Creationist model

But you have not presented any evidence at all.This thread is about the creationist model that you were going to describe, not your apparent dissonance about existance.You need to join the dots for us if you are presenting your ideas as a viable model.

what good is science, when science cannot prove that anything its offering is real?tell me, by what "faith" does science acknoledge whether or not anything it is studying is "real"?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

There is no faith involved.There are three basic assumption and you can study them in Message 5. It also discusses why those three basic assumptions are needed.However, even those assumptions are not without support. Over many centuries, repeated observations have show that those three assumptions are valid. Therefore the conclusion, not faith, is that we can work within those three assumptions.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

No faith is required."Real" is just a word. It means what people determine it to mean.Science studies what science studies. If people want to use "real" for what science studies, they are free to do that. If people (anti-realists, for example) want to withhold the term "real" from what scientists study, that is up to them. Science will continue to study it, regardless of whether it is called "real".Philosophers argue about what is "real". Scientists mostly try to stay outside of that argument. Primarily, science is pragmatic.

---

Let's end the political smears

ok, so whats the definition of objective reality?
what do you base it on?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Do you understand the term assumption?The assumptions are: The objective reality is the universe we inhabit. We make the assumption that the universe exists.That may well be wrong. It might not exist, but if that is the case then anything at all is possible and we can say nothing about anything.However there are strong indication that the universe does exist. Many observations over a long period have confirmed that the universe exists and so we can have a fairly high degree of confidence that is the case. Second, predictions made based on that assumption have been verified time after time. This adds additional weight to the potential validity of the assumption.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

surly your joking. are you not sitting there?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

The assumption we work with says that "Yes, I exist."However that could also be wrong. The point is that if I make the initial assumption that objective reality doesn't exist, then anything is possible. It is possible I am not sitting here.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

*hugs jar*the truth is jar, i have loved you since the first time i opened a debate with you.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

tesla Science need not concern itself with "proving" things since it is not necessary to do so. What it excels at doing is being able to express what can be said about the world that is consistent with what we observe.Since we can say something about a given observed phenomena , we can construct models to explain those phenomena and see if they hold up under further observation and experimentation. In making a model to explain a phenomena we gain insight that allows us to make statements about other aspects of the world that should occur if the model is a good approximation to what is observed. We then test the model by checking on those other aspects to determine if the models prediction of their behavior is accurate.Thereby we further refine the models until such time as they explain the vast majority of phenomena that we observe and this is what amounts to proof. Not an absolute rigid definition, but an accurate, ever refined, better approximation.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

you avoided my question.if science proves nothing then science is useless.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

These are really questions for philosophy, rather than science.Among the positions considered by philosophy are:Solipsism: we, and the world, are figments of our own imagination.Idealism: the world we experience is made out of our ideas. Perception somehow pops these ideas into our heads. George Berkeley (bishop Berkeley) famously argued for idealism.Constructivism: The world is our construct. There are different versions of constructivism, with Piaget's constructive epistemology being quite different from social constructivism.Realism: the world is real. There are different versions of realism, too. According to naive realism, the world is real and is about how we see it. According to anti-realism, some scientific entities are not real and we can only be sure of what we see with our own two eyes.The general view among philosophers seems to be that we really cannot determine which of solipsism, idealism or realism is true, though most modern philosophers are realists of one kind or another.None of this matters a lot to scientists. They are mostly pragmatists. Scientists tend to be realist, but mainly because assuming some form of realism provides a better methodoligical basis for their scientific studies. Some scientists are anti-realist.

---

Let's end the political smears

tesla You asked what good is science if it cannot prove anything is real and I succinctly explained why it need not prove reality. As I said then and I say now science only describes what we can say about what we observe. Reality is a word we assume to have meaning that we cannot ,in fact, back up with any confidence.
We can feel confident that "reality" is what we are observing and investigating but only in so far as the accuracy of our models explains what we observe.We observe that the world has color yet we cannot articulate the means by which such sensation arises. In observing the spectrum of visible light we learn that there are only differing wavelengths in our measurements that correspond to those sensations that we assign color names to.
SO what is the reality? Is it that the wavelength differentiation is a complete description of the phenomena or is there something missing? Is it that the brain cells that are tasked with the combining of nerve impulses generate color as a matter of interpretation or is it that there is a new phenomena that is explained by what we already know but have not had the time and imagination to delve properly into to resolve with any accuracy?
In light of what is unknown{ an awful lot} how then can you define reality? Hence, I stipulate that the point of science is not to resolve reality but to improve clarity in ever increasing amounts.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

---

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."Albert Einstein

science isn't based on philosophy.I'm asking science to explain its own definition.objective reality is a definition of science, not philosophy.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

then how can you say anything you are studying is real????i cannot argue with a stone. i leave you then to your stubbornnessEdited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides