So, lets throw out religion

[The Terrible Sweal]

What test could you run on the cake to find out why it was made? ... By the way it is a birthday cake for a family. The cake was made to make a little girl feel special and her mom new chocolate was her favorite.

You presume that science has to confine itself to investigating only the cake. Your question ... why the cake is there quite obviously implies data outside of the cake itself. Science could, presumably, ask the family in whose proximity the cake was found.

[willy]

Ask the family? They would offer opinions as to why but that would not be quantifiable or testable.

The only reason that you say the family is because I stated why the cake. If I did not give the why, you would not know to ask about a family or any other relationship for that matter.

The measurement and testing in science is limited to the data set that judgments deem related. This is always bounded by the person measuring. My point is that studying a subject i.e. the cake will never tell you why the cake.

Change of pace and unrelated to the cake question.

Test fun. Test happy. Test sadness. Pure observation will not work. Tears can be caused by many things. The science of people is tough. We can relate to these emotions so adjectives describe the study of these emotions. Studies also offer descriptions of behaviours that would suggest theses emotions. The study becomes as much about the studiers experience as it is about the subject.

So when an atheist studies a religious culture they come to many different conclusions than if a person of faith would if they were to study the same thing.

Scientific method works well with chemistry, physics, geography, but the study of people is not consistent.

The control group is never the same. The theories have too many exemptions.

[Tawasakm]

Ask the family? They would offer opinions as to why but that would not be quantifiable or testable.

The family could give details about how they made the cake. Those claims could be tested by replicating the procedure. No reason that can't be quantified.

The measurement and testing in science is limited to the data set that judgments deem related.

Science is always open to new information and theories and will be updated to conform with the best available evidence of the time. It is self correcting. A community of scientists ensures that relationships are explored which one individual may miss.

My point is that studying a subject i.e. the cake will never tell you why the cake.

I'm not sure I see the point of that. Volcanos don't talk to us either. Nevertheless information is gathered about them. Also, as I said before, science isn't isolated to a few highly specific investigations. There is a large and diverse body of knowledge to draw on.

Test fun. Test happy. Test sadness. Pure observation will not work.

I think human emotion and experience is quantifiable. I agree with you, however, insofar as believing that it is not as accurate as other fields.

The study becomes as much about the studiers experience as it is about the subject.

Arguably almost everything in life is like that.

So when an atheist studies a religious culture they come to many different conclusions than if a person of faith would if they were to study the same thing.

Granted. They are working with different presuppositions. This does no really indicate that the religious mind has come up with something that is truely more meaningful however.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Ask the family? They would offer opinions as to why but that would not be quantifiable or testable.

Asking them and keeping track IS quantifing and testing. You are interested in thier intentions, right?

My point is that studying a subject i.e. the cake will never tell you why the cake.

I'm aware of your point, but it is a point based on an inappropriately reductionist conception of the issue. You have a cake-- you ask Why the cake. Science can provide you an answer if you look at the environment of the cake and identify the actors who caused the cake. In short, there is no particular basis to confine science to examining only the cake.

[Tawasakm]

This thread seems to have lost impetus. Why don't we try expanding the subject matter a little? I originally created this hypothetical to isolate the more practical aspects of the religious debate. I was specifically avoiding any debates over creation etc which this argument normally seems to centre around.

Since it appears that we have exhausted the area I was hoping to isolate lets remove that restriction. If God, the Bible, creation and so forth can be proven then the hypothetical society is an automatic failure. So lets see people prove their religion as 'the truth'.

[Tawasakm]

I didn't actually kill this thread by proposing these changes did I? Do you all want to go back to the hypothetical as it was?

[lowly_caterpillar]

First of all you all wasted a butload of your time discussing a damn cake! geez and i wasted my time readingt that dribble. I actually appreciated willy's original post of the cake, but you others were scrambling with rebuttle. Here's mine.

Religion doesn't do explain "why" either, , it explains emotions, but doesnt back them up with reason any more than science would be able to, thats what makes us humans human, that unexplainable aspect, we would suck as a race and probably all commit suicide if we were able to explain everything. Please Tawasakm , TS or willy, find me a satisfactory reason religious or scientific for why people love.

[lowly_caterpillar]

Are you ready i'm gonna get gushy now!

Love is metaphysical, metaphysical is beautiful why cant we leave well enough alone?

[Tawasakm]

First of all you all wasted a butload of your time discussing a damn cake! geez and i wasted my time readingt that dribble. I actually appreciated willy's original post of the cake, but you others were scrambling with rebuttle.

The cake was representative of what Willy saw as a flaw in science. We weren't talking about the cake so much as the concepts behind it. Think a little deeper. You wasted your time reading our dribble did you? You aren't compelled to read it. You have a problem with our posts being full of rebuttals? We aren't allowed to rebut someone elses arguments?

