Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 436 of 693 (711170)
11-15-2013 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by Mutwa
11-15-2013 11:47 AM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Mutwa, posted 11-15-2013 11:47 AM Mutwa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Mutwa, posted 11-15-2013 12:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 459 by Jon, posted 11-15-2013 11:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 437 of 693 (711171)
11-15-2013 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by Mutwa
11-15-2013 11:47 AM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
Mutwa writes:
Science can only investigate the natural world, it can only come up with natural explanations.
Tautology. The very word supernatural means outside the realm of the natural.
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:
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.
You make my point for me.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Mutwa, posted 11-15-2013 11:47 AM Mutwa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by ringo, posted 11-15-2013 12:25 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 442 by Mutwa, posted 11-15-2013 12:26 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 438 of 693 (711172)
11-15-2013 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by 1.61803
11-15-2013 11:53 AM


Re: What happened to methodological naturalism?
Catholic Scientist writes:
"I don't know."
Precisely. So we use the idea that the simplest explanation must be the right one.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by 1.61803, posted 11-15-2013 11:53 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by 1.61803, posted 11-15-2013 12:27 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Mutwa
Junior Member (Idle past 3492 days)
Posts: 10
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-25-2013


Message 439 of 693 (711173)
11-15-2013 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by New Cat's Eye
11-15-2013 12:07 PM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2013 12:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2013 12:26 PM Mutwa has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 440 of 693 (711175)
11-15-2013 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by 1.61803
11-15-2013 11:53 AM


Pascals wager
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by 1.61803, posted 11-15-2013 11:53 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 441 of 693 (711176)
11-15-2013 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by 1.61803
11-15-2013 12:14 PM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
1.61803 writes:
The supernatural is just a word. Not a claim infering cause or explaination.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by 1.61803, posted 11-15-2013 12:14 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
Mutwa
Junior Member (Idle past 3492 days)
Posts: 10
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-25-2013


Message 442 of 693 (711177)
11-15-2013 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by 1.61803
11-15-2013 12:14 PM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by 1.61803, posted 11-15-2013 12:14 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by 1.61803, posted 11-18-2013 12:13 PM Mutwa has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 443 of 693 (711178)
11-15-2013 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Mutwa
11-15-2013 12:17 PM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Mutwa, posted 11-15-2013 12:17 PM Mutwa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by Mutwa, posted 11-15-2013 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 444 of 693 (711179)
11-15-2013 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by New Cat's Eye
11-15-2013 12:17 PM


Re: What happened to methodological naturalism?
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:
We wouldn't, but at the moment purely natural explanations are working.
Sure but as in the thought experiment we would not know the difference and could be mistaken.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Methodological naturalism demands that supernatural explantions are left aside.
Yes Hence the word naturalism.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2013 12:17 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Mutwa
Junior Member (Idle past 3492 days)
Posts: 10
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-25-2013


Message 445 of 693 (711180)
11-15-2013 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by New Cat's Eye
11-15-2013 12:26 PM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2013 12:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2013 12:41 PM Mutwa has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 446 of 693 (711181)
11-15-2013 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by Mutwa
11-15-2013 12:38 PM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by Mutwa, posted 11-15-2013 12:38 PM Mutwa has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by jar, posted 11-15-2013 12:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 447 of 693 (711182)
11-15-2013 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by New Cat's Eye
11-15-2013 12:41 PM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2013 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 448 of 693 (711183)
11-15-2013 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by New Cat's Eye
11-15-2013 11:24 AM


Re: What happened to methodological naturalism?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2013 11:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2013 2:21 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 449 of 693 (711184)
11-15-2013 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by Mutwa
11-15-2013 12:04 PM


Re: Picture The Scene
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:
The sky is red. Lakes have been turned to wine. The starving millions of the world have been fed their fill using only a single baguette and a couple of pilchards. Christ walks amongst us healing the sick and generally bringing comfort and contentment to all. Lost limbs have regrown. The blind can see. The dead are being resurrected. Angels swoop around re-uniting long lost loved ones in acts of joyous re-union.
You get the picture.
In the midst of all this is a filing cabinet. One drawer of the filing cabinet is heavily padlocked and is clearly labelled ‘Evidence supporting supernatural hypotheses’. Sternly guarding this filing cabinet are yourself and Jar.
Mut: Well I don’t see anything that could be called evidence supporting a supernatural claim here. Do you?
Jar: Certainly not.
Mut: No reason to open the padlock.
Jar: Nope. Absolutely not. The drawer shall remain locked. The folder shall remain empty.
Mut: Quite right.
Dawkins wanders by muttering to himself. How could I have got it so wrong? we hear him whisper bemusedly to no-one in particular as he stumbles past.
Mut: I hear that some of those atheist fellows at EvC are actually suggesting that recent events somehow qualify as evidence supporting Christian supernatural claims.
Jar: Hah! The fools! But what do you expect? Some of those atheists are fickle and feeble minded when it comes to matters of evidence.
Mut: Yes, not like us.
Jar: No. Not like us.
Mut: Reckless minds.
Jar: Yes.
Dan Dennet wanders past arm in arm with Jesus. The two are in deep conversation. Aha. So that’s how the seat of consciousness interacts with the material world. That is wonderful Dennet exclaims as they head past.
Mut: Careful old boy. A gigantic fiery pit appears to have opened up behind you.
Jar: Don’t worry. It’s all entirely natural.
Mut: Yes. But there are some gullible minds who might see that sinister looking chap with his pitchfork emerging from that gigantic pit of fire and be tempted to think of that as evidence supporting supernatural claims.
Jar: Don’t worry the key is safe with me. That folder shall remain empty.
Mut: Of course
Jar: AAAAAaaaaaaaAAAAAaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Mut: Oh dear..
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Mutwa, posted 11-15-2013 12:04 PM Mutwa has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 450 of 693 (711185)
11-15-2013 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by jar
11-15-2013 11:10 AM


Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by jar, posted 11-15-2013 11:10 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by jar, posted 11-15-2013 1:55 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024