|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 11/22/2005 : 17:29:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
I think that Humbert made a good point in quoting Lenny Flank; I agree with his definition of the scienctific method. So then, how does one apply this scientific method to the "supernatural"?
One doesn't.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
First, it should be important to note that inquiring as to the "how" of the supernatural is pointless. If the "how" is discovered, then it wasn't supernatural to begin with.
If you're not asking "how", then all you have is an observation which you can't explain - for the simple reason that you don't want to.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
The only way to determine for sure if some occurence was supernatural is for a supernatural being to tell you so. Otherwise, you might find a natural explanation eventually. Aside from divine revelation, the best one can come up with is a hypothesis which is not contradicted by observable evidence, and does have some evidence in favor of it. Is one supernatural hypothesis better than another? I think so. The first step is to rule out the obvious. If a man says that an angel told him that anyone who ever drank even one drop of alcohol instantly burst into flames, that's obviously innaccurate. If he says that an angel told him that people shouldn't drink alcohol, that's not obviously inaccurate.
What if he just made it up? Isn't that natural explanation a heck of a lot better than your supernatural one? Also, whether or not people should drink alcohol is not a hypothesis - it's a statement.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Next, since new discoveries are being made all the time, an event which simply doesn't have an explanation is not as likely to be supernatural as one which goes against known science, like the hailstones which I mentioned earlier.
Why would "an explained" event be any less likely to be supernatural. This is just a god-of-the-gaps argument whose only outcome is the inevitable lessening of the powers of your god of choice.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
After it has been determined that an event is indeed unexplainable, then we look at the evidence.
Wouldn't you have to look at the evidence before you can say that it's unexplaiable? Why would you say that something is unexplaiable and not just plain old unexplained.
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
So then, as regards the megacryometeors, why is "Yahweh did it" a better explanation than "the tooth fairy did it"? Because the tooth fairy never claimed to be able to do any such thing, and Yahweh did.
Objection. Hearsay.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 01:54:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Hello Board,
I do not know of anything in the Bible which would prevent Yahweh from actually being a super-powerful space alien whose technology is so far advanced that we can't even begin to understand it. In that sense, anything which we now might call supernatural may actually have a physical explanation. Hence, "supernatural" may be considered that which we are not even close to comprehending.
Do you mean that things we cannot currently explain that have a physical explanation actually are supernatural, or merely that we might mistakenly think of them that way?quote:
I think that Humbert made a good point in quoting Lenny Flank; I agree with his definition of the scienctific method. So then, how does one apply this scientific method to the "supernatural"?
I'm not sure what you mean here.quote:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe
2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions
If a "supenatural" hypothesis can meet these requirements then it's a perfectly fine scientific hypothesis. I don't think I'd call it supernatural though.quote:
First, it should be important to note that inquiring as to the "how" of the supernatural is pointless. If the "how" is discovered, then it wasn't supernatural to begin with.
This is one of the weaknesses of assuming that something is supernatural.quote:
The only way to determine for sure if some occurence was supernatural is for a supernatural being to tell you so. Otherwise, you might find a natural explanation eventually.
How would this be a way of knowing for sure that an occurence is supernatural? Are all supernatural beings incapable of lying? How do you even determine that a supernatural being is speaking to you?quote:
Aside from divine revelation, the best one can come up with is a hypothesis which is not contradicted by observable evidence, and does have some evidence in favor of it.
I'd agree with this except that we have different ideas about what constitutes evidence. Your "evidence" in favor of massive hailstones being caused by divine intervention is that you don't know of a natural explanation, and the bible "predicts" massive hailstones.quote:
Is one supernatural hypothesis better than another? I think so. The first step is to rule out the obvious. If a man says that an angel told him that anyone who ever drank even one drop of alcohol instantly burst into flames, that's obviously innaccurate.
You're just mixing a supernatural statement with a trivially false statement.quote:
If he says that an angel told him that people shouldn't drink alcohol, that's not obviously inaccurate.
Now you're mixing a supernatural statement with an ambiguous statement. This is just word games.quote:
Next, since new discoveries are being made all the time, an event which simply doesn't have an explanation is not as likely to be supernatural as one which goes against known science, like the hailstones which I mentioned earlier.
I'm not convinced that massive hailstones do go against known science. What makes you think they do? As far as I know they are merely unexplained.quote:
After it has been determined that an event is indeed unexplainable,...
