The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

1a.  You said the first observation was "matter cannot be created physically".  

1b.  (I don't think this could possibly be an "observation" in the way we ought to be using it here, but I'll pretend it is for 2-6.)  

2.  You said that the second observation was "matter is being created" (that ends up in the physical realm, I presume)

3.  You said that these two observations are not contradictory.  

4a.  "physically" may mean simply that it exists

4b.  "physically" may refer to the idea that it complies with the laws of physics

4c.  I don't think another meaning makes sense, because if you were trying to say e.g. that it is not possible for a being or force of this universe to do it but it was done anyway, that is a contradiction because acting in this universe makes it "of this universe" IMO

5.  In the case of 4a, the two observations are contradictory because obviously matter has entered into physical existence

6.  In the case of 4b, the second observation would simply mean that the laws of physics are wrong and science must go back to the drawing board for an explanation.  

7.  Regarding induction/deduction:  

7a.  You said "it lays out my case for the deduction of the supernatural."  I presume this meant "... by science" in accordance with your overall stated objective in this discussion.  

7b.  You then used induction.  

7c.  Even if you are correct that using induction is in accordance with science, you are wrong to claim that you have used science to DEDUCE anything when you have in fact INDUCED something instead.  You may, however, deduce a successful induction based on that, but that would simply be saying QED (or worse, repeating yourself), now wouldn't it?  

8.  Regarding that another universe could be considered "supernatural":

8a.  Good point, but are you satisfied then that science could never ever ever ever conclude that God existed because of the possibility of other universes messing with us?  

9.  Regarding the idea of pretending that other universes have been mathematically ruled out:  

9a.  Didn't the original challenge involve your scenario 'being hypothetical but possible'?  If so, this means that I cannot accept pretended restrictions such as this -- you would have to actually rule out the possibility of other universes, since we don't know whether what you would pretend is possible.  1a.  You said the first observation was "matter cannot be created physically".  

1b.  (I don't think this could possibly be an "observation" in the way we ought to be using it here, but I'll pretend it is for 2-6.)  

2.  You said that the second observation was "matter is being created" (that ends up in the physical realm, I presume)

3.  You said that these two observations are not contradictory.  

4a.  "physically" may mean simply that it now exists in actuality.  
4b.  "physically" may refer to the idea that it complies with the laws of physics.  
4c.  I don't think another meaning makes sense, because if you were trying to say e.g. that it is not possible for a being or force of this universe to do it but it was done anyway, that is a contradiction because acting in this universe makes it "of this universe" IMO

5.  In the case of 4a, the two observations are contradictory because obviously matter has entered into physical existence

6.  In the case of 4b, the second observation would simply mean that the laws of physics are wrong and science must go back to the drawing board for an explanation.  

7.  Regarding induction/deduction:  
7a.  You said "it lays out my case for the deduction of the supernatural."  I presume this meant "... by science" in accordance with your overall stated objective in this discussion.  
7b.  You then used induction.  
7c.  Even if you are correct that using induction is in accordance with science, you are wrong to claim that you have used science to DEDUCE anything when you have in fact INDUCED something instead.  You may, however, deduce a successful induction based on that, but that would simply be saying QED (or worse, repeating yourself), now wouldn't it?  

8.  Regarding that another universe could be considered "supernatural":
8a.  Good point, but are you satisfied then that science could never ever ever ever conclude that God existed because of the possibility of other universes messing with us (lacking mathematical proof of their nonexistence)?  

9.  Regarding the idea of pretending that other universes have been mathematically ruled out:  
9a.  Didn't the original challenge involve your scenario 'being hypothetical but possible'?  If so, this means that I cannot accept pretended restrictions such as this -- you would have to actually rule out the possibility of other universes, since we don't know whether what you would pretend is possible.  

10.  1a is actually pretty important, just a reminder.   

1 a-b. Ok, we'll roll with that.

2. Yes.  That is operating under the supposition that mathematics do not allow for quantum mechanics/multiuniverses.  If you're wondering why I didn't mention that earlier, it's because I think quantum mechanics covers the idea of multiuniverses.  So, if it can't have come from anywhere, then it was created.

3.  Correct.

4,5,6.  It is C; I think it works in that when I say no being or force of this realm can do it, I'm not saying no being or force at all can do it.  As for that being/force acting in the physical, why does that make it physical?  This is how the observations are not contradictory.

7. Deduction never has anything to do with how you arrived at the premesise (spelling?); only that it follows from them.  In the case of science, I show it making two inductions, then showing the necessary consequence of those inductions (assumptions).

8. I'm not sure I understand you here quite: Science will never be sure of anything (heck, you know what I think of empiricism at all ;)  ),  Is that what you mean?

9. Possible in the sense that it uses the tools and methods of science, that is.  What our universe really is I'm not using as part of my argument against "science cannot ever, in any way, conclude supernatural".

10. Noted.

4.  What acts in the physical is physical.  

7.  You said (it seemed to me), 'I will be scientifically deducing the supernatural'.  Then you said, 'I am now inducing the supernatural'.  That is all.  

8.  You can't conclude the supernatural (excluding other universes) if "other universe(s) messing with us" is just as possible.   

9.  wat (so you're claiming you DO get to pretend whatever mathematical proofs you want for your scenario?)

10.  Please also note my edit:  to wit, I meant to remind you of 1b.