - one with SOME benevolence but also some Otherness - might have created an environment much vaster than necessary, and also unapproachable, as a demonstration of that difference or Otherness - of his or her transcendence of the much tinier, livable portion given to the creations for their concerns?

I am not saying theology cannot explain the vastness of the universe - I have no doubt theology can explain anything. The issue is what fine-tuning predicts.

The fine-tuning argument is based on the assumption that the universe was designed for intelligent life, and the prediction from that is that the universe will be conducive to intelligent life, and that is clearly not the case. Of course, you can carefully design your hypothesis to reflect what we see in the universe, but at that point what we see in the universe stops being a prediction (I could as readily "predict" that the next thing you pick up will be the next thing you pick up).

This is a fundamental difference between science and theology. While theology is capable of explaining anything by saying God did it, science does not merely make predictions, it makes bold predictions, i.e., it makes predictions that we might reasonably expect to be wrong.

[sgttomas]

why don't you think my answers and those of wordgazer worked?

No....that's not what I'm saying.

[met]

In social sciences, sometimes you can't do that? You can't always induce conditions In people - like, say PTSD - just to test a hypothesis constructively, so you have to proceed by observations and/or sometimes self-reporting only. But ironically, in Meta's case he was actually looking at whether "induced experiences" of a certain kinds had the same effect as "naturally occurring" ones.....

I agree that some things are not amenable to the scientific method, however Metacrock said many assumptions are grounded in the same way as those in science.

As far as the fine tuning point goes, a certain version Of God - one with SOME benevolence but also some Otherness - might have created an environment much vaster than necessary, and also unapproachable, as a demonstration of that difference or Otherness - of his or her transcendence of the much tinier, livable portion given to the creations for their concerns?

I am not saying theology cannot explain the vastness of the universe - I have no doubt theology can explain anything. The issue is what fine-tuning predicts.

The fine-tuning argument is based on the assumption that the universe was designed for intelligent life, and the prediction from that is that the universe will be conducive to intelligent life, and that is clearly not the case. Of course, you can carefully design your hypothesis to reflect what we see in the universe, but at that point what we see in the universe stops being a prediction (I could as readily "predict" that the next thing you pick up will be the next thing you pick up).

This is a fundamental difference between science and theology. While theology is capable of explaining anything by saying God did it, science does not merely make predictions, it makes bold predictions, i.e., it makes predictions that we might reasonably expect to be wrong.

I think you've put the fine tuning argument in too simplistic a form. First, cosmology proceeds like some forms of social science from pure observation, not experimentally and predictively, as we can't construct our own controlled universes for testing purposes, and even if we could, well then it still might be problematic, since at best, we could ONLY construct the types of universes that WERE designed by intelligent agents, no?

Fine-tuning really doesn't make the wider claim that "everything was made for us", but only that, in observation of the twin facts that we do exist, and that certain universal parameters would seem to have to be very precisely just what they are to allow that, then the positing of some kind of "intention" behind the construction of such a universe - one that lets sentience arise to ponder this question at all - seems a reasonable theory....