How is this determined?quote:
...then we look at the evidence. Most evidence of the supernatural is anecdotal, so we examine the credibility of those who purport this information.
In a scientific investigation anecdotal evidence is next to worthless. It may indicate potential avenues of investigation but it is notoriously unreliable and cannot form a sound basis for any scientific hypothesis or theory.quote:
So then, as regards the megacryometeors, why is "Yahweh did it" a better explanation than "the tooth fairy did it"? Because the tooth fairy never claimed to be able to do any such thing, and Yahweh did.
If someone wrote a book about the tooth fairy wherein the tooth fairy did claim to be able to do such things would that make the toothfairy hypothesis more believable to you? |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 11:29:43 [Permalink]
|
Hello Board:
quote:
But you said: "the best one can come up with is a hypothesis which is not contradicted by observable evidence, and does have some evidence in favor of it. So what positive evidence do you have that god is responsible for the hailstones? Surely you don't mean just that bible quote?
Biology is the science of life, cosmology is the science of heavenly bodies, theology is the science of god. I propose that we use the natural sciences to determine if an event has a natural explanation, and if it doesn't, than we can use the science of god to discuss if a supernatural explanation may be viable. Yes, I do just mean the Bible quote. Look, I'm not running through the streets shouting "Science has proven that Yahweh has poured out his wrath upon us in the form of giant hailstones!" I'll even admit that there's a decent possibility that all this is completely natural. All I'm saying is 1) I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was indeed divine wrath, and 2) this is an example of there being plenty of room for a supernatural explanation, and yet I doubt that any credible scientist is going to open their mind up sufficiently to the possibility that it is supernatural.
quote:
I don't think a "plague of hail" describes these news stories at all. So wouldn't that be evidence against god's involvement?
If you'll look again at my OP I said "such a thing". I did not claim that this was the final fulfillment of a prophecy. As far as I know, this may be a warning or a prelude.
quote:
What the hell are you talking about? The tooth fairy constantly tells me the story of how she created the universe.
Really? Tell me more.
quote:
How would this be a way of knowing for sure that an occurence is supernatural? Are all supernatural beings incapable of lying? How do you even determine that a supernatural being is speaking to you?
How do you know for sure that your parents love you? To make an extreme example, if I died and went to heaven and was enjoying myself for millenia on end, how would I know for sure that Yahweh wasn't playing a big joke on me and was about to obliterate me at any moment? In this life, there is only one thing which is absolutely sure: I exist; or, in your case, you exist... maybe.
quote:
If you're not asking "how", then all you have is an observation which you can't explain - for the simple reason that you don't want to.
No, for the simple reason that scientists, far more skilled in atmospheric studies than I or you, can't explain it. Have any of you guys read the article that I provided? It's not that long. Here's the most germane part:
quote:
That leaves monster hailstones forming in a cloudless sky, a notion that defies more than a century of research on hail formation.
"Scientists are naturally reluctant to say something never can happen," noted Charles Knight, a hail expert at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a university consortium in Boulder, Colo. "But oh, dear. I would be tempted to say 'never' on this."
Knight said he has reviewed scientific papers published on megacryometeors, and thinks the explanation, which involves unusual atmospheric conditions possibly linked to global warming, is wrong.
quote:
Why would "an explained" event be any less likely to be supernatural. This is just a god-of-the-gaps argument whose only outcome is the inevitable lessening of the powers of your god of choice.
It is quite true that even events which have natural explanation could be supernaturally motivated; for instance, Hurricane Katrina.
quote:
Wouldn't you have to look at the evidence before you can say that it's unexplaiable? Why would you say that something is unexplaiable and not just plain old unexplained.
Right now, the megacryometeors are unexplained. If we run out of ways to test them and we still don't know how they're happening, then they would be unexplainable.
quote:
Objection. Hearsay.
In the natural sciences, hearsay is not considered evidence. In the science of god, it is.
quote:
Do you mean that things we cannot currently explain that have a physical explanation actually are supernatural, ...
Yes. To expand on what I said, I do not know of anything in the Bible which absolutely positively states that there are no physical principles which Yahweh must work by. For instance, saw Jesus finds a man who broke his leg; he may say 'be healed' and reality instantly conforms to his will, or he may say 'be healed' and then he uses his invisible spirit hand to join bone, muscles, and skin back together according to some physical principle which we are unaware of.
