Epistemological Standards in Theory-Formation

  • Thread starter Les Sleeth
  • Start date
  • #26
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
No method of science excludes the possibility that the universe was created, but the hypothesis is excluded from being evaluated in the sense that no scientific methodology can evaluate such a claim. The problem with making such a claim regardless of whether one intends to be scientific is simply that there is no good reason to think a created universe would appear or behave any differently from a universe that was no created. Unless the creator told you personally, how would you know? And how would you verify that whatever voice claimed to be that of the creator wasn't tricking you?
 
  • #27
1,515
0
loseyourname said:
The problem with making such a claim regardless of whether one intends to be scientific is simply that there is no good reason to think a created universe would appear or behave any differently from a universe that was not created.
I expect the Pope uses the same argument to support his view.
 
  • #28
857
2
loseyourname said:
No method of science excludes the possibility that the universe was created, but the hypothesis is excluded from being evaluated in the sense that no scientific methodology can evaluate such a claim.

True, but then this spawns the idea of physicalism, people thinking that the universe wasnt created, because the hypothesis cannot be evaluated by the scientific method.

loseyourname said:
The problem with making such a claim regardless of whether one intends to be scientific is simply that there is no good reason to think a created universe would appear or behave any differently from a universe that was no created.

Well there are observable acts of creation(or call it design) taking place in this universe, just look at the walls around u. I think most here would agree that thus the universe would not behave the same way without creation/design (ie. consciousness acting purposely on it).

Btw i have always wondered if projects such as the Global Consciousness Project couldnt tell us something about these matters.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
312
0
Well there are observable acts of creation(or call it design) taking place in this universe, just look at the walls around u. I think most here would agree that thus the universe would not behave the same way without creation/design (ie. consciousness acting purposely on it).

what exactly do we mean by CREATION and what exactly are these acts of creation?

Because if you talk bible creation (6000yr ago, in 6days) then evidence speaks against you. SO what exactly you mean by creation for our understanding?
 
  • #30
857
2
sneez said:
what exactly do we mean by CREATION and what exactly are these acts of creation?

When i spoke of "the walls around u", i literally meant those walls, which were created by the people who built the house. Another example is the computer u are using.
 
  • #31
340
0
sneez said:
what exactly do we mean by CREATION and what exactly are these acts of creation?

Because if you talk bible creation (6000yr ago, in 6days) then evidence speaks against you. SO what exactly you mean by creation for our understanding?
Good question. I think Loseyourname was the first to raise the question by stating, "No method of science excludes the possibility that the universe was created, but the hypothesis is excluded from being evaluated in the sense that no scientific methodology can evaluate such a claim."

If, as sneez suggests, we mean biblical creation, then loseyourname is right. But if we mean by 'creation' that there was some component of deliberate conscious action involved in the origination of whatever part of reality we want to consider, then there are many possibilities some of which can be investigated by scientific methodology and others may be investigated if only the methods of science were extended somewhat.

Warm regards,

Paul
 
  • #32
1,604
1
PIT2 said:
Then the pope would have the ultimate rigorous conditions. This isnt exactly something to be proud of.
Has anyone asked the Pope how he decides what is true and what not true?

I would be interested to examine the rigour of his method for determining truth. :wink:

Best Regards
 
  • #33
1,515
0
I'm not convinced that rigour plays any part in his method. In fact I'm not even sure that he has a method.
 
  • #34
Rade
How does the Pope "know" the truth ?--he knows these words--John 14:6...Jesus said ...I am the truth...
 
  • #35
114
0
Being nattily attired is proof of knowledge in any business.
 
  • #36
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
9
I think this Pope stuff is getting way OT. But if you want to know, the Roman Catholic Church does not believe that inspiration ended with the apostles, there is also the communion of the saints. Throughout the history of the church various people have had visions where they received information from some saint, or most often from one or another manifestation of the Blessed Virgin (i.e. the Virgin Mary). And the Pope was declared by the First Vatican Council to be infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra" on matters of faith and morals. Not only may he receive inspirations himself but he is thought to be able to discern which inspirations of others are true and which false.

Not exactly experimentally accessible.
 
  • #37
1,604
1
Rade said:
How does the Pope "know" the truth ?--he knows these words--John 14:6...Jesus said ...I am the truth...
How (ie by what means) does he know they are true? Where is the rigorous procedure that he uses for determining the truth of these words?

Best Regards
 

Related Threads on Epistemological Standards in Theory-Formation

Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
3K
C
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
72
Views
8K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
72K
Top