Youtube is too great of a platform/resource. I want to learn something about Epistemology, I type the subject in and here I have a professor give me an brief overview of what it is. Great!
Evolution cannot be known or understood because it does not happen.
Open your eyes. Ordered function in life forms requires a Maker.
Think for yourself. 60 million cubic miles of sediments does not get deposited without a global flood and all those sediments would be in the oceans if the earth was billions of years old.
Observable evidence of a Maker is the ordered functions that most of the most common elements have in life forms? Know that fact.
@JungleJargon Ahhhh! Your sediment claim is an argument for the flood! Okay, I overestimated the sophistication of your argument then. I'm sorry. You kind of have a few other problems with your "flood theory." Where did the water go? To cover the tops of all the mountains, the earth needed about twice as much water as exists today. If it had been in the atmosphere, the earth would have been a giant steam pressure cooker with likely little life.
@JungleJargon This doesn't get into how Noah was able to collect the 40,000 known species of spiders, how the marcupials magically ended up in Australia. And how the heck did an elderly man and his sons end up shovelling the poo of hundreds of thousands of animals.
@JungleJargon if your noah's flood is so true then i ask you how did all the sea animals survive since it rained it would be fresh water and fresh mixing with sea water all the sea cretures we know today would have died so please explain
@mimarp478 Sea life has adapted to present day conditions which are not the same conditions as the conditions at the time of the flood. Life adapts to whatever environment there is and over 90 percent of all llife did *not* survive.
@JungleJargon i think 6000 years ago the sea salinity Would be the same as today salty if the flood did happen all the salt water would be turned into fresh water so why today is the seas salty?
That's right, this is a epistemological issue. All phenomenon whose probabilities points out zero asymptotically must be considered epistemological issue, and its analysis depend on natural principles mainly, instead of natural laws.
The atheists already know that age of universe proposed by them is not enough according calculus of probabilities for origin of life, therefore, origin of life (and other issues related with this) can't be solved by means of natural laws, but by means of principle, such as: causal, change, order...God, God is a necessary principle because we are self-conscious. Principle is a natural behavior which is constant for all natural laws.
I am 100% sure of many things... the Sun radiates electromagnetic energy... the Earth's gravity keeps us from floating into space... the scientific method is the best way we know of to gain understanding of the natural world... and that the basis for religious beliefs is fictitious.
@UncleMatt69 : Natural laws criteria is limited. The atheists already know that age of universe proposed by them is not enough according calculus of probabilities for origin of life, therefore, origin of life (and other issues related with this) can't be solved by means of natural laws, but by means of principle, such as: causal, change, order...God, God is a necessary principle because we are self-conscious. Principle is a natural behavior which is constant for all natural laws.
@mindwis3 : The brain complexity argument to try to explain the self-consciousness is null, because all kind of complexity is based on natural laws, it means, your argument is descriptive. It would be similar to say: my airplane can to fly because it's complex, then anyone could be respond: my TV is complex but it can't to fly. "with a sample set of 1, probability CANNOT be calculated Einstein", That's empirically correct, but it doesn't imply that theoretical analysis can't be made.
@mindwis3 As far as I know the atheists propose that the universe changes unintelligently, or at random..it's perfectly possible to make a calculus of probabilities for origin of life based on random assumption, because at the end of the day, the atheists accept this assumption in spite of randomness doesn't exist.
@mindwis3 the only way to explain the self-consciousness or scientific objectivity is by means of accepting that subatomic particles movements are able to self-set themselves according our will, such way we keep contact with surrounding reality, It means, our environment is changed smartly.
@mindwis3 In fact, my argument is really simple, if our thoughts are being determined by natural laws, then, this discussion is only a huge waste of time. Think it again. Keep in mind, our mind is the starting point of scientific method.
Well, firstoff, you need to demonstrate your presuppositions to be true, but let's play
'our mind is the starting point of scientific method"
yes, but it is NOT the endpoint. Precisely because our mind is the start-point, Science DEMANDS that a position can be demonstrated to be true irrespective of that mind.
Now THAT takes things to whole new level, why you have just degraded your whole worldview to that of everything possibly being imagination.
If science would put boundaries to one's thinking, then Einsteins' relativity theory that debunked more almost two centuries of scientific thinking would not have happened.
As things developed, Newton's mechanics became a more restricted set within Einstein's theory of relativity. That is a "scientific revolution" in the way that Kuhn used the term -a discontinuity in scientific knowledge, or the "epistemology breakthrough" proposed by Gaston Bachelard 20+ years before Kuhn.
"In science you cant really put boundaries around your thinking". Philosophically speaking, this is untrue. Practically speaking, its complete nonsense. Scientists have been bound by the chains of popular thesis' since the origination of the modern scientific process. What the masses call a "scientific breakthrough", learned professors should call "sorting trash from treasure". Human nature, even subconsciously, pulls towards unification which is a natural, instinctive and inescapable boundary.
Revelation 10:11 And they say to me(John), "You must prophesy again with regard to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings."
Is John one of the witnesses?
Check out my favs, especially the one about the stars found in the bible. Pics in those videos of the Sun Moon and Stars are authentic and the end time is drawing. The stars seem to be 11 then 12 and then definitely7. Check out these symbols and signs from heaven.
How hard is it to understand Enough micro = Macro. If one begins walking to the store but doesn't stop. Keeps going to the school but doesn't stop, makes it to the edge of town, then state, then country. then keep going. The store is so far away it is a forgotten place but it is still there.
Can you tell me with 100% certainty that there is no supernatural involvement in the universe? The answer, if you are honest, is NO. Even Richard Dawkins says he can not say for certain there is no God. Now, tell me if science could ever accept a supernatural answer to a question? Again, the answer is NO. So, with this way of thinking, purely naturalistic science will continue searching for an answer it may never find, or worse yet it may get the answer wrong-as is the case of macro evolution.
@MrArphaxad " 100% certainty that there is no supernatural involvement in the universe?" Mr. Arp, Science does not know everything...no one does. The idea is that science continues to investigate and learn, remove theories that become dis-proven. It is our best way to gather & reject/accept facts & theories. If we don't use science to learn and believe we have some book of absolutes...we remain stuck in a world of stagnation and superstition. What is your disagreement with macro? Cheers.
@MrArphaxad supernatural is just a confabulation of somebody, they see something they don't understand it or can't explain it, therefore it must be supernatural (BTW that is an argument from ignorance); saying that you don't know something or how it works is humble but stating that some sort of magic is involved is just plain arrogance from someone who is ignorant and lazy enough to look for an scientific answer. Only crazy people can give you 100% certainty of anything.
Of course this works the other way around. There are boundaries that a naturalistic way of thinking can not cross. If the answers to how the universe sprang into being or the the answer to how life began are answered supernaturally, then science will never find the correct answer to these questions.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and how one knows what they know. Hmm... Apparently it seems obvious that both positions of evolutionism and creationism have the same qualifications: Evolutionism is a study of science that embraces scienctific theories without the bible. They study naturalism, which means that the concept of God is excluded- which further explains the reason behind evolution. Wheras creationists have the bible and base their theories surrounding the bible.
There is also a dogmatic line some people are not willing to cross, called 'philosophical materialism', which relies on strong empiricism: "all knowledge derives from sense perception". But this premise does not itself derive from sense perception! Thus the epistemology at the basis of materialism is self-refuting. The idea that a naturalistic explanation should always be regarded as the only valid one is a philosophical presupposition, which itself needs to be justified epistemologically.
@The1066Al A naturalistic explanation is one which conforms with the laws of nature as they apply to this universe. If there was an occurence that did not align with the laws, then the laws would be re-determined. Therefore everything does and will have a natural explanation.
Let me make a point, that Christian scriptures (as with the scriptures of other religions) are attributed new meanings as humans have become enlightened. Fundamentalists still exist obviously, but largely people try to fit what the evidence supports about the world now with what was written 1500 + years ago. The texts remain unchanged, just because some people may wish it to intend a meaning which is scientifically consistent, doesn't make it so.
I know who I follow - Jesus Christ. Who do you follow? What is the mans name that you follow, because you are following the teachings of a person. Who is he.
@DavidofChrist777 wow thnx for proving Christians are self righteous retards once again, i was a christian once... and actually was considering for some strange reason going to church this weekend... thnx for reminding the church is full of people like you hahahahaha 'god bless' lol!
go follow your carpenter and your god of Abraham who clearly loves child sacrifice
@lagook I would be interested to see any place that has humans that does not have hypocrites? You should still go to Church if you feel compelled to do so. God does not like Child sacrifice, hence his hatred of molech.
Orthodox Chruch also has the oldest monasteries.... which have Jesus's paintings from 2th century..... and many relics....
Orthodox church means spirituality and love. Real orthodox people want peace... They help poor ppl... never killed anybody in the name of the church.... never tortured....
We are the pure Christian Church.... the oldest , the purest..
@nicubucurestiromania Your use of the phrase 'Orthodox Church' is problematic because it is obscure (e.g. what kind and to what degree of love?) and the way in which you use this phrase is very singular, as it hardly reflects the many ways that the phrase 'Orthodox Church' has been used in history.