So far as this thread is concerned lowly_caterpillar I am not responding to you anymore. You seem to have an attitude that we can't rebut, use metaphors, you judge this discussion 'futile' and 'dribble' without justification or reference to the merits of particular arguments. I will reciprocate your lack of respect by dismissing your posts from mind.

[lowly_caterpillar]

oops hope no one read that

[lowly_caterpillar]

im a bit of a jekyll/hyde, please excuse the irrelevance of this post

[The_end_of_continuity]

Forgive me if I butcher this discussion, but to me, the problem seems to be with mankind's addiction to the quick-fix solutions.

To my untrained eye, the real problem isn't about faith or divinity. It's about fear and the unknown, or more correctly, fear of the unknown.

Man has always been, and will always be afraid of the unknown. That's a given, but with applied science, we've broken many of the barriers that caged us. Medicine and Engineering to name a couple of the big ones .

However, what about what science can't explain? How do we put the fear of that unknown to rest?

The truth is that we can't. So what happens? Some enterprising chap comes up with the idea of creating some benevolent father figure to give us comfort and an explanation for the inexplicable. The genius of the idea is that it can't be proven wrong. But if it can't be proven wrong, then surely it can't be proven right? Ah. He covered that base as well. The answer being faith.

So we follow this idea, and soon the idea becomes an institution. Organized religion is born, and for thousands of years, it has remained a significant factor in the life of man. Even in this civilized world, organisations that are thousands of years old, still hold sway in the hearts and minds of many. It's been bred into us, this crutch of ours, and God forbid (no pun intended), that it be taken away, what then? How would we go about our lives?

Easy for the atheists, agnostics and secret skeptics. But what about the genuine bible bashers?

So to state the obvious, we've gotten ourselves into this mess by listening to the select few, who've nicely consolidated their own powerbase. How do we get out of this one?

[shackwacky]

Pennsylvania Parents Challenge Schoolboard

So creation-light is apparently not working either.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'd be interested to see somebody make a strong effort at making an empirical argument on intelligent design. So far all I ever see is the deductive negative argument ... it could not be otherwise.

btw, a Panda's critique

[Guest eureka]

TS:

I don't know whether there is anything on the Web, but try researching Anthony Flew. Flew is a British philosopher who has been one of the major atheistic thinkers for 50 years.

He recently announced his conversion to a belief in a God because of the complexity of existence and his new conviction that there has to be Intelligent Design.

I know little about it other than that and I do not know whether his belief extends to more than the existence of a creator.

[Tawasakm]

I'd be interested to see somebody make a strong effort at making an empirical argument on intelligent design. So far all I ever see is the deductive negative argument ... it could not be otherwise.

I came across a rather succint argument here. which is another of your deductive negative arguments. I would be most interested to garner your thoughts on it.

[Tawasakm]

To my untrained eye, the real problem isn't about faith or divinity. It's about fear and the unknown, or more correctly, fear of the unknown.

As I see it this at the core of a great many thing in this world of ours. How to conquer fear?

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'd be interested to see somebody make a strong effort at making an empirical argument on intelligent design. So far all I ever see is the deductive negative argument ... it could not be otherwise.

I came across a rather succint argument here. which is another of your deductive negative arguments. I would be most interested to garner your thoughts on it.

It's an interesting proof, and valid in a way, but the proposed conclusion goes further than the argument supports, to whit:

Since the Universe had a beginning, and its matter and energy could not have arisen within itself, then it must have come into it from outside itself, from outside nature itself. That which is outside nature is the Supernatural. Thus the production of matter and energy within the Universe had a Supernatural Source.

The flaw with that is the unwarranted insertion of the term 'nature', and the consequent assertion of something 'supernatural'.

What basis is there to assert that the universe is the sum total of what is 'natural'? Why assume that what is outside the universe (as defined) is not 'natural'.

Without a developed understanding for the term 'nature', all this argument does is prove that the universe must have had a beginning from a 'super-universal' source. Which, 'begining' being what it is, is merely axiomatic.

Of course there is also the possiblity that the explicit assumptions of the argument (i.e. the laws of thermodynamics) are not all they are cracked up to be, but that's a different issue.

[Guest eureka]

This way lies insanity. I gave up speculation long ago to save my head from exploding. However, these are interesting thoughts.

[Canadian Patriot]

You know the bible and all these books have been edited so many times it is absolutly ridiculus.

I stopped beleiving fairy tales guys. Religeon causes nothing but pain and suffering.

through out the ages religeon has been used to rage war. Each religeon beleives theirs is the true religeon and have superior Gods.

If ones wrong aren't they all.