Against Objectivity

[Mountain Man]

You are classically misrepresenting the scientific view as to what constitute a beginning. Virtually all scientist endorse the view that our universe began from a preexisting cosmos.

That doesn't solve the problem. Positing an infinite regress flies in the face of "settled science" and is philosophically incoherent. Even the multiverse hypothesis is untenable because we would necessarily have evidence of it if it existed since a multiverse would interact with our own in unpredictable and unexplainable ways.

[shunyadragon]

I love how skeptics will preach about "settled science" until it's something that could be used to defend theism, then they suddenly start crying about how "We don't know!"

Science is not based on what we "know" or "do not know" it is based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis with objective verifiable evidence.

Fortunately science will never be "settled."

[MaxVel]

Science is not based on what we "know" or "do not know" it is based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis with objective verifiable evidence.

Fortunately science will never be "settled."

Tell that to Tassman, you climate change skeptic.

[shunyadragon]

Tell that to Tassman, you climate change skeptic.

Someone may believe that Climate change is real, and not necessarily make blanket statements that everything is "settled" in science. nor the evidence that human influence on Climate Change cannot be questioned.

I believe that Climate Change 'partially caused by humans' based on the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution is real. I am always open to evidence that this is not the case, but unfortunately the evidence to the contrary is not forthcoming at present. The questioning of the human influence on Climate change needs a good argument and evidence. Like in the case of Evolution argue against the human influence on climate Change have not provide good scientific arguments.

One thing I responded to, which was the original basis of the thread, is that the increase in frequency and intensity is claimed 'by liberals?' to be caused by Global Warming caused by humans and is some how claimed to be 'proven.' This is not true, and science at this point considers it a possibility, but there are other regional factors influence the frequency and intensity over time.

[JimL]

I love how skeptics will preach about "settled science" until it's something that could be used to defend theism, then they suddenly start crying about how "We don't know!"

Science can't tell us anything about that which is beyond our ability to observe, which means it isn't settled science, it isn't knowledge of any kind, and can't be used to defend theism or anything else.

[Doug Shaver]

I love how skeptics will preach about "settled science" until it's something that could be used to defend theism, then they suddenly start crying about how "We don't know!"

That's always a problem with arguments from authority. The authorities sometimes don't say what you want them to say.

[Tassman]

But those are fringe views, the mainstream of science supports the Big Bang.

Certainly all our knowledge is probabilistic.

Indeed, but much science has been validated to such a degree that we can reasonably act as if is proven...to the extent that e can put a man on the moon.

I note that you skipped the origin of life!

... is merely god-of-the-gaps argument, and they never end well for the proponents.

And fine tuning is not fallacious, it is simply the result of asking what would happen if we varied various physical quantities.

[Mountain Man]

Science can't tell us anything about that which is beyond our ability to observe, which means it isn't settled science, it isn't knowledge of any kind, and can't be used to defend theism or anything else.

It's OK, Jimmy, Doug Shaver got it.

[lee_merrill]

... our universe may be just one of many, perhaps an infinite number, of real, physical universes.

But this is speculative, again, not mainstream science.

More speculation? Evolution of what molecules?

... is merely god-of-the-gaps argument, and they never end well for the proponents.

But origin of life questions are based on what we do know. What we know of natural processes, what we now know of the extraordinary complexity of life.

But the conditions are extremely narrow that support life, and we may wonder why?

Best wishes,
Lee

[Tassman]

But this is speculative, again, not mainstream science.
More speculation? Evolution of what molecules?

But origin of life questions are based on what we do know. What we know of natural processes, what we now know of the extraordinary complexity of life.

But the conditions are extremely narrow that support life, and we may wonder why?

[shunyadragon]

But this is speculative, again, not mainstream science.

Unwarranted is the speculation is that there is a definable first beginning of our physical existence or even our universe supported by mainstream science, for which there are different scenarios in mainstream science none of which support your assertions.

More speculation? Evolution of what molecules?

Amino acids.

But origin of life questions are based on what we do know. What we know of natural processes, what we now know of the extraordinary complexity of life.

What scientific hypothesis concerning the possible origins of life (abiogenesis) is based on sound science, natural laws, and natural processes. The evolution of the complexity of life has been adequately explained by the science of evolution. Intelligent Design arguments for the problem of complexity have not been able to falsify their hypothesis that complexity cannot arise through natural processes of evolution.

But the conditions are extremely narrow that support life, and we may wonder why?

Best wishes,
Lee

Wonder Why?!?!? Natural Law, natural processes give an adequate explanation why, and given the fat that there are literally billions at minimum of possible stars with planets in our galaxy alone, and there are millions of galaxies in our universe, no problem that over time there are and possibly were planets like earth in our universe.

Again, 'arguing from ignorance' does not offer coherent arguments nor answers to questions in science.

[JimL]

It's OK, Jimmy, Doug Shaver got it.

Yeah, unfortunately you didn't.

[JimL]

Unwarranted is the speculation is that there is a definable first beginning of our physical existence or even our universe supported by mainstream science, for which there are different scenarios in mainstream science none of which support your assertions.



Amino acids.



What scientific hypothesis concerning the possible origins of life (abiogenesis) is based on sound science, natural laws, and natural processes. The evolution of the complexity of life has been adequately explained by the science of evolution. Intelligent Design arguments for the problem of complexity have not been able to falsify their hypothesis that complexity cannot arise through natural processes of evolution.



Wonder Why?!?!? Natural Law, natural processes give an adequate explanation why, and given the fat that there are literally billions at minimum of possible stars with planets in our galaxy alone, and there are millions of galaxies in our universe, no problem that over time there are and possibly were planets like earth in our universe.

Again, 'arguing from ignorance' does not offer coherent arguments nor answers to questions in science.

Not to correct you shunya, but just to add a little force to your argument, the estimate is not that there are millions of galaxies in the universe, but that there are at least 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. Highly unlikely that the earth is all that special(except to us of course)when you wrap your head around those figures.

[lee_merrill]

Unwarranted is the speculation is that there is a definable first beginning of our physical existence or even our universe supported by mainstream science, for which there are different scenarios in mainstream science none of which support your assertions.

In mainstream science there is only the inflationary universe, followed by the Big Bang, so the universe had a beginning, in all probability.

Amino acids.

But amino acids don't evolve!

Intelligent Design arguments for the problem of complexity have not been able to falsify their hypothesis that complexity cannot arise through natural processes of evolution.

But they've been able to set probability bounds, Michael Behe draws the line at new protein-protein interactions in the cell.

Wonder Why?!?!? Natural Law, natural processes give an adequate explanation why, and given the fat that there are literally billions at minimum of possible stars with planets in our galaxy alone, and there are millions of galaxies in our universe, no problem that over time there are and possibly were planets like earth in our universe.

Here are some factors that weigh against an earth-like planet, and then you do the math!

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

In mainstream science there is only the inflationary universe, followed by the Big Bang, so the universe had a beginning, in all probability.

This not true for several reasons: (1) ALL the scientists that propose a beginning of our universe 'Big Bang' at t=0, DO NOT propose this is the beginning of our greater cosmos beyond our universe. (2) It is widely held by mainstream scientists that our universe may not have had a beginning.



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...verse.html#jCp

But amino acids don't evolve!

You requested to know, voluntary ignorance, what the chemicals are that are the basis for evolution. I provided the chemicals. I never said amino acids evolved.

But they've been able to set probability bounds, Michael Behe draws the line at new protein-protein interactions in the cell.

Here are some factors that weigh against an earth-like planet, and then you do the math!