Nevertheless, let us assume that such people of the Orthodox Church exist. Is this grounds for saying Christianity is true? Obviously not.
@BOULDERDP Forgive me , but I was talking about the Church established by Jesus Christ..... which accepted all Ecumenical Councils.... and which is the Christian-Orthodox Church.... Catholics split from us, mainline-protestants from catholics..... and neo-protestants from ... mainline-p.
Orthodox people never killed ,never attacked/tortured... we were just attacked by Catholics.... Buddhists(mongols) Muslims(Turks)....
@byteresistor ...because they can do whatever they want with no constraints, with no bashfulness... Nobody can trust an atheist.... because with no particular reason he could kill, rob, rape etc etc.
@nicubucurestiromania Then why are there less atheists in prisons than believers? Belief in god certainly didn't stop these religious people from committing those crimes.
But whatever, have fun with your delusions. Look out, the boogeyman is going to get you! Or is it satan?
@nicubucurestiromania There is a significant difference between how a group of people act and whether their claim is true or not. Assuming that all atheists are killers, robbers, etc. (which itself is a weak claim because there is no reason to believe that these qualities are inherent to being an atheist or that every single atheist has one of these qualities), there are no grounds to say that atheism is false.
@Arodinme6 Orthodox Christianity is the oldest. No doubt. If God exists(purportedly)[I surely beleive that God exists] then this is certainly the true Church. God exists... because there are enough facts to proove this. => Orthodox Christianity is true ... Logical.
It's important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between science and belief systems. Scientific laws and theories are tools used to solve problems. Religions are things you believe in. Evolution is NOT something you believe in. It is a tool used to solve problems... like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.
It is not simply empiricism - that is an erroneous thing. Deductive logic, etc. can be a part of science, as well. A science is simply a compilation of knowledge acquired in any shape and form. It does not need to be solely empirical - it can be deductive. I find her part in video a bit mediocre.
Some Christians do have a strong epistemology for their own philosophical lives.
That is separate from ID, though, and most of the time infinitely better.
religious people are fail, even they know this. Even if there is a god, and there certainly is not, science would explain any god concept. Science would explain its powers etc etc. god didnt make science, science makes gods. fact, these are the facts and they are, and remain undiputed
Part 2 - That is why we have, for example musical forms such as Sonata Form - this gives coherence, meaning, structure and direction to musical events as they proceed temporally. In science, we proceed with clearly circumscribed theories that enable us to discover anomalies that help us then
Part 1 - I don't agree at all with the notion of boundaries as an impediment to inquiry. Any investigations, whether in the domain of science, the arts, and the like, require boundaries as a referential framework against which to measure results. revise our theory.
Note: Method of trying out prayer to contact God. What if they get a response... that is experienced such as a tendenites vanishing instantly after doing so. The phisical evidence plus the prayer experimentation.... denotes an unique form of scientific methodology, which states that sometimes God will respond if He wishes to.
Well, what if there's a secret society of shit running our everything?
Including the board of education? and on the pay roll of my laundered tax dollars, a handful little cockroach disinfo agents posting "whaaaa!" comments in response to this one?
He is just proving that everyone should stay on his/her field. Mr Geologist! Stop making sociography, cause you suck at it! You can keep on saying that you are not comparing, truth is you are...
No connection with fundamentalism.
Terrorists (if it was really Middle Eastern terrorism) don't fight for epistemological reasons, but against corporations from the U. S. and their financial policy. U. S. had the same goals (financial freedom) and same methods ("terrorist" tactics) about 220 years ago.
The 'scientific' approach towards defining reality is based upon inductive logic as well. To presume that there is no 'reality' outside that what exerts an effect on our five senses sets a small framework of thinking. The mind looks for empirical evidence to confirm profitable theories and then experiences them. The dual split experiment in Q-physics confirms that experience conforms itself to reason, not the other way around.
@August1977 , I understand what you're saying. However, I believe the point of empiricism is to make sure that when we trace all of our ideas back, they ultimately need to have a solid foundation in reality. So we start with "the five senses" (or other tools that give us reliable information about the real world), and work from there. What we try not to do is build ideas upon ideas that cannot be traced back to a solid empirical foundation. (Such was the flaw of alchemy, for example).
There is a difference between what's 'out there' (noumenon) and the effect it produces on the senses (phenomenon). The brain processes sensory information on a subconscious level before it becomes cognitive, it can only experience that which is concievable and recognizable. The universe seems ordely because we can only perceive that which is consistent with everything else that we believe and see. If any of this is true then empiricism is as relative as rationalism.
It is right to say we cannot be 100% confident in our senses. There is precious little that we can be 100% confident of. But to say that our senses and our reasoning stand on equal ground is absurd.
For every sense, every instrument, and every mode of reason we must ask: How reliable is it? How well can different people agree? How much room is there for doubt?
Reasoning is an essential tool, to be sure. But our human reasoning is inherently limited, capable of all kinds of errors.
Why is it that we live in a universe where every perceivable phenomenon has a scientific explanation? Is it because we are so smart or is it because the subconscious mind is ignoring all sensory information that doesn't make sense? Note that the visual cortex of the brain shares the same neuro-network with our memory.
"Why is it that we live in a universe where every perceivable phenomenon has a scientific explanation?"
Because there is no supernatural? You'd think that would be readily apparent.
Our five senses are not the limits of our perception. To be sure we cannot perceive anything beyond these five senses, but with technology we can augment our senses and produce interpretable data for phenomena beyond the scope of our senses. Look at the mathematics of something like a tesseract for an example.
There are two ways to study the nature of our universe, one is through physical experiments, the other is by studying the way the brain processes sensory information, the latter one is being ignored by the western scientific community although quantum physics (dual split experiment) definately shows that the anticipation of the observer influences reality. Hypnosis and neurologic studies also show the complex role of the subconcious mind in the ultimate experience of the outside world.
"lthough quantum physics (dual split experiment) definately shows that the anticipation of the observer influences reality."
The quantum split experiment definitely shows no such thing! It proves that particles and waves are inseparable, the concept the act of observing can collapse the wave form probability is VASTLY unproven and we've known this for decades. Read "Unsharp particle-wave duality in a photon split-beam experiment" from Foundations of Physics.
Now, I want to ask you, how *exactly* does studying the way the brain processes sensory information provide relevant information about the nature of the universe?
@August1977 Sorry, this is new age BS. Please give believable references that show that the anticipation of the observer influences reality in the double slit experiment. By the way, it's the "double slit" experiment, not dual split.
prodeathadvocate666, are you OK? Who are you railing against? Relax, take a deep breath, collect your thoughts and learn how to address topics intelligently and godly.
Also, did you join YouTube today with a new username because you're a coward?
It's sad that people all over the world no matter they are Christian or Muslim just believe what they were brought up to believe rather than seek evidence of what they believe in the supernatural.
Ah, if only it was that simple, you could go on believing religion is nothing more than fiction. However, there are millions world wide who grew up budhist, muslim, panthiest who are accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and are willing to die before surrendering their faith. I know you will ignore this fact because it does not fit your world view.
@tohkondanzi "It's sad that people all over the world no matter they are Christian or Muslim just believe what they were brought up to believe rather than seek evidence of what they believe in the supernatural." Spot on Toh. I was once one of them who never questioned what I was told. After investigating the subject I learned that I was believing things that had absolutely no basis in fact. It's no crime to be ignorant, just when one refuses to throw out beliefs that are not factual.
The question on macro-evolution often comes up. People argue that they know micro-evolution occurs (we have proof of that, hyena record), but they don't "believe" in macro-evolution. It doesn't require faith or belief...only reject/accept. Macro is actually just several or more instances of micro-evolution.
science guy, give me the scientific definition of life. You can't do it without describing an inanimate object can you. Why are most species not A-sexual when that is clearly the only possible way reproduction could occur in an evolutionary model. You can't have two distinct organisms magically working together not only for the purpose of reproduction but for pleasures sake. Give me a break. None of this common sense will phase you though, you are brainwashed.
Actually life is defined as a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not.
In regards to sexual/asexual reproduction there are actually a vast amount of microbial lifeforms that do reproduce asexually, and a relatively small amount of larger organisms that reproduce with dualized sexes, and there are a few that reproduce with autogamy, i.e they fertilize themselves ;)
brainwashed? how so? i'm studying to be curing disease!
As a matter of fact it is easy to conceive with common sense through knowledge of genetics why sexual reproduction is favored over asexual reproduction or autogamy; asexual reproduction and autogamy both reproduce with copies of the original, relying only on mutations in the parent or offspring to produce new genetic information for selection to work on, whereas sexual reproduction allows for mixing of the parent generations genetic information to produce the offspring to have a greater variety
Creationists believe that if you don't believe in god and dont follow what is in the bible are immoral and are going to hell, all of which have no scientific basis or evidence what so ever and have never been proven to be true and never will be. They also still stubbornly believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, but in fact is over 4 billion years old, which is a solid scientific fact.