I have to go.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 11:51:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Biology is the science of life, cosmology is the science of heavenly bodies, theology is the science of god.
Wrong. Theology is the study of religion, which we know to exist. It is not the science of god, which is not known to exist other than as a delusion.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 12:24:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Biology is the science of life, cosmology is the science of heavenly bodies, theology is the science of god. I propose that we use the natural sciences to determine if an event has a natural explanation, and if it doesn't, than we can use the science of god to discuss if a supernatural explanation may be viable. Yes, I do just mean the Bible quote. Look, I'm not running through the streets shouting "Science has proven that Yahweh has poured out his wrath upon us in the form of giant hailstones!" I'll even admit that there's a decent possibility that all this is completely natural. All I'm saying is 1) I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was indeed divine wrath, and 2) this is an example of there being plenty of room for a supernatural explanation, and yet I doubt that any credible scientist is going to open their mind up sufficiently to the possibility that it is supernatural.
How long would you propose an event be subject to the scientific investigation process before science is abandoned in favor of accepting the event as supernatural? Should the scientific community establish some sort of statute of limitations? If we can't come up with a scientifically understandable solution to a particular curious event within say, 10 years, 20 years, should we abandon the research and just say, "god-did-it?"
Or should we take it one individual at a time? Shall we accept that for those who don't have the brainpower to understand a particular concept or the cause of a particular event, the god-did-it explanation will suffice? When kids in school who don't understand how a battery and some wires can make a light bulb glow answer "god-did-it" on the test, should their answers be marked as correct?
How would you justify such an attempt to keep people in the dark, uninformed, unenlightened, uneducated? How could you claim that any human progress might be made, or might have ever been made, if people were to accept your silly proposal? Your delusion certainly appears to impede critical thinking on your part, which is fine, but to propose that your delusion be used to support the impediment of critical thinking on the part of other people seems downright selfish.
And credible scientists wouldn't "open their minds" to the possibility of supernatural causes. It seems difficult for you to understand (perhaps impossible), but supernatural causes could explain anything, and accepting them as the answer would allow one to discontinue the search for the real answer. So you have it exactly backwards. Those who believe in the supernatural or who would use it to explain events are closing their minds, not opening them.
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 14:02:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I propose that we use the natural sciences to determine if an event has a natural explanation, and if it doesn't, than we can use the science of god to discuss if a supernatural explanation may be viable.
This what precisely what has happened through the ages. The greeks had some pretty goog scientific theories. But they could not explain the Sun, the Moon and the planets so they called them Gods.
The hebrews couldn't understand why people got diseases so they said they were sent by God. Comets, earthquakes, floods; these of all been attributed to god, still are with people like Robertson.
As science has progressed the 'God of Gaps' in our understanding of the universe has shrunk.
The God of Gaps is so small now that now some religous individuals and groups are rebeling against science and relying on blind faith. Since I like my quality of life and my health, I'll vote for a continued dependence on science and if the God of Gaps keeps shrinking - so be it.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 18:10:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How do you know for sure that your parents love you?
1. The way they treat you.
2. They tell you they love you.
3. The way they react to your presence.
I could probably think of a few more.
None of this is, of course, relevent.
Just face it hipster, you (and some other people) need the "supernatural" to be real. You just don't feel emotionally secure unless you think you can prove that your fantasy god is real. As the gaps where your god hides are reduced in number, you feel threatened.
It is cause for you to worry, because you have invested so much of yourself into this particular delusion. And the gaps narrow more and more every day. Science looks into those places and illuminates them with the light of reason, and it scares you, because not only has god not been found in the gaps, natural explanations have.
There is no reason to expect this trend will not continue.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2005 : 15:01:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
quote:
If you're not asking "how", then all you have is an observation which you can't explain - for the simple reason that you don't want to.
No, for the simple reason that scientists, far more skilled in atmospheric studies than I or you, can't explain it. Have any of you guys read the article that I provided? It's not that long. Here's the most germane part:
quote:
That leaves monster hailstones forming in a cloudless sky, a notion that defies more than a century of research on hail formation.
"Scientists are naturally reluctant to say something never can happen," noted Charles Knight, a hail expert at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a university consortium in Boulder, Colo. "But oh, dear. I would be tempted to say 'never' on this."
