In other words, it says, "We're going to concede to this one unscientific assumption in order to make the whole of scientific methodology valid."
So, this "one unscientific assumption" turns out to be false (generally), correct?
While this makes it valid,
How can it be "valid" when it starts from a (generally) false premise?
Oh, I see that in
formal logic the definition of "valid" states that an
argument can have false premises and still be valid.
How convenient for science that it can be based on a falsehood and still claim "validity"!
As a result, scientists can ignore overwhelming evidence by claiming that "more research is needed" before coming to a "conclusion", when
in reality there is no possibility in coming to a true conclusion in a valid way if the premise is mistaken!
it places an impenetrable upper limit upon scientific exploration, and any concept beyond this limit
...
There's no evidence for abstract mathematical laws, either, but we believe in them and use them all the time anyway because they are self-consistent, logical constructs.
There is evidence that some part of the personality survives death, some of the time.
Note
the 52 points on the near-death site and
the case of the dead chess master, among others...
This refutes humanism, defined as the idea that man is the guarantor of all knowledge and reason, and therefore it indicates that
either there is no substance to knowledge and reason (i.e. non-humanist atheism),
or all knowledge and reason is founded and guarantied by a Supreme being.
The proof of God is not contingent upon any metaphysical conclusion, only that the one evaluating the evidence concludes that knowledge is valid and has substance, and that no cogent rebuttal of these 52+ points (of knowledge) exists. Therefore, it is theoretically possible to prove a Supreme being using logic and empirical evidence.
My definition: A supreme being who is the founder and guarantor of knowledge.
My proof:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300Responding in order:
1) The one "unscientific assumption" is either false or true depending upon the context from which you're examining it. In a broad, generalized context, it seems to be false. Not only, as you point out, are there experiments that suggest observation does causally effect physical reality (e.g. by collapsing the wave function), but in a self-apparent sense it seems that physical reality is defined in tandem with observation, i.e. things are what they are when they are perceived as they are.
In an empirical context, the assumption is true. Any true conclusion derived from empirical exploration necessitates that the assumption is true, else the conclusion can't possibly follow. We can't explain isolated phenomena in terms of other isolated phenomena unless we control for observation. In this context, the assumption can be rephrased in a different way: Instead of assuming "observation doesn't causally effect physical reality," empirical science says "we live in a Positivistic Universe, i.e. a universe wherein physical phenomena have a static nature that is independent of observation, and we can treat them as they are all by themselves."
2) Science is valid because it must blare its limitations at every turn. Any scientific conclusion carries a margin-of-error because controlling for observation forces us to use inductive reasoning to make our predictions. Even from a broader, philosophical perspective, science is valid because it must always acknowledge that certain assumptions are carried which it cannot falsify. In exchange for the inability to both 1) make conclusions beyond all margin-of-error and 2) explore and conclude upon that which is beyond its scope, it gains specific explanatory power inasmuch as it can formulate working models of specific physical processes.
As it turns out, this has been incredibly advantageous to us. In a practical sense, successfully navigate our world through the use of inductive reasoning all the time after perceiving isolated conditions and events in our environment that appear most relevant to us. In a scientific sense, we can formalize this same approach to learn valuable information about isolated conditions and events that allows us to build a library of knowledge, lending itself to technological development, medical advances, and a better quality of life.
What becomes problematic is when proponents of science misrepresent or misunderstand its limitations so as to use that same library of knowledge to make invalid assertions, e.g. when empirical data is used to conclude upon abstract concepts and principles. Some things, such as mathematical constructs, are abstract and, despite being real, are not found in physical reality. We might describe physical systems in terms of these mathematical constructs, but that does not mean that the physical systems themselves are evidence of these constructs. Broadening the thought, there may be an abstract concept that we call God that can be used to describe and explain all physical phenomena, but that doesn't mean that any or all physical phenomena is evidence of God.
3) I think it is possible to prove whether a supreme being (God) is logically necessary or unnecessary, but for the reasons aforementioned it is impossible to prove God via empirical evidence. There could, however, be empirical evidence that suggests or supports the existence of God if it aligns with a pre-existing logical framework in which God has already been deemed necessary. In the case such a framework exists, then any and all empirical evidence should align with this framework and support it, but the evidence will forever be insufficient proof in and of itself.