You can believe anything you want, but what you believe is irrelevant. Fact is what counts. The fact that you were created, the fact that you will die and the fact that your Creator has left ample proof all around you which you have chosen to ignore. If you writhe in hell throughout eternity it will be your own choice.
evolutionists are narrow minded worshipers of self. Their are numerous fatal flaws with neverlution, the fossil record and precambrian bloom to name a couple. But facts just bore you people.
Absolutely.....point well made. If the reason people are making decisions are based on religion........religion should not be the basis of decision-making. Religion is an "epiphenomenon" that should be regarded as such in the decision making process.
sorry if you feel personally attacked, I am trying to be to the point, but this is difficult here. Watch this video series and everything is said. It is not up to me to give any proof of anything, it is out there everywhere if you have an open mind. "Your presuppositions have perhaps colored your ability to reason in an unbiased way." I give this one back to YOU.
I am a Christian if you are wondering and I know many scientists on here are as well and this doesn't contradict evolution AT ALL.
I'm almost embarrassed for her. This is the worst presentation of epistomology that I have ever come across. I am totally bewildered as to how she earned her Ph.D. (perhaps the Hollywood casting couch way...). I'm thankful I went to northeastern universities!
Are you Barbara Forrest? Did you recently join Yt to make these comments? What are your other usernames? I think that you're a fraud.
This women doesn't know what the scientific method is, the metaphysical truths that undergird science and that all scientists presuppose. PATHETIC. The South has fallen again!
LOL, no I am not B:F.( I feel honored you thought I were) and I am very real. I am German living in Germany, and YES I did join to make comments ( or rejoin because I had lost my password, used to be juliane1205 , I think. I am really sorry to say this but your college education is really very questionable from what I have seen on here and other places, otherwise you would understand these video series because they are made so that eventually even fools can get it....
She lost me when she remarked that ID folks refer to the book of John instead of Genesis (which informs traditional creationists). What is it that they get out of John's gospel?
science dont give a f**k about what you believe.everybody can think whatever they want.but islam is one and only one way.you cant go separate ways.everyone is connected.while science,NO!
knowledge is info no matter its true or not.human mind is thinking to proving which is true.its wrong that religion have not applied critical thinking on the subject.maybe christian("just believe") but not islam because islam have 2 way of proving.1st:analysis 2nd:revelation
Evolution and belief in spiritual realities are not mutually exclusive.
I believe in spiritual realities, I believe in evolution - the Bible does not exclude evolution, nor does it assert literal creationism (only 21st century idiots do.... and in doing so they refute the very spirit the ancient tribes of Israel wrote in - and THAT statement is provable)
1. Calling someone an idiot is not an argument (i.e. simply calling someone an idiot is not reason enough to believe that any claim from that person is false).
2. You have a particular understanding of the Bible that can be wrong. There are other understandings of the Bible that are different from yours, so it is better to say that you have "a" account rather than "the" account of the Bible's teachings.
@revjwh38 Yes it does dude. All you have to do is read the first page of the Bible to know that it does not support evolution and asserts literal creationism.
Religion is easily falsified, it is the existence of God that can never be falsified.
@Abu7929 i doubt the writers of the biblical accounts of creation ever imagined there would be a population that would so obtusely deny the literal quality of metaphor. I've read the first page of the bible... many times, there is indeed a genesis that is 'creationist' in nature. It does not, however (as revjwh38 states), "assert" that that genesis is "literal". I think that was his point. With that said, i agree that 'most' religions are easily falsified.... others not so easily.
@Nowekian Under a literal interpretation, the scriptures are complete nonsense, and taken metaphorically, they are objectively meaningless. It is pretty self evident when you consider the verses, books, and Bible as a whole in context, it is not intended to be taken metaphorically. Ofcourse if you insist that everything is a metaphor then the Bible, and anything anybody has ever said or written is unfalsifiable. A convenient position but not a credible one.
@Abu7929 why is it always all or nothing with you people? I was referring to the act of creation. Not 'everything' in the bible was intended to be understood as metaphor, not 'everything' was meant to be taken litterally, and not 'everything' is true, and not 'everything' is false. Epistemology deals with the difference between truth and knowledge objective meaning is only a tiny part of both. Also, there's a differece 'tween meaning and significance.
@Nowekian Ok, so how do you decide what was intended metaphorically, and what was intended literally ? It is just your opinion, is it not ? My opinion, which I base on context, is that Genesis was intended literally. Parts of the Bible that were intended metaphorically are obvious, for example some of the parables of Jesus.
@Abu7929 yes, parables are, by definition, metaphorical. On what context are you basing the literal intent of genesis? I took a couple semesters of biblical hebrew and learned a great deal. Wha the king james version translates as day, does not necessarily mean such. it can also mean period, or phase. Night and day even in present times can refer to periods of a man's life, etc. In any case, a historian/ theologian could give greater access to "intent." -Short answer: i don't decide.
@Nowekian There is no evidence to show otherwise. On what grounds should I suppose it is intended metaphorically ? You are the one making the claim, you shoulder the burden of proof. I think I see a pattern. When a proposition in the Bible is either absurdly counter intuitive, morally unpalatable, or discredited by a mountain of scientific evidence, it is regarded by Christians as a metaphor. When a proposition is palatable and plausible, it was intended literally. Am I close ? I think so.
@Abu7929 first and foremost... i'm not a christian.... i am however (i'd like to think) a rational, and intelligent person. If someone said a man has a heart of gold, what evidence would you need that he was speaking metaphorically? I think the idea that the world was created in 6 days is proposterous so that any rational person would presupose the use of metaphor. The burden of proof therefore, would lie with who ever disagrees. The fact is, evidence won't show one way or the other!
@Nowekian You make a good example. So like I say, it has to come down to an opinion, as to what was or was not intended metaphorically. You and I would agree that the phrase "heart of gold" is intended metaphorically, but we clearly disagree on genesis. We use evidence to help develop a reasoned opinion, and one way we do that is by considering context. When taken contextually, I think it is self evident that genesis, all of it, including Adam and eve and the rest of it, was intended literally.
@Abu7929 To help you with context, Try the apocryphal gospel of Adam and Eve, or any writings on kabbalah (esp. the writings of Baal HaSulam, etc). I get what you're saying about the matter comming down to oppinion, but dissagree with the terminology. It's uncertain, yes. But oppinion suggests we are both right, or both wrong. Also, oppion, and "self evident," are not the same thing. By the by, the bible was written, and re-written. Even the re-writers hadn't the original intent.
The woman said, "They (ID people) have no epistemology." But they do: revelation is the way they come to knowledge. The question is, "Is revelation a valid form of science?" The answer is "No."
Revelation is a valid form of knowledge. Just not scientific knowledge.
But Dembski's model for design inference does not rely on revelation any more (or any less) than other scientific methodologies. Forrest is just wrong about Dembski.
Or maybe she's ignoring Dembski. For some people, it's always more fun to beat up on the weakest opponents while ignoring the serious counterarguments.
But Dembski deserves to be ignored, as his work is without merit or independent verification. He relies on the arbitrary "universal probability bound" for proof-of-concept with regard to the impossibility of his version of specified complexity to occur without design nor guidance.
As well, his "Law of Conservation of Information" has no basis in evidence, nor is it of utility unless one starts from the premise of an intelligent designer and seeks justification based upon observed phenomena.
But the epistemological community DOESN'T view revelation as a valid form of knowledge, nor of science. That's the whole point. The fact that information gleaned by revelation is impossible to retransmit to another using the method in which it was originally acquired renders it invalid as knowledge because it cannot be shared experience. Hallucination can reveal true information, but one cannot know that that information is true until it is verified by some other method, so it's not knowledge.
Revelation as in having something revealed to you is just the same as taking someones word for it. When you are taking somenes word for it (the book of revelation) you are putting your beleifs in an authoritative figure. Did you even listen to the video? Epistemology is not science.
thats like saying metal is not a pot which is true but a pot can be made from metal. epistemology is more like principles giving science rules to study reality. 3:42
Even if you disagree with the ID movement, Forrest is just plain lying. She syas they have "no method & no epistemology." This claim is utter nonsense.
William Dembski published an entire scholarly book on the explanatory filter & the epistemological basis for using it. (Cambridge University Press.)
This lady is *lying* when she says that ID movement is just relying on empty authority claims. She *must* know it's not true.
A book does not go through the same processes of scientific scrutiny that a journal does. Pretty much anyone can publish a book as long as the publisher thinks the book will make money. I haven't read that book by dembski, but I know dawkins books are full of bad logic, bad science, and so are behe's. So I would guess that dembski isn't much better.
(1) It may not be peer-reviewed. It may even be a bad book. But it does exist. It articulates an epistemology which Forrest says does not exist. She is wrong. Period.
(2) Forrest articulates such a careless philosophy of science that she has no right whatsoever to criticize anyone else. She needs to read Wittgenstein.
(3) Dembski's boook was based on his dissertation at Illinois. It *was* scrutinized by his dissertation committee.
Epistemology is like any other branch of science: those things which are the result of observation, verification, and peer-review, including repeated experiments verifying the assertions of any new theory, are what are considered to be true by the discipline; Dembski's ideas do not meet this standard. His Ph.D. was on specified complexity; it's a big leap from that to ID. Also, a dissertation committee is hardly the scientific community at large; many people write dissertations that are false.
