HelpMeGod wrote:Alien, since you seem to know so darn much about, well, everything that you could consider yourself as God, tell me then, how did the universe form from nothing into something? How does the stuff I buy come about? Pop out of thin air? Heck no! That is fairy tale, much like your argument that intelligent design is so flawed it's funny. I think people trying to use science to explain intelligent design is off by some, I do agree, but to say intelligent design is so flawed that it shouldn't even be considered is a lie. God NEVER said he would PROVE Himself through anything. I believe He proves himself supernaturally through the natural so he wont be fully discovered, that way, people like you, can be condemed to hell and he can have judgement. But of course you don't believe in hell. Well, I'm sorry, just because God hasn't personally rang your doorbell to know that he exists, I know he does. Not through being a Christian right off the bat, but having to test God to see if he exists, and yup, he does.
It is not really my intention to consider myself as God. I only wanted to say that ID is not a scientific theory. It is definitely a theory, because it gives an explanation about something, but it is not a scientific theory.
Scientific theories can be tested and/or falsified. This is why they are scientific. ID cannot be tested and cannot be falsified. It is a theory that remains non-scientific. I am not saying it is a lie. It is a theory that is not more and not less valid as anyone else non-scientific, like for example Astrology.
Therefore, being a theory, it can be accepted or rejected by us. If you accept it, you perform an act of faith. Actually, you always perform an act of faith in accepting a theory that is not scientific.
If you reject it, you are agnostic (I am). I cannot accept any theory that is not scientific, because explanations given are not valuable explanations.
My first step in my thoughts is always to categorise a theory and evaluate how strong are the scientific basis upon which it is built.
Regarding the question about universe, well, I have no idea whether it came from nothing into something. Another theory says that the universe always existed, therefore there was no starting point. There are several theories about how the universe started to exist. Some of them are more scientific than others. It depends on which basis they can be justified. I try to categorise and assess each theory at a time.
jerickson314 wrote: Why does "There are absolute truths" have to be proven while "There are no absolute truths" does not? The very concept of "prove" requires absolute truth.
Mmmmhhh, this is not a symmetrical argument.
A supposedly absolute truth can never be 100% proven. This, again, does not mean that there are no absolute truths, but only that you can never prove that there are.
Of course, you can also never prove that there are no absolute truths, but you can consider the possibility that the truth is falsified. Again, it may take one minute or millions of years to find a falsification of the absolute truth, or it can never be falsified. You cannot say.
I prefer to talk about "statements" (or theories) and not "truths".
What I want to say is: take as an example the famous statement "all crows are black".
This can be claimed to be an absolute truth. You can never say this is an absolute truth, because everytime you check a crow, and realise it is actually black, you just increase your confidence level towards the absolute, but you are not reaching the absolute truth. After having checked one billion crows, all black, you are still not sure that somewhere a red crow does actually exist.
You cannot demonstrate the statement is absolutely true. Never.
On the other side, if you find a red crow, you have demonstrated that the statement is false. If you find it.
In conclusion, you can either
1. increase the confidence level about the truth (asymptotically to 100%)
2. hope to demonstrate that it is false (but you don't know it in advance)
But you can never
3. demonstrate it is an absolute truth
4. demonstrate it is not an absolute truth