|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3466 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Science can only investigate the natural world, it can only come up with natural explanations. While the latter is true, I don't think it's related to the former. Science can investigate anything that can be investigated, be it natural or not. It limits itself to explanations that are natural, but that doesn't dictate what you can look at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Mutwa writes:
Tautology. The very word supernatural means outside the realm of the natural. Science can only investigate the natural world, it can only come up with natural explanations. So if someone said they believe a vampire and a lake spontaneously filling with wine is supernatural, you feel that is a inappropriate use of the word supernatural?
Mutwa writes:
You make my point for me. We would be having this same discussion if you claimed to be able to explain the unexplainable. If you can explain it then it isn't unexplainable.The supernatural is just a word. Not a claim infering cause or explaination. You still are dodging my question. Again I ask: What word would you use to describe a vampire shape shifting or a lake that spontaneoulsy fills with wine? "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Precisely. So we use the idea that the simplest explanation must be the right one. "I don't know." I wouldn't say must... I'd say that we use the explanation that works at the moment. The idea is that you stick with the simplest ones until they don't work anymore.
Using this we would conclude I turned on the light first. I was under the impression that I didn't know what was going on in the other room. But yeah, if that explantion works and I don't have any reason to suspect otherwise, then that would be the one that I'd go with.
If a omnipotent benevolent supernatural entity such as God is the prime mover and manifesting our universe and existance how would we ever be able to know it as opposed to it happening without such means. We wouldn't, but at the moment purely natural explanations are working.
So as we all seem to agree it comes down what you personally believe or don't believe. But there's qualifications that determine if we should consider something scientific or not. Methodological naturalism demands that supernatural explantions are left aside.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mutwa Junior Member (Idle past 3492 days) Posts: 10 From: South Africa Joined: |
Science can investigate anything that can be investigated, be it natural or not. I don't agree. If the supernatural existed and could influence the natural world then we could only investigate those effects, since they are part of the natural world. We would have a number of things for which we have no explanation and asked for a cause we would have to say that we didn't know what it was. What we would not say was that it was supernatural, or God, or magic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Pascals wager is often misrepresented to imply one should believe in god as a hedge bet. While he was a mathematician and would probably like that description it is not the only interpretation possible.
Long long ago and far far away when I was a border at a Christian school the subject of Pascals wager was often discussed. The consensus that emerged was that whether or not there really is a GOD that will judge you behavior over your lifespan (none of the kids or even Father Candler bought into the idea that GOD would be so insecure as to care whether or not folk believed in Her or worshiped It) it still makes sense to try to live as though your behavior will be judged. Whether you really will get judged if you really try to do what should be done; be truthful, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, comfort the sorrowful, heal the sick, educate the ignorant, laugh, love, act as stewards; then you will be making the world a better place and hopefully enjoy this life more.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
1.61803 writes:
Welcome to Square One. The supernatural is not an inference; it's a belief. Belief is what we (can) fall back on when no inference is possible.
The supernatural is just a word. Not a claim infering cause or explaination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mutwa Junior Member (Idle past 3492 days) Posts: 10 From: South Africa Joined: |
Tautology. The very word supernatural means outside the realm of the natural. Exactly. So how could we ever conclude that something was supernatural and still claim to be doing science?
The supernatural is just a word. Not a claim infering cause or explaination. If all you are saying is that we can have evidence for what people call supernatural then I have no objections. But if we have evidence then they were wrong to ever think it was supernatural.
What word would you use to describe a vampire shape shifting or a lake that spontaneoulsy fills with wine? Strange? Unexplained? I don't know, but I would not conclude that it was supernatural. I would either discover a cause, making it natural, or not, meaning the cause was unknown.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Science can investigate anything that can be investigated, be it natural or not.
If the supernatural existed and could influence the natural world then we could only investigate those effects, since they are part of the natural world. Well, you don't really know that.
We would have a number of things for which we have no explanation and asked for a cause we would have to say that we didn't know what it was. What we would not say was that it was supernatural, or God, or magic. Right, but in looking at them and determining that we couldn't figure out a cause, we would, in fact, be investigating them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: I don't have any reason to suspect otherwise, then that would be the one that I'd go with. Me too, because suggesting it was God who turned it on would be deferring to a supernatual cause.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Sure but as in the thought experiment we would not know the difference and could be mistaken.
We wouldn't, but at the moment purely natural explanations are working. Catholic Scientist writes:
Yes Hence the word naturalism. Methodological naturalism demands that supernatural explantions are left aside."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mutwa Junior Member (Idle past 3492 days) Posts: 10 From: South Africa Joined: |
Right, but in looking at them and determining that we couldn't figure out a cause, we would, in fact, be investigating them. We would only be studying their effects in the natural world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Right, but in looking at them and determining that we couldn't figure out a cause, we would, in fact, be investigating them.
We would only be studying their effects in the natural world. Right. So if the supernatural can affect the natural world, then we can investigate it. It being supernatural doesn't prevent that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
We can investigate the effects. Did the lights in the room go out??
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
That is an entirely separate issue as to whether or not supernatural claims can be objectively evidenced. Jar is conflating the two things.
He seems to think that because science won't allow us to give up on a natural explanation that a supernatural claim must be forever unevidenced. But that is nonsense. For example if the claim is that those closest to GOD will be imbued by GOD with supernatural healing powers and then priests all over the world start to miraculously but genuinely heal cancer, cause the re-growth of missing limbs and suchlike it would be utterly imbecilic to sit there insisting that this claim of supernatural intervention remains entirely unevidenced. Jar has taken an ideological position and taken it to pointless extremes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Faced with the scenario I described it would be prepostrous to insist that supernatural claims remain unevidenced. That's the point. Mut writes: Except that it would no longer qualify for the supernatural label. Why? Because we have evidence and a mechanism, making it a natural phenomenon. What "mechanism"...? The second coming of Christ and the biblical end of times is a natural phenomenon now according to you. Hilarious. Here is the scenario again for those who missed it.
quote: Yep - Nothing that could remotely be considered evidence of Christian supernatural claims involved in that scenario. It was meant as a faececious spoof but you really would be standing there surrounded by angels and the resurrected dead insisting that supernatural claims remain entirely unevidenced wouldn't you? Incredible.
Straggler writes: A world in which Harry Potter style magic spells and potions existed would effectively be a dualistic world in which the natural and the supernatural co-exist. Mut writes: No, it would be a world in which what we call magic would be part of the natural world. JK Rowling says otherwise. Why are you right and she wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You defined GOD as supernatural and I defined the scenario to include GOD.
GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) undertaking supernatural feats is a supernatural phenomenon. A video recording of that event is evidence of the supernatural. Whether you feel that sufficient testing has been done or whether you personally choose to accept that video as indicative of the supernatural is an entirely separate issue. Acceptance of the evidence in question has nothing to do with whether or not supernatural phenomena can in principle be evidenced.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024