@ProtoSteward Science is also another word for knowledge (just look at the Latin root of the word 'science). Also, it may be possible that epistemological claims depend on scientific review (look at Quine's naturalized epistemology).
This is not a presupposition and there is no world view involved. The only criterion is the cumulative experience of humanity. This experience simply does not indicate anything supernatural. That is not a presupposition. This is the conclusion.
If you look at something and say it is the result of supernatural interference you must be able to say why and on what grounds you conclude that. I will bet any sum that you are not able.
"This is not a presupposition and there is no world view involved."
Of course world-views are involved. The theistic question is a debate between world-views.
Your world-view has metaphysical presuppositions (like materialism) & epistemological presuppositions (like empiricism) that shape your interpretation of the evidence. Other world-views regard certain facts as strong evidence for the supernatural.
If you claim that god created life, you have to explain how he did that (on the molecular level).
If you cannot explain how exactly your supernatural being interferes with this universe and how you do in fact detect such interference, I have no reason to assume that any of what you say is worth a cent.
The default is that there is no supernatural. If you cklaim otherwise, then prove it.
There are no presuppositions except the universe's existence as it is. Anything in it happens according to the lawsof physics. There is simply no way to include the supernatural as envisioned by folks like you.
If you claim that a god speaks to you from the sky, you must be able to explain how he creates the sound waves (on the physical level).
If you claim you got pregnant by god, you have to explain how he did that (on the biological level).
"If you claim that a god speaks to you from the sky, you must be able to explain how he creates the sound waves (on the physical level)."
Ignorant nonsense. I don't have to explain how a light switch turns on a light to explain the light turning on & off as "because I flipped the switch." A 5-year-old child understand that switch turns the light on & off, even if he doesn't understand how.
Here is another example of you repeating stupid claims made by sloppy thinkers.
we are not on the level of 5-year-olds. experts in the field of light-switches know how light-switches work. but experts in religion have no fucking clue how god is supposed to work. there is no indication and no evidence for a god, and yet claims are made. if you cannot explain how you detect divine interference, then I will have to discard your claims as figments of your imagination. reason forbids me to *believe* you.
No. I was rejecting your false, ignorant definition of "explanation."
If your definition of "explanation" were true, then the child would be wrong to claim that the switch on the wall explains anything. But the 5-year-old understands more than you.
You keep making false claims. Then you refuse to follow your claims through to the logical (if absurd) conlcusion. You're just not logical or honest about your claims.
Youtube is too great of a platform/resource. I want to learn something about Epistemology, I type the subject in and here I have a professor give me an brief overview of what it is. Great!
PhoenixOpenProject 1 month ago
Peer review on YT: If your like-bar looks like a cigarrette, your video is good, if it looks like a light saber, it's rubbish.
cause4reason 4 months ago
@cause4reason That's true, unless your video was hit by a creationist votebot that dumped fake Dislikes on the video.
The weasely tactics of the creationists show how desperate they are to keep people from learning that their religious beliefs are mythical nonsense.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 word
cause4reason 2 months ago
Comment removed
MikeyTdrums 4 months ago
Truth is the only thing that can be known.
Evolution cannot be known or understood because it does not happen.
Open your eyes. Ordered function in life forms requires a Maker.
Think for yourself. 60 million cubic miles of sediments does not get deposited without a global flood and all those sediments would be in the oceans if the earth was billions of years old.
Observable evidence of a Maker is the ordered functions that most of the most common elements have in life forms? Know that fact.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Ahhhh! Your sediment claim is an argument for the flood! Okay, I overestimated the sophistication of your argument then. I'm sorry. You kind of have a few other problems with your "flood theory." Where did the water go? To cover the tops of all the mountains, the earth needed about twice as much water as exists today. If it had been in the atmosphere, the earth would have been a giant steam pressure cooker with likely little life.
Threshingfloor814 5 months ago
@JungleJargon This doesn't get into how Noah was able to collect the 40,000 known species of spiders, how the marcupials magically ended up in Australia. And how the heck did an elderly man and his sons end up shovelling the poo of hundreds of thousands of animals.
Threshingfloor814 5 months ago
@JungleJargon if your noah's flood is so true then i ask you how did all the sea animals survive since it rained it would be fresh water and fresh mixing with sea water all the sea cretures we know today would have died so please explain
mimarp478 5 months ago
@mimarp478 Sea life has adapted to present day conditions which are not the same conditions as the conditions at the time of the flood. Life adapts to whatever environment there is and over 90 percent of all llife did *not* survive.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon i think 6000 years ago the sea salinity Would be the same as today salty if the flood did happen all the salt water would be turned into fresh water so why today is the seas salty?
mimarp478 5 months ago
@mimarp478 You "think" is not scientific. Salt is continually being added to the oceans by water runoff.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon then why do we have proof of salt in the water 6000+ years ago?
mimarp478 5 months ago
@mimarp478 Of course there was salt in the water, just not as much as there is today.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
That's right, this is a epistemological issue. All phenomenon whose probabilities points out zero asymptotically must be considered epistemological issue, and its analysis depend on natural principles mainly, instead of natural laws.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
The atheists already know that age of universe proposed by them is not enough according calculus of probabilities for origin of life, therefore, origin of life (and other issues related with this) can't be solved by means of natural laws, but by means of principle, such as: causal, change, order...God, God is a necessary principle because we are self-conscious. Principle is a natural behavior which is constant for all natural laws.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
I'm very grateful for this video, an excellent explanation.
Minipolce 7 months ago
I am 100% sure of many things... the Sun radiates electromagnetic energy... the Earth's gravity keeps us from floating into space... the scientific method is the best way we know of to gain understanding of the natural world... and that the basis for religious beliefs is fictitious.
UncleMatt69 8 months ago
@UncleMatt69 : Natural laws criteria is limited. The atheists already know that age of universe proposed by them is not enough according calculus of probabilities for origin of life, therefore, origin of life (and other issues related with this) can't be solved by means of natural laws, but by means of principle, such as: causal, change, order...God, God is a necessary principle because we are self-conscious. Principle is a natural behavior which is constant for all natural laws.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@Leivinn20
"The atheists already know that age of universe proposed by them is not enough"
- atheism does not propose nor need any specific age for the universe.
"according calculus of probabilities for origin of life"
- with a sample set of 1, probability CANNOT be calculated Einstein.
"God is a necessary principle because we are self-conscious"
Demonstrate that is correct, else god can just as well be a byproduct of our consciousness, humans have made up gods before you know ?
mindwis3 7 months ago in playlist Evolution Vs Creationsim
@mindwis3 : The brain complexity argument to try to explain the self-consciousness is null, because all kind of complexity is based on natural laws, it means, your argument is descriptive. It would be similar to say: my airplane can to fly because it's complex, then anyone could be respond: my TV is complex but it can't to fly. "with a sample set of 1, probability CANNOT be calculated Einstein", That's empirically correct, but it doesn't imply that theoretical analysis can't be made.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@Leivinn20 (part2)
"The brain complexity argument to try to explain the self-consciousness is null"
THAT does not demonstrate a god is necessary, which you claimed right here:
"God is a necessary principle because we are self-conscious".
I'm just asking you to back up that statement, else i have to drop that whole premise, and so should you.
All that running around with things i did not say is NOT answering the question, but Evading it.
See part3.
mindwis3 7 months ago
Leivin (part3).
"That's empirically correct, but it doesn't imply that theoretical analysis can't be made"
You can theorize what ever you want, but that is not what you did when you said:
"calculus of probabilities for origin of life,"
That IS is a probability assessment which you just agreed to CANNOT be made.
Moreover, YOU CLAIM Atheists somehow "Know" and agree to that (im)probability .
That's a LIE since the calculation itself is IMPOSSIBLE noone CAN know atm.
Your turn,
Kr,
mindwis3 7 months ago
@mindwis3 As far as I know the atheists propose that the universe changes unintelligently, or at random..it's perfectly possible to make a calculus of probabilities for origin of life based on random assumption, because at the end of the day, the atheists accept this assumption in spite of randomness doesn't exist.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@Leivinn20 (6)
"As far as I know"
That's much better, but on the 'beef':
"atheists propose that the universe changes unintelligently, or at random"
Atheism does not propose ANYTHING, but any scientist will tell you that ANY changes in the Universe are subject to the laws of physics ISO RANDOM.
"...a calculus...based on random assumption"
It's possible, but MEANINGLESS.
'randomness doesn't exist.
Try "Chaos Theory" ... o wait, "just" a theory, right ?
mindwis3 7 months ago
@mindwis3 the only way to explain the self-consciousness or scientific objectivity is by means of accepting that subatomic particles movements are able to self-set themselves according our will, such way we keep contact with surrounding reality, It means, our environment is changed smartly.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@Leivinn20 (4)
"the only way to explain self-consciousness ....".
You don't read back what you write much do you?
You sure don't read what i write...
NONE of your garble explains anything AT ALL on how you determined:
"God is a necessary principle because we are self-conscious".
