Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Studying the supernatural
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 207 (634964)
09-25-2011 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
09-25-2011 4:02 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Paulk writes:
In fact Nuggin had a valid point. It's always possible to invent ad-hoc additions to anything we know. But if you're reduced to that then you are almost certainly wrong.
In fact if you don't want to look bad then I have to suggest that you work at reducing your bias, getting your facts right and understanding the posts that you are replying to.
First off, just because YOU say Nuggin has a valid point doesn't mean anything. He took what I said and twisted it around.
GDR did a great job of explaining to the person what I actually meant so there was no need to respond to him the same exact thing. It has nothing to do with "because you aren't up to it" incidently. Also GDR felt that that person was coming across rather disingenuous too. I understand why tho you feel the need to try and belittle me. It's par the course for you here.
If ever you construct a post that isn't at all condescending flavored with arrogance with a hint of humility it will be a first.
As for understanding the posts I make, I perfectly understand what it is I said to Straggler. Thanks kindly tho.
As for getting my facts straight, OBVIOUSLY I know what abiogenesis is! In fact if you read my post it says "most sciences" aren't interested in origins (I was using the TOE as one example). I thought that would imply abiogenesis was in play as ONE of the sciences that DOES seek answers for our origins.
Anyway, Percy im sure is elated you took up for him here with the likes of me. I don't try and go around here like I know everything. I think it's obvious I do not.
It's also obvious that you think you know it all.
For instance if prayer is at all effective it should be statistically visible
Who even knows what in the frikking world that even means. If you want to come over you can watch me pray anytime. Bring your pen and notepad.
I have prayed for certain things that most certainly have been answered. I seriously doubt you would say it was due to prayer as you would call it a coincidence. So save displaying your pious attitude for someone else.
You have potential
Yep, likewise.
but a lot of it is wasted right now.
Yep, likewise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2011 4:02 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:00 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2011 8:02 AM Chuck77 has replied

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


Message 62 of 207 (634965)
09-25-2011 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Chuck77
09-25-2011 6:46 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Chuck writes:
PK writes:
For instance if prayer is at all effective it should be statistically visible.
Who even knows what in the frikking world that even means.
It means you can setup experiments which involve people praying for certain outcomes and then measure whether or not the actual outcomes being prayed for occur to an extent that is statistically significant in comparison to the same occurance when not prayed for.
Hopefully that clears that up for you.....
More simply - What it means is that the effects pf praying can actually be compared to the effects of not praying to see if praying really does work in the way people claim it does.
Even more simply - The effects of prayer are testable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 6:46 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 7:33 AM Straggler has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 207 (634966)
09-25-2011 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Straggler
09-25-2011 5:02 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Im not good with trick questions so i'll do my best. If i falter I hope you'll show me some mercy.
Straggler writes:
Chuck do you think scientific investigation has to all practical intents and purposes refuted the existence of the Norse god Thor?
Hmmm. I do not no. Im not sure they are trying to disprove anything SN. Maybe some people say they are or maybe some actually are but the actual Scientists (save Dawkins) are probably not.
Would a full scientific understanding of abiogenesis effectively eliminate any "spark of life" type theistic claims in your view?
Would a full understanding of abiogenesis if explained eliminate a theistic view for me. No, why would it?
Straggler, im not saying science is evil, im saying it is content in explaining the natural means about how certain things work.
To me tho, just because something is explained doesn't mean the SN is refuted. Why would it?
In general - Is it ever legitimate to invoke a supernatural explanation where a highly evidenced naturalistic cause is scientifically known?
YES. Why not? If we were not created from something SN then Science should have no problem explaining how we got here. Right?
What's the hold up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 5:02 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:17 AM Chuck77 has replied

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


Message 64 of 207 (634967)
09-25-2011 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Chuck77
09-25-2011 7:05 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
So - To be clear - No matter how evidenced or predictively powerful a naturalistic explanation is you consider a supernatural explanation for the same phenomenon to be equally valid?
Thor is as valid an explanation for thunder and lightning as static electricity?
Undetectable flight gnomes are just as likely to be responsible for aeroplanes flying as are the principle of fluid dynamics pertaining to air flow?
Etc.
Or is that not what you meant. If so what did you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 7:05 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 7:25 AM Straggler has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 207 (634968)
09-25-2011 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Straggler
09-25-2011 7:17 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Straggler writes:
So - To be clear - No matter how evidenced or predictively powerful a naturalistic explanation is you consider a supernatural explanation for the same phenomenon to be equally valid?
No. I didn't say THAT. I said the SN could be BEHIND the explanation. Causing it to work the WAY it does. What is the problem?
Thor is as valid an explanation for thunder and lightning as static electricity?
Thor could have caused the static electricity to form lightning, yes. Very good Straggler.
Undetectable flight gnomes are just as likely to be responsible for aeroplanes flying as are the principle of fluid dynamics pertaining to air flow?
Well, im not sure about the gnomes, but God, yes. That's just me tho. You're on the right path.
Or is that not what you meant. If so what did you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:17 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:32 AM Chuck77 has replied

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


Message 66 of 207 (634969)
09-25-2011 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Chuck77
09-25-2011 7:25 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Yes - That is what I meant.
But I am intrigued as to what you think the difference is between invoking flight gnomes as the cause of aerodynamics and Thor as the cause of static electricity that produces storms?
What is the difference?
As a Christian who (as I understand it) believes that Christ is a supernatural entity and who believes that Christ also physically walked amongst us (and will do so again at some point) - Can you explain why we would not be able to (in principle) scientifically study the supernatural entity that is Christ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 7:25 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 7:39 AM Straggler has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 207 (634970)
09-25-2011 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Straggler
09-25-2011 7:00 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Straggler writes:
It