I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

I understand that you believe there is a mistake but I still see your position as totally pointless, unreasonable and unsupportable. I still see no use, value or justification for presenting a supernatural cause to your scenario, and for the reasons I've given; pointing to the supernatural adds no knowledge, value, worth or explanation. We still have no more idea of how it happened then we did before.

Your mistake is technical. Tell me, if it had been a supernatural being who had magicked the transformation, how would restricting ourselves to naturalistic hypotheses add knowledge, value, worth or explanation? Supported hypotheses are ideas. The view that lake water does not have the chemical make up to transform spontaneously and instantly into Bordeaux wine couldn't be better supported. It would have to have the same chemical composition as grape juice in order for a spontaneous (but not instantaneous) transformation into grape wine to happen, in which case, it would be grape juice.

Read what I have written.We don't assign a naturalistic cause (although we do know that all we have ever found have been natural causes), we don't assign any cause. We put it is the unknown or unexplained folder.

Why can't scientific methods be applied to anything which is detectable?If GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) chose to make himself empirically detectable to us why would we be unable to apply the methods of science to those empirical observations? Asking why scientific methods cannot be applied to that which is detectable is neither a "word salad" nor "nonsense". Why can't scientific methods be applied to anything which is detectable? If GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) chose to make himself empirically detectable to us why would we be unable to apply the methods of science to those empirical observations?You continue to conflate the ability to observe and scientifically examine the supernatural with the ability to prove that something is supernatural. Given that we can't prove any process is devoid of supernatural involvement either the best we can ever do is put forward hypotheses and seek to honestly test them against observation. This method can be applied to anything which is detectable. Let me introduce you to the hypothetico-deductive method.

quote:

---

The hypothetico-deductive model or method is a proposed description of scientific method. According to it, scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data. A test that could and does run contrary to predictions of the hypothesis is taken as a falsification of the hypothesis. A test that could but does not run contrary to the hypothesis corroborates the theory. It is then proposed to compare the explanatory value of competing hypotheses by testing how stringently they are corroborated by their predictions.

---

In the scenario where GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) chooses to make himself empirically detectable to us there are a number of predictions which one could make and test in a bid to distinguish between that actuality and a hoax conducted by "a charlatan or con-man".If we don't use the methods of science to try and distinguish between those two things then how would we?

More sophomoric asinine nonsense and word salad.How is the supernatural detectable?

Beliefs are based on beliefs. Acceptance is based on acceptance.I don't see a fundamental difference between scientific thinking and religious thinking. The thought process is similar; it's the foundation that differs. Scientific thinking is based on reality; religious thinking is based on turtles. You accept reality; you believe in turtles.

I don't see how the two processes could be any more fundamentally different. One includes a method to know when you are right or wrong and the other does not. One is bound by logic and reason where the other is not.The differences are greater than the differences between a video game and reality. The rules are different and the consequences are different.

This is what we have been trying to tell you for years! Belief is not bound by logic and is often unreasonable.

Doesn't that bother you?

Ergo, potentially very dangerous.

To me, belief is only illogical in the context of the modern secular world view. I don't consider it unreasonable at all to believe in a Creator. I don't consider it unreasonable to believe that this Creator knows each of us individually and collectively better than we know ourselves or even could know ourselves. What frightens many secular minds is not the idea of God...it is the idea that were they to accept it, they would lose control over themselves.

Granted. I feel, however, that the potential for humanity to destroy itself is even more dangerous. Some of us cherish the right of humanity to chart its own destiny. I prefer to believe in a leader bigger than we are, however. A leader who desires our best outcome. Unreasonable?

Absolute nonsense!And probably projection as well. Just because believers think that without someone watching them all the time they would lose control over themselves doesn't mean that is the case for others.

Until you provide evidence, yes.

Religion includes a method to know when you are right or wrong: if the gods make your crops grow, you're right. If not, not. If the "word of God" sez so, you're right. If not, not. Both are bound by logic and reason. The difference, as I've been trying to point out, is that the premises in religion are not bound by reality.