You're just making stuff up as you go along, and STILL evading the questions, i think your "subatomic particles movements" are out of control.
'self-consciousness OR scientific objectivity"
really ? WTF.
Kr,
mindwis3 7 months ago
@mindwis3 By the way, from certain viewpoint you are right, I don't need to make a calculus for origin of life, I believe God created it.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@Leivinn20 (7)
"I believe God created it."
That's fine, you can believe as you wish.
But when you claim assertions as facts, you'll need to back them up as that is no longer "i believe".
i am still waiting for any backing on all of the claims you made before the magic words "i believe".
So will you retract them, or will you come with the reasons why i.e. 'God is a necessary principle because we are self-conscious' is Necessarily so ?
mindwis3 7 months ago
@mindwis3 In fact, my argument is really simple, if our thoughts are being determined by natural laws, then, this discussion is only a huge waste of time. Think it again. Keep in mind, our mind is the starting point of scientific method.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Leivinn20 (8)
"my argument is really simple"
Well, firstoff, you need to demonstrate your presuppositions to be true, but let's play
'our mind is the starting point of scientific method"
yes, but it is NOT the endpoint. Precisely because our mind is the start-point, Science DEMANDS that a position can be demonstrated to be true irrespective of that mind.
Now THAT takes things to whole new level, why you have just degraded your whole worldview to that of everything possibly being imagination.
mindwis3 7 months ago
@Leivinn20 (9)
Sorry dude, you just keep coming with garble, take this one:
"if our thoughts are being determined by natural laws, then, this discussion is only a huge waste of time"
Really ? DEMONSTRATE this is necessarily so. !!!
And define "waste of time" while you're at it, and don't forget you still have to account for all the other stuff you spewed.
i'll give you a hint in Nr 10
mindwis3 7 months ago
@Leivin (10).
You don't get to determine what is a 'waste of time', you should have written 'a waste of My (your) time' then.
I am not wasting time on you, my investment is in the '3rd party' reading our discussion.
As for :
"if our thoughts are being determined by natural laws, then, this discussion is only a huge waste of time".
.. again you're just throwing words into the air..... you'll first need to DEMONSTRATE how that is necessarily so.
Gosh, see a pattern emerging too?
Kr,
mindwis3 7 months ago
@mindwis3 [CORRECTION OF MYSELF]
I noticed i asked Leivin to demonstrate
"if our thoughts are being determined by natural laws, then, this discussion is only a huge waste of time"
Twice without him having had a chance to demonstrate it after me asking. (in 9 and 10)
Please disregard the 2nd time asking, at least until the need to repeat that particular question recurs.
Kr,
mindwis3 7 months ago
Creationism is a type of intellectual terrorism.
lurconis666 8 months ago 8
Dr, Forrest's comments here have all the sophistication of a B+ undergraduate essay.
ironicsomething 9 months ago
If science would put boundaries to one's thinking, then Einsteins' relativity theory that debunked more almost two centuries of scientific thinking would not have happened.
As things developed, Newton's mechanics became a more restricted set within Einstein's theory of relativity. That is a "scientific revolution" in the way that Kuhn used the term -a discontinuity in scientific knowledge, or the "epistemology breakthrough" proposed by Gaston Bachelard 20+ years before Kuhn.
All4reason 10 months ago
"In science you cant really put boundaries around your thinking". Philosophically speaking, this is untrue. Practically speaking, its complete nonsense. Scientists have been bound by the chains of popular thesis' since the origination of the modern scientific process. What the masses call a "scientific breakthrough", learned professors should call "sorting trash from treasure". Human nature, even subconsciously, pulls towards unification which is a natural, instinctive and inescapable boundary.
vladolenin 11 months ago
I agree...
sutacarligmarian 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Revelation 10:11 And they say to me(John), "You must prophesy again with regard to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings."
Is John one of the witnesses?
Check out my favs, especially the one about the stars found in the bible. Pics in those videos of the Sun Moon and Stars are authentic and the end time is drawing. The stars seem to be 11 then 12 and then definitely7. Check out these symbols and signs from heaven.
themiraclesonearth 11 months ago
How hard is it to understand Enough micro = Macro. If one begins walking to the store but doesn't stop. Keeps going to the school but doesn't stop, makes it to the edge of town, then state, then country. then keep going. The store is so far away it is a forgotten place but it is still there.
pumpstations 11 months ago
Can you tell me with 100% certainty that there is no supernatural involvement in the universe? The answer, if you are honest, is NO. Even Richard Dawkins says he can not say for certain there is no God. Now, tell me if science could ever accept a supernatural answer to a question? Again, the answer is NO. So, with this way of thinking, purely naturalistic science will continue searching for an answer it may never find, or worse yet it may get the answer wrong-as is the case of macro evolution.
MrArphaxad 1 year ago
@MrArphaxad " 100% certainty that there is no supernatural involvement in the universe?" Mr. Arp, Science does not know everything...no one does. The idea is that science continues to investigate and learn, remove theories that become dis-proven. It is our best way to gather & reject/accept facts & theories. If we don't use science to learn and believe we have some book of absolutes...we remain stuck in a world of stagnation and superstition. What is your disagreement with macro? Cheers.
orangemod 1 year ago
@MrArphaxad supernatural is just a confabulation of somebody, they see something they don't understand it or can't explain it, therefore it must be supernatural (BTW that is an argument from ignorance); saying that you don't know something or how it works is humble but stating that some sort of magic is involved is just plain arrogance from someone who is ignorant and lazy enough to look for an scientific answer. Only crazy people can give you 100% certainty of anything.
intestinomedicino 1 year ago
Of course this works the other way around. There are boundaries that a naturalistic way of thinking can not cross. If the answers to how the universe sprang into being or the the answer to how life began are answered supernaturally, then science will never find the correct answer to these questions.
MrArphaxad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lady! The same thing can be said with evolutionists!
Nashhinton 1 year ago
She doesnt know what epistemology actually means...
Nashhinton 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lady! The same thing can be said with evolutionists!
Nashhinton 1 year ago
Both positions have knowledge. But which position has absolute knowledge? I'll let you decide... (i prefer creationism)....
Nashhinton 1 year ago
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and how one knows what they know. Hmm... Apparently it seems obvious that both positions of evolutionism and creationism have the same qualifications: Evolutionism is a study of science that embraces scienctific theories without the bible. They study naturalism, which means that the concept of God is excluded- which further explains the reason behind evolution. Wheras creationists have the bible and base their theories surrounding the bible.
Nashhinton 1 year ago
There is also a dogmatic line some people are not willing to cross, called 'philosophical materialism', which relies on strong empiricism: "all knowledge derives from sense perception". But this premise does not itself derive from sense perception! Thus the epistemology at the basis of materialism is self-refuting. The idea that a naturalistic explanation should always be regarded as the only valid one is a philosophical presupposition, which itself needs to be justified epistemologically.
The1066Al 1 year ago
@The1066Al A naturalistic explanation is one which conforms with the laws of nature as they apply to this universe. If there was an occurence that did not align with the laws, then the laws would be re-determined. Therefore everything does and will have a natural explanation.
asianlife53 1 year ago
Let me make a point, that Christian scriptures (as with the scriptures of other religions) are attributed new meanings as humans have become enlightened. Fundamentalists still exist obviously, but largely people try to fit what the evidence supports about the world now with what was written 1500 + years ago. The texts remain unchanged, just because some people may wish it to intend a meaning which is scientifically consistent, doesn't make it so.
Abu7929 1 year ago
brute-ology a womens engagment in academics
adrianeaglrck 1 year ago
jibberology the engagement of philosophy in academics
adrianeaglrck 1 year ago
End of argumentation.
nicubucurestiromania 1 year ago
I know who I follow - Jesus Christ. Who do you follow? What is the mans name that you follow, because you are following the teachings of a person. Who is he.
What you pursue, you worship.
DavidofChrist777 1 year ago
@DavidofChrist777 wow thnx for proving Christians are self righteous retards once again, i was a christian once... and actually was considering for some strange reason going to church this weekend... thnx for reminding the church is full of people like you hahahahaha 'god bless' lol!
go follow your carpenter and your god of Abraham who clearly loves child sacrifice
lagook 1 year ago
@lagook I would be interested to see any place that has humans that does not have hypocrites? You should still go to Church if you feel compelled to do so. God does not like Child sacrifice, hence his hatred of molech.
924142707 1 year ago
@924142707 yet he kill his own
lagook 1 year ago
Religion: Respect my authoritahh!
ksthebest 1 year ago
Orthodox Chruch also has the oldest monasteries.... which have Jesus's paintings from 2th century..... and many relics....
Orthodox church means spirituality and love. Real orthodox people want peace... They help poor ppl... never killed anybody in the name of the church.... never tortured....
We are the pure Christian Church.... the oldest , the purest..
nicubucurestiromania 1 year ago
@nicubucurestiromania Your use of the phrase 'Orthodox Church' is problematic because it is obscure (e.g. what kind and to what degree of love?) and the way in which you use this phrase is very singular, as it hardly reflects the many ways that the phrase 'Orthodox Church' has been used in history.