Knight said he has reviewed scientific papers published on megacryometeors, and thinks the explanation, which involves unusual atmospheric conditions possibly linked to global warming, is wrong.
But, of course, these scientists DID ask "how"(or"why").
quote:
Right now, the megacryometeors are unexplained. If we run out of ways to test them and we still don't know how they're happening, then they would be unexplainable.
This statement is just so wrong. You can not say categorically that something is unexplainable. If we have run out of ideas, it just means that: we have run out of ideas. Someone might think of a new one tomorrow.
quote:
It is quite true that even events which have natural explanation could be supernaturally motivated; for instance, Hurricane Katrina.
So in your "god science", not only are "unexplainable" things supernatural, some explained things are as well. So, the only things we can say for sure are natural are those that are "unexplained" (unless of course we run out of ideas for how to test them, in which case they are supernatural as well). Ah, yes. Science at its best.
quote:
In the natural sciences, hearsay is not considered evidence. In the science of god, it is.
I would just like to point out that this is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a science of god, for the simple reason that science can not deal with anything supernatural.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2005 : 16:10:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wrong. Theology is the study of religion, which we know to exist. It is not the science of god, which is not known to exist other than as a delusion.
Not known to whom? To you? To the majority of people? To anyone?
quote:
How long would you propose an event be subject to the scientific investigation process before science is abandoned in favor of accepting the event as supernatural?
Never.
quote:
It seems difficult for you to understand (perhaps impossible), but supernatural causes could explain anything, ...
So what?
quote:
... and accepting them as the answer would allow one to discontinue the search for the real answer.
This is only true if the supernatural is not the real answer.
quote:
As science has progressed the 'God of Gaps' in our understanding of the universe has shrunk.
You people keep on putting words into my mouth. I told you the only way to be sure (as sure as you can be) that an event is supernatural, do you recall what I said?
quote:
quote:
How do you know for sure that your parents love you?
1. The way they treat you.
2. They tell you they love you.
3. The way they react to your presence.
I could probably think of a few more.
None of this is, of course, relevent.
It is quite relevant. How do you know that a divine being is authentic?
1. The way it treats you; as an inferior.
2. It tells you that it is authentic.
3. The way you react to its presence; by falling on your face and pleading for your soul.
These are all relevant tests for whether or not a being is divine, and I could probably think of a few more.
quote:
Science looks into those places and illuminates them with the light of reason, and it scares you, because not only has god not been found in the gaps, natural explanations have.
"Natural" sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) can't find "god", because "god" is "super-natural".
Basically, I am submitting the question "is there a being which is not bound by the laws of physics as we know them?". You are responding "we are in the process of discovering how the laws of physics work, therefore there is no reason to think that such a being exists". What does your response have to do with my question?
If you were investigating the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, would you start by assuming that there wasn't any? If every single ancient culture on the face of the planet had a story about a race of people seeding this planet with life and then leaving, would say that that wasn't evidence of extra-terrestrial life?
Question: Is there a being/s which has abilities that humanity does not comprehend and which interacts with humanity? If you were going to seriously investigate this question, where would you start? You wouldn't start by saying "Let's assume that there isn't one." That's not investigating the question, that's giving up. (In the following process, if there are options which you think of that I don't post, please bring them up.)
1. Is there any such being which humanity in general currently observes and interacts with? Answer: no.
2. Is there any claim by any member of humanity that they have encountered such a being? Answer: yes. Throughout history, lots of people have claimed to encounter such a being (or beings). In fact, I cannot think of one ancient culture which does not claim that such a being exists. However, there seem to be about as many different, contradicting stories as there are cultures. What could explain this?
a) Different beings could be interacting with different groups of people.
b) A single being could be interacting with all or some of the groups of claimants, but is manifesting in different ways.
c) All of them could be wrong.
d) One of the groups of claimants is right, and the rest are wrong.
I could probably go off on this vein for a long time. Let me know if you're really serious about looking into this. If you're not even going to consider the possibility, then there's really no point in further conversation on this matter.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2005 : 21:39:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is quite relevant. How do you know that a divine being is authentic?
1. The way it treats you; as an inferior.
2. It tells you that it is authentic.
3. The way you react to its presence; by falling on your face and pleading for your soul.
These are all relevant tests for whether or not a being is divine, and I could probably think of a few more.
I've met my parents. I can prove this.
When you have met some "divine being", and can prove it, get back to us.
quote:
"Natural" sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) can't find "god", because "god" is "super-natural".
And the "supernatural" doesn't exist outside the imagination of people. Next?
quote:
Basically, I am submitting the question "is there a being which is not bound by the laws of physics as we know them?". You are responding "we are in the process of discovering how the laws of physics work, therefore there is no reason to think that such a being exists". What does your response have to do with my question?
I'll just refer you to the section of www.skepdic.com that explains the straw-man fallacy. Because you have deliberately mis-stated what I said so you could more easily argue against it. I was pretty sure you were not the type to resort to lying, but apparently I was mistaken.
quote:
If you were investigating the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, would you start by assuming that there wasn't any?
Obviously there are some things about the scientific method that you don't have a firm grasp on. The answer to your question, in part, is yes. You would definitely NOT start with the assumption that et's existed, you would also NOT start with the assumption that they don't.
quote:
1. Is there any such being which humanity in general currently observes and interacts with? Answer: no.
2. Is there any claim by any member of humanity that they have encountered such a being? Answer: yes. Throughout history, lots of people have claimed to encounter such a being (or beings). In fact, I cannot think of one ancient culture which does not claim that such a being exists. However, there seem to be about as many different, contradicting stories as there are cultures. What could explain this?
a) Different beings could be interacting with different groups of people.
b) A single being could be interacting with all or some of the groups of claimants, but is manifesting in different ways.
c) All of them could be wrong.
d) One of the groups of claimants is right, and the rest are wrong.
Obviously you, and other hard core christians, already know that answer D is correct and that your claim is the correct one. Which nullifies all other claims and ends the desire for real answers. Congratulations, you win!
quote:
What could explain this?
How about: People all wonder about their origins, all seek meaning in this life, and all try to answer the hard questions. The many many many different answers tell you only that people have come up with thousands of different explanations for why we are here, all without a shred of eviden to support them. If there were actually some single underlying truth out there that people could discern, then the different answers wouldn't all be so... different.
As I said, you (and people like you) need your god to be real. You have invested far to much of yourself in your beliefs and you simply cannot admit that no evidence exists which supports your delusion of choice.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2005 : 03:55:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
2. Is there any claim by any member of humanity that they have encountered such a being? Answer: yes. Throughout history, lots of people have claimed to encounter such a being (or beings). In fact, I cannot think of one ancient culture which does not claim that such a being exists. However, there seem to be about as many different, contradicting stories as there are cultures. What could explain this?
a) Different beings could be interacting with different groups of people.
b) A single being could be interacting with all or some of the groups of claimants, but is manifesting in different ways.
c) All of them could be wrong.
d) One of the groups of claimants is right, and the rest are wrong.
In 'a' there are many supernatural beings, one for each group. Every being is denouncing each other. Very competitive, not highly moral, and demands the assumption that there are more than one supernatural being.
In 'b' there is only one being, manifested differently according to the culture of each group, and each group claiming everyone else but them are mistaken. If there was a supernatural entity, it surely would have pointed out that It has contacted everyone as well.
In 'c' there is no supernatural entity, and all people are equally mistaken.
In 'd' there is the assumption that one group is fundamentally different than all the others. People are people, why should one group be set apart from the rest?
To me it is obvious that 'c' is the most logical answer. If calls for the least number of assumptions, and is treating all people as not singling out anyone, equally. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2005 : 09:51:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...quote:
Originally posted by me...
Wrong. Theology is the study of religion, which we know to exist. It is not the science of god, which is not known to exist other than as a delusion.
Not known to whom? To you? To the majority of people? To anyone?
To anyone. You'll notice I specified, "... other than as a delusion."quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...quote:
Originally posted by me...
How long would you propose an event be subject to the scientific investigation process before science is abandoned in favor of accepting the event as supernatural?
Never.
So obviously you agree that the scientific process should continue to be applied forever, and we should never accept the cause of events as being supernatural.quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...quote:
Originally posted by me...
It seems difficult for you to understand (perhaps impossible), but supernatural causes could explain anything, ...
So what?
So why would you bother to consider anything other than magic as the explanation for anything? If you're willing to start being lazy minded at some arbitrary point, why invest any effort into thinking at all? Unless maybe you feel you're specially gifted with some divine knowledge about which things should be accepted as natural and which are supernatural. It's certainly true that no two other people have ever agreed on exactly where to draw that line.quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...quote:
Originally posted by me...
... and accepting them as the answer would allow one to discontinue the search for the real answer.
This is only true if the supernatural is not the real answer.
And you've already acknowledged that the pursuit of natural explanations should never be abandoned, which means that supernatural causes should never be accepted as the real answer. So your continued concern that anything is supernatural ceases to make sense (other than perhaps within the framework of your own delusion).
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2005 : 10:09:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Hello Board:
quote:
But you said: "the best one can come up with is a hypothesis which is not contradicted by observable evidence, and does have some evidence in favor of it. So what positive evidence do you have that god is responsible for the hailstones? Surely you don't mean just that bible quote?
Biology is the science of life, cosmology is the science of heavenly bodies, theology is the science of god. I propose that we use the natural sciences to determine if an event has a natural explanation, and if it doesn't, than we can use the science of god to discuss if a supernatural explanation may be viable. Yes, I do just mean the Bible quote. Look, I'm not running through the streets shouting "Science has proven that Yahweh has poured out his wrath upon us in the form of giant hailstones!" I'll even admit that there's a decent possibility that all this is completely natural. All I'm saying is 1) I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was indeed divine wrath, and 2) this is an example of there being plenty of room for a supernatural explanation, and yet I doubt that any credible scientist is going to open their mind up sufficiently to the possibility that it is supernatural.
Science tries to explain the how not the why. Divine retribution? Maybe. Assumes the existance of a force (sometimes malevolent) which can be questioned as to motives.
quote:
quote:
Objection. Hearsay.
In the natural sciences, hearsay is not considered evidence. In the science of god, it is.
Which makes it unscientific and merely a philosophy which assumes the temporal existance of a theological construct and assigns intent to natural occurring phenomenon. Much like trying to change one's life behaviors because one got too close to gasoline fumes with a lit match and attributing it to God's wrath. There is no science in the "science of God". |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 01:11:10 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
quote:
I'll just refer you to the section of www.skepdic.com that explains the straw-man fallacy. Because you have deliberately mis-stated what I said so you could more easily argue against it. I was pretty sure you were not the type to resort to lying, but apparently I was mistaken.
Hm, perhaps I misunderstood you (and furshur). Would either of you say that there are reasons to believe that a being exists which is not bound by the laws of physics as we know them?
quote:
When you have met some "divine being", and can prove it, get back to us.
But what if the divine being didn't want to be contacted en mass? What you do if (assuming that you are a rational, mentally stable individual) Jesus appeared before you and said "Here I am, I exist, go preach my word" and then disappeared? Would you chalk that up to spontaneous, temporary mental insanity? Or perhaps the CIA? Or aliens? Would you even give an honest consideration to the possibility that your vision was authentic?
But while we're on the subject of proof for complex subjects, can you prove that the universe is 15 billion years old (or whatever)?
quote:
And the "supernatural" doesn't exist outside the imagination of people.
Oh yeah, prove that too.
quote:
As I said, you (and people like you) need your god to be real.
I could just as easily say that you (and people like you) need the idea of a god to be false so that you don't have to be morally accountable to it.
quote:
Obviously there are some things about the scientific method that you don't have a firm grasp on. The answer to your question, in part, is yes. You would definitely NOT start with the assumption that et's existed, you would also NOT start with the assumption that they don't.
In my paragraphs following the ET example, did I ever assume that a "divine" being existed? (I could call you on a straw-man attempt)
I'll have to get back to the rest of you later, (but thank you Mabuse for being the only one to actually respond to the options which I presented)
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 01:17:39 [Permalink]
|
Hippy, I asked at the beginning of this thread for some documentation that any of these supernatural events have actually occurred and I can't see that you have addressed that other than to say you believe.
There are a couple of studies that show prayer has no effect. You do better health wise if you go to church but that can be better explained as resulting from the social support than anything of divine intervention.
UFOs, ghosts, clairvoyant experiences, and abductions have never been documented in any kind of convincing way despite all the attempts to do so. And, what, the Catholic Church decided to recognize a spontaneous remission of a tumor or two as miracles? Shouldn't there be thousands of spontaneous remissions and miracle cures considering how many people pray? Most of them are never supported by evidence when investigated. The church isn't even going to investigate the latest crying blood statue because the rest have all been fakes.
Just what supernatural events are you referring to? |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 12/06/2005 01:21:53 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