Nevertheless, let us assume that such people of the Orthodox Church exist. Is this grounds for saying Christianity is true? Obviously not.
Arodinme6 1 year ago
Who are these scientists you are talking about? What do they do? They are just biologists? Or also chemists ,physicians ,physicists?
IC XC NIKA
nicubucurestiromania 1 year ago
Are creationists terrorists? This is the best question that could have ever been asked.
BOULDERDP 1 year ago
@BOULDERDP Atheists are very dangerous... not Christians. Christian message is LOVE.
nicubucurestiromania 1 year ago
@nicubucurestiromania Yes the love really showed through during the burnings, beheadings, hangings and torture of non believers.
BOULDERDP 1 year ago
@BOULDERDP Forgive me , but I was talking about the Church established by Jesus Christ..... which accepted all Ecumenical Councils.... and which is the Christian-Orthodox Church.... Catholics split from us, mainline-protestants from catholics..... and neo-protestants from ... mainline-p.
Orthodox people never killed ,never attacked/tortured... we were just attacked by Catholics.... Buddhists(mongols) Muslims(Turks)....
nicubucurestiromania 1 year ago
@nicubucurestiromania "Atheists are very dangerous"
And why is that? Because we expose your personal beliefs to be BS? Yes we are very dangerous, to stupidity.
byteresistor 1 year ago
@byteresistor ...because they can do whatever they want with no constraints, with no bashfulness... Nobody can trust an atheist.... because with no particular reason he could kill, rob, rape etc etc.
nicubucurestiromania 1 year ago
@nicubucurestiromania Then why are there less atheists in prisons than believers? Belief in god certainly didn't stop these religious people from committing those crimes.
But whatever, have fun with your delusions. Look out, the boogeyman is going to get you! Or is it satan?
byteresistor 1 year ago
@nicubucurestiromania There is a significant difference between how a group of people act and whether their claim is true or not. Assuming that all atheists are killers, robbers, etc. (which itself is a weak claim because there is no reason to believe that these qualities are inherent to being an atheist or that every single atheist has one of these qualities), there are no grounds to say that atheism is false.
Arodinme6 1 year ago
@Arodinme6 Orthodox Christianity is the oldest. No doubt. If God exists(purportedly)[I surely beleive that God exists] then this is certainly the true Church. God exists... because there are enough facts to proove this. => Orthodox Christianity is true ... Logical.
nicubucurestiromania 1 year ago
in your face francis collins!
bogdanF132 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between science and belief systems. Scientific laws and theories are tools used to solve problems. Religions are things you believe in. Evolution is NOT something you believe in. It is a tool used to solve problems... like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.
blaisingm 1 year ago
4:02 or whatever on empiricism:
It is not simply empiricism - that is an erroneous thing. Deductive logic, etc. can be a part of science, as well. A science is simply a compilation of knowledge acquired in any shape and form. It does not need to be solely empirical - it can be deductive. I find her part in video a bit mediocre.
Some Christians do have a strong epistemology for their own philosophical lives.
That is separate from ID, though, and most of the time infinitely better.
Audiofalcon7 1 year ago
religious people are fail, even they know this. Even if there is a god, and there certainly is not, science would explain any god concept. Science would explain its powers etc etc. god didnt make science, science makes gods. fact, these are the facts and they are, and remain undiputed
699backstab 1 year ago
This video series is fucking gold!!
McAnkkuli 1 year ago
While I am not a creationist, science's epistemology has limits all its own.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
Part 2 - That is why we have, for example musical forms such as Sonata Form - this gives coherence, meaning, structure and direction to musical events as they proceed temporally. In science, we proceed with clearly circumscribed theories that enable us to discover anomalies that help us then
lourak 1 year ago
Part 1 - I don't agree at all with the notion of boundaries as an impediment to inquiry. Any investigations, whether in the domain of science, the arts, and the like, require boundaries as a referential framework against which to measure results. revise our theory.
lourak 1 year ago
This woman speaks the truth.
freethinker923 1 year ago
Note: Method of trying out prayer to contact God. What if they get a response... that is experienced such as a tendenites vanishing instantly after doing so. The phisical evidence plus the prayer experimentation.... denotes an unique form of scientific methodology, which states that sometimes God will respond if He wishes to.
wagtec 1 year ago
Well, what if there's a secret society of shit running our everything?
Including the board of education? and on the pay roll of my laundered tax dollars, a handful little cockroach disinfo agents posting "whaaaa!" comments in response to this one?
TheTruthPusher 1 year ago
Auch... She just tore creationists a new one. =P
SicSeb 1 year ago
He is just proving that everyone should stay on his/her field. Mr Geologist! Stop making sociography, cause you suck at it! You can keep on saying that you are not comparing, truth is you are...
No connection with fundamentalism.
Terrorists (if it was really Middle Eastern terrorism) don't fight for epistemological reasons, but against corporations from the U. S. and their financial policy. U. S. had the same goals (financial freedom) and same methods ("terrorist" tactics) about 220 years ago.
lindadetelcontar 1 year ago
The 'scientific' approach towards defining reality is based upon inductive logic as well. To presume that there is no 'reality' outside that what exerts an effect on our five senses sets a small framework of thinking. The mind looks for empirical evidence to confirm profitable theories and then experiences them. The dual split experiment in Q-physics confirms that experience conforms itself to reason, not the other way around.
August1977 2 years ago
@August1977 , I understand what you're saying. However, I believe the point of empiricism is to make sure that when we trace all of our ideas back, they ultimately need to have a solid foundation in reality. So we start with "the five senses" (or other tools that give us reliable information about the real world), and work from there. What we try not to do is build ideas upon ideas that cannot be traced back to a solid empirical foundation. (Such was the flaw of alchemy, for example).
cryconius 1 year ago
There is a difference between what's 'out there' (noumenon) and the effect it produces on the senses (phenomenon). The brain processes sensory information on a subconscious level before it becomes cognitive, it can only experience that which is concievable and recognizable. The universe seems ordely because we can only perceive that which is consistent with everything else that we believe and see. If any of this is true then empiricism is as relative as rationalism.
August1977 1 year ago
It is right to say we cannot be 100% confident in our senses. There is precious little that we can be 100% confident of. But to say that our senses and our reasoning stand on equal ground is absurd.
For every sense, every instrument, and every mode of reason we must ask: How reliable is it? How well can different people agree? How much room is there for doubt?
Reasoning is an essential tool, to be sure. But our human reasoning is inherently limited, capable of all kinds of errors.
cryconius 1 year ago
Why is it that we live in a universe where every perceivable phenomenon has a scientific explanation? Is it because we are so smart or is it because the subconscious mind is ignoring all sensory information that doesn't make sense? Note that the visual cortex of the brain shares the same neuro-network with our memory.
August1977 1 year ago
"Why is it that we live in a universe where every perceivable phenomenon has a scientific explanation?"
Because there is no supernatural? You'd think that would be readily apparent.
Our five senses are not the limits of our perception. To be sure we cannot perceive anything beyond these five senses, but with technology we can augment our senses and produce interpretable data for phenomena beyond the scope of our senses. Look at the mathematics of something like a tesseract for an example.
Crioca 1 year ago
There are two ways to study the nature of our universe, one is through physical experiments, the other is by studying the way the brain processes sensory information, the latter one is being ignored by the western scientific community although quantum physics (dual split experiment) definately shows that the anticipation of the observer influences reality. Hypnosis and neurologic studies also show the complex role of the subconcious mind in the ultimate experience of the outside world.
August1977 1 year ago
"lthough quantum physics (dual split experiment) definately shows that the anticipation of the observer influences reality."
The quantum split experiment definitely shows no such thing! It proves that particles and waves are inseparable, the concept the act of observing can collapse the wave form probability is VASTLY unproven and we've known this for decades. Read "Unsharp particle-wave duality in a photon split-beam experiment" from Foundations of Physics.
Crioca 1 year ago
Now, I want to ask you, how *exactly* does studying the way the brain processes sensory information provide relevant information about the nature of the universe?
Crioca 1 year ago
@August1977 Sorry, this is new age BS. Please give believable references that show that the anticipation of the observer influences reality in the double slit experiment. By the way, it's the "double slit" experiment, not dual split.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
prodeathadvocate666, are you OK? Who are you railing against? Relax, take a deep breath, collect your thoughts and learn how to address topics intelligently and godly.
Also, did you join YouTube today with a new username because you're a coward?
JimDeferio 2 years ago
It's sad that people all over the world no matter they are Christian or Muslim just believe what they were brought up to believe rather than seek evidence of what they believe in the supernatural.
tohkondanzi 2 years ago 10
Ah, if only it was that simple, you could go on believing religion is nothing more than fiction. However, there are millions world wide who grew up budhist, muslim, panthiest who are accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and are willing to die before surrendering their faith. I know you will ignore this fact because it does not fit your world view.
prodeathadvocate666 2 years ago
@tohkondanzi "It's sad that people all over the world no matter they are Christian or Muslim just believe what they were brought up to believe rather than seek evidence of what they believe in the supernatural." Spot on Toh. I was once one of them who never questioned what I was told. After investigating the subject I learned that I was believing things that had absolutely no basis in fact. It's no crime to be ignorant, just when one refuses to throw out beliefs that are not factual.
orangemod 1 year ago
The question on macro-evolution often comes up. People argue that they know micro-evolution occurs (we have proof of that, hyena record), but they don't "believe" in macro-evolution. It doesn't require faith or belief...only reject/accept. Macro is actually just several or more instances of micro-evolution.
orangemod 1 year ago 10
Creationists are indeed very narrow-minded, believing that their religion is science. what a holy crap.
tohkondanzi 2 years ago
Please explain how Creationists are narrow-minded?
silentonall 2 years ago
rejecting scientifically established facts without regards for the validity and repeatability of the methods through which they are acheived ;)
read: the age of the earth is repeatably demonstrably more than what a creationist will accept as an example.
GronTheMighty 2 years ago
science guy, give me the scientific definition of life. You can't do it without describing an inanimate object can you. Why are most species not A-sexual when that is clearly the only possible way reproduction could occur in an evolutionary model. You can't have two distinct organisms magically working together not only for the purpose of reproduction but for pleasures sake. Give me a break. None of this common sense will phase you though, you are brainwashed.
prodeathadvocate666 2 years ago
Actually life is defined as a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not.
In regards to sexual/asexual reproduction there are actually a vast amount of microbial lifeforms that do reproduce asexually, and a relatively small amount of larger organisms that reproduce with dualized sexes, and there are a few that reproduce with autogamy, i.e they fertilize themselves ;)
brainwashed? how so? i'm studying to be curing disease!
GronTheMighty 2 years ago
As a matter of fact it is easy to conceive with common sense through knowledge of genetics why sexual reproduction is favored over asexual reproduction or autogamy; asexual reproduction and autogamy both reproduce with copies of the original, relying only on mutations in the parent or offspring to produce new genetic information for selection to work on, whereas sexual reproduction allows for mixing of the parent generations genetic information to produce the offspring to have a greater variety
GronTheMighty 2 years ago
@silentonall
Creationists believe that if you don't believe in god and dont follow what is in the bible are immoral and are going to hell, all of which have no scientific basis or evidence what so ever and have never been proven to be true and never will be. They also still stubbornly believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, but in fact is over 4 billion years old, which is a solid scientific fact.
tohkondanzi 2 years ago
You can believe anything you want, but what you believe is irrelevant. Fact is what counts. The fact that you were created, the fact that you will die and the fact that your Creator has left ample proof all around you which you have chosen to ignore. If you writhe in hell throughout eternity it will be your own choice.
prodeathadvocate666 2 years ago
evolutionists are narrow minded worshipers of self. Their are numerous fatal flaws with neverlution, the fossil record and precambrian bloom to name a couple. But facts just bore you people.
prodeathadvocate666 2 years ago
Absolutely.....point well made. If the reason people are making decisions are based on religion........religion should not be the basis of decision-making. Religion is an "epiphenomenon" that should be regarded as such in the decision making process.
brahud 2 years ago
TheJuliane has to make an ad hominem attack against me but doesn't give the scientific method for operational science or for origin science.
Your presuppositions have perhaps colored your ability to reason in an unbiased way.
JimDeferio 2 years ago
sorry if you feel personally attacked, I am trying to be to the point, but this is difficult here. Watch this video series and everything is said. It is not up to me to give any proof of anything, it is out there everywhere if you have an open mind. "Your presuppositions have perhaps colored your ability to reason in an unbiased way." I give this one back to YOU.
I am a Christian if you are wondering and I know many scientists on here are as well and this doesn't contradict evolution AT ALL.
TheJuliane1205 2 years ago
Do you think your wordy discourses can save you from the wrath of God stored up for those who rebel against Him.
prodeathadvocate666 2 years ago
for he (the great spaghetti monster) will rain down upon his disbelievers. Marinara of the highest temperature possible...
rAMEN
LemUUU 1 year ago
both of these speakers were garbage.
soccermaster25 2 years ago
totally agree. nothing more annoying than fundamentaly stupid (and indoctrinated) people selling 5 cent philosophy
dinkolino2 2 years ago
I'm almost embarrassed for her. This is the worst presentation of epistomology that I have ever come across. I am totally bewildered as to how she earned her Ph.D. (perhaps the Hollywood casting couch way...). I'm thankful I went to northeastern universities!
JimDeferio 2 years ago
You don't seem to have got very far there in Northeastern....from what I get of your statement issued here.
I think she is doing a great job .....they all do in this series, so that even most ignorant can get it, if he wants to
TheJuliane1205 2 years ago
Are you Barbara Forrest? Did you recently join Yt to make these comments? What are your other usernames? I think that you're a fraud.
This women doesn't know what the scientific method is, the metaphysical truths that undergird science and that all scientists presuppose. PATHETIC. The South has fallen again!
JimDeferio 2 years ago
LOL, no I am not B:F.( I feel honored you thought I were) and I am very real. I am German living in Germany, and YES I did join to make comments ( or rejoin because I had lost my password, used to be juliane1205 , I think. I am really sorry to say this but your college education is really very questionable from what I have seen on here and other places, otherwise you would understand these video series because they are made so that eventually even fools can get it....
TheJuliane1205 2 years ago
Explain.
freshhh1994 2 years ago
She lost me when she remarked that ID folks refer to the book of John instead of Genesis (which informs traditional creationists). What is it that they get out of John's gospel?
prschuster 2 years ago
science dont give a f**k about what you believe.everybody can think whatever they want.but islam is one and only one way.you cant go separate ways.everyone is connected.while science,NO!
khairuleven 2 years ago
Am I the only one that can see the sarcasm here? Because you, faggyballs, when you read between the lines, speak the greatest truth of all.
What's funny is that people here think you're actually disagreeing with them :D
zebezd 2 years ago
knowledge is info no matter its true or not.human mind is thinking to proving which is true.its wrong that religion have not applied critical thinking on the subject.maybe christian("just believe") but not islam because islam have 2 way of proving.1st:analysis 2nd:revelation
khairuleven 2 years ago
...How is this related to my comment in any way?
Also, islam's "proving" is not a scientific method, so I quite frankly don't care if they do it differently from the christians or other religions.
These videos are saying "don't mix science and religion.", and I fully agree.
I'm kinda tired, so sorry if this looks rude or stuff :P
zebezd 2 years ago
actually i dont send this to you.sorry.i just want to add comment.=D
khairuleven 2 years ago
>_> It was posted as a reply to me. But ah well, I forgive you :P
zebezd 2 years ago
Intelligent design is not science.
Spiritual belief is a matter of faith - period.
Evolution and belief in spiritual realities are not mutually exclusive.
I believe in spiritual realities, I believe in evolution - the Bible does not exclude evolution, nor does it assert literal creationism (only 21st century idiots do.... and in doing so they refute the very spirit the ancient tribes of Israel wrote in - and THAT statement is provable)
revjwh38 2 years ago 12
spiritual reality? what is reality?
haolekillah 2 years ago
@revjwh38
1. Calling someone an idiot is not an argument (i.e. simply calling someone an idiot is not reason enough to believe that any claim from that person is false).
2. You have a particular understanding of the Bible that can be wrong. There are other understandings of the Bible that are different from yours, so it is better to say that you have "a" account rather than "the" account of the Bible's teachings.
Arodinme6 1 year ago
@revjwh38 Yes it does dude. All you have to do is read the first page of the Bible to know that it does not support evolution and asserts literal creationism.
Religion is easily falsified, it is the existence of God that can never be falsified.
Abu7929 1 year ago
@Abu7929 i doubt the writers of the biblical accounts of creation ever imagined there would be a population that would so obtusely deny the literal quality of metaphor. I've read the first page of the bible... many times, there is indeed a genesis that is 'creationist' in nature. It does not, however (as revjwh38 states), "assert" that that genesis is "literal". I think that was his point. With that said, i agree that 'most' religions are easily falsified.... others not so easily.
Nowekian 1 year ago
@Nowekian Under a literal interpretation, the scriptures are complete nonsense, and taken metaphorically, they are objectively meaningless. It is pretty self evident when you consider the verses, books, and Bible as a whole in context, it is not intended to be taken metaphorically. Ofcourse if you insist that everything is a metaphor then the Bible, and anything anybody has ever said or written is unfalsifiable. A convenient position but not a credible one.
Abu7929 1 year ago
@Abu7929 why is it always all or nothing with you people? I was referring to the act of creation. Not 'everything' in the bible was intended to be understood as metaphor, not 'everything' was meant to be taken litterally, and not 'everything' is true, and not 'everything' is false. Epistemology deals with the difference between truth and knowledge objective meaning is only a tiny part of both. Also, there's a differece 'tween meaning and significance.
Nowekian 1 year ago
@Nowekian Ok, so how do you decide what was intended metaphorically, and what was intended literally ? It is just your opinion, is it not ? My opinion, which I base on context, is that Genesis was intended literally. Parts of the Bible that were intended metaphorically are obvious, for example some of the parables of Jesus.
Abu7929 1 year ago
@Abu7929 yes, parables are, by definition, metaphorical. On what context are you basing the literal intent of genesis? I took a couple semesters of biblical hebrew and learned a great deal. Wha the king james version translates as day, does not necessarily mean such. it can also mean period, or phase. Night and day even in present times can refer to periods of a man's life, etc. In any case, a historian/ theologian could give greater access to "intent." -Short answer: i don't decide.
Nowekian 1 year ago
@Nowekian There is no evidence to show otherwise. On what grounds should I suppose it is intended metaphorically ? You are the one making the claim, you shoulder the burden of proof. I think I see a pattern. When a proposition in the Bible is either absurdly counter intuitive, morally unpalatable, or discredited by a mountain of scientific evidence, it is regarded by Christians as a metaphor. When a proposition is palatable and plausible, it was intended literally. Am I close ? I think so.
Abu7929 1 year ago
@Abu7929 first and foremost... i'm not a christian.... i am however (i'd like to think) a rational, and intelligent person. If someone said a man has a heart of gold, what evidence would you need that he was speaking metaphorically? I think the idea that the world was created in 6 days is proposterous so that any rational person would presupose the use of metaphor. The burden of proof therefore, would lie with who ever disagrees. The fact is, evidence won't show one way or the other!
Nowekian 1 year ago
@Nowekian You make a good example. So like I say, it has to come down to an opinion, as to what was or was not intended metaphorically. You and I would agree that the phrase "heart of gold" is intended metaphorically, but we clearly disagree on genesis. We use evidence to help develop a reasoned opinion, and one way we do that is by considering context. When taken contextually, I think it is self evident that genesis, all of it, including Adam and eve and the rest of it, was intended literally.
Abu7929 1 year ago
@Abu7929 To help you with context, Try the apocryphal gospel of Adam and Eve, or any writings on kabbalah (esp. the writings of Baal HaSulam, etc). I get what you're saying about the matter comming down to oppinion, but dissagree with the terminology. It's uncertain, yes. But oppinion suggests we are both right, or both wrong. Also, oppion, and "self evident," are not the same thing. By the by, the bible was written, and re-written. Even the re-writers hadn't the original intent.
Nowekian 1 year ago
The woman said, "They (ID people) have no epistemology." But they do: revelation is the way they come to knowledge. The question is, "Is revelation a valid form of science?" The answer is "No."
Revelation is a valid form of knowledge. Just not scientific knowledge.
AnthonyBlunt 2 years ago
Closer.
But Dembski's model for design inference does not rely on revelation any more (or any less) than other scientific methodologies. Forrest is just wrong about Dembski.
Or maybe she's ignoring Dembski. For some people, it's always more fun to beat up on the weakest opponents while ignoring the serious counterarguments.
Fun, but not very helpful.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago
But Dembski deserves to be ignored, as his work is without merit or independent verification. He relies on the arbitrary "universal probability bound" for proof-of-concept with regard to the impossibility of his version of specified complexity to occur without design nor guidance.
As well, his "Law of Conservation of Information" has no basis in evidence, nor is it of utility unless one starts from the premise of an intelligent designer and seeks justification based upon observed phenomena.
JohannVII 2 years ago
And what is your epistemology?
ProtoSteward 2 years ago
More to the point, what is your theory of design inference?
ProtoSteward 2 years ago
But the epistemological community DOESN'T view revelation as a valid form of knowledge, nor of science. That's the whole point. The fact that information gleaned by revelation is impossible to retransmit to another using the method in which it was originally acquired renders it invalid as knowledge because it cannot be shared experience. Hallucination can reveal true information, but one cannot know that that information is true until it is verified by some other method, so it's not knowledge.
JohannVII 2 years ago
ID isn't based on revelation, but on hearsay.
JemyM 2 years ago
"Revelation is a valid form of knowledge"
Revelation as in having something revealed to you is just the same as taking someones word for it. When you are taking somenes word for it (the book of revelation) you are putting your beleifs in an authoritative figure. Did you even listen to the video? Epistemology is not science.
horseburger 2 years ago
thats like saying metal is not a pot which is true but a pot can be made from metal. epistemology is more like principles giving science rules to study reality. 3:42
haolekillah 2 years ago
Even if you disagree with the ID movement, Forrest is just plain lying. She syas they have "no method & no epistemology." This claim is utter nonsense.
William Dembski published an entire scholarly book on the explanatory filter & the epistemological basis for using it. (Cambridge University Press.)
This lady is *lying* when she says that ID movement is just relying on empty authority claims. She *must* know it's not true.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 3
A book does not go through the same processes of scientific scrutiny that a journal does. Pretty much anyone can publish a book as long as the publisher thinks the book will make money. I haven't read that book by dembski, but I know dawkins books are full of bad logic, bad science, and so are behe's. So I would guess that dembski isn't much better.
Uhlbelk 2 years ago
Uhlbelk...
(1) It may not be peer-reviewed. It may even be a bad book. But it does exist. It articulates an epistemology which Forrest says does not exist. She is wrong. Period.
(2) Forrest articulates such a careless philosophy of science that she has no right whatsoever to criticize anyone else. She needs to read Wittgenstein.
(3) Dembski's boook was based on his dissertation at Illinois. It *was* scrutinized by his dissertation committee.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 3
Epistemology is like any other branch of science: those things which are the result of observation, verification, and peer-review, including repeated experiments verifying the assertions of any new theory, are what are considered to be true by the discipline; Dembski's ideas do not meet this standard. His Ph.D. was on specified complexity; it's a big leap from that to ID. Also, a dissertation committee is hardly the scientific community at large; many people write dissertations that are false.
JohannVII 2 years ago
"Epistemology is like any other branch of science, [etc.]..."
Uh, no. Epistemology cannot be reduced to science. It is broader & more basic.
Also, the idea that epistemological insight depends on either (1) observation or (2) peer review is just nonsense.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 7
@ProtoSteward Science is also another word for knowledge (just look at the Latin root of the word 'science). Also, it may be possible that epistemological claims depend on scientific review (look at Quine's naturalized epistemology).
Arodinme6 1 year ago
Something said without proof, need not be disproven.
Wiredkid1 2 years ago
This is not a presupposition and there is no world view involved. The only criterion is the cumulative experience of humanity. This experience simply does not indicate anything supernatural. That is not a presupposition. This is the conclusion.
If you look at something and say it is the result of supernatural interference you must be able to say why and on what grounds you conclude that. I will bet any sum that you are not able.
Meskiagkasher 2 years ago
"This is not a presupposition and there is no world view involved."
Of course world-views are involved. The theistic question is a debate between world-views.
Your world-view has metaphysical presuppositions (like materialism) & epistemological presuppositions (like empiricism) that shape your interpretation of the evidence. Other world-views regard certain facts as strong evidence for the supernatural.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 3
If you claim that god created life, you have to explain how he did that (on the molecular level).
If you cannot explain how exactly your supernatural being interferes with this universe and how you do in fact detect such interference, I have no reason to assume that any of what you say is worth a cent.
The default is that there is no supernatural. If you cklaim otherwise, then prove it.
Meskiagkasher 2 years ago
"The default is that there is no supernatural."
Only if we accept your presuppositions. Other world-views include supernatural elements as the "default." Why should we accept your presuppositons?
ProtoSteward 2 years ago
There are no presuppositions except the universe's existence as it is. Anything in it happens according to the lawsof physics. There is simply no way to include the supernatural as envisioned by folks like you.
If you claim that a god speaks to you from the sky, you must be able to explain how he creates the sound waves (on the physical level).
If you claim you got pregnant by god, you have to explain how he did that (on the biological level).
Meskiagkasher 2 years ago
"There are no presuppositions except the universe's existence as it is."
On the contrary, your presuppositions determine your perception of "the universe's existence as it is."
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 4
"If you claim that a god speaks to you from the sky, you must be able to explain how he creates the sound waves (on the physical level)."
Ignorant nonsense. I don't have to explain how a light switch turns on a light to explain the light turning on & off as "because I flipped the switch." A 5-year-old child understand that switch turns the light on & off, even if he doesn't understand how.
Here is another example of you repeating stupid claims made by sloppy thinkers.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 4
we are not on the level of 5-year-olds. experts in the field of light-switches know how light-switches work. but experts in religion have no fucking clue how god is supposed to work. there is no indication and no evidence for a god, and yet claims are made. if you cannot explain how you detect divine interference, then I will have to discard your claims as figments of your imagination. reason forbids me to *believe* you.
Meskiagkasher 2 years ago
"We are not on the level of 5-year-olds."
....Which is completely irrelevant to the point. If you do not understand why, then you are much too much like a 5-year-old.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 3
you were comparing the use of a light-switch by a 5-year-old with the use of god by an adult. that is plainly idiotic.
Meskiagkasher 2 years ago
No. I was rejecting your false, ignorant definition of "explanation."
If your definition of "explanation" were true, then the child would be wrong to claim that the switch on the wall explains anything. But the 5-year-old understands more than you.
You keep making false claims. Then you refuse to follow your claims through to the logical (if absurd) conlcusion. You're just not logical or honest about your claims.
ProtoSteward 2 years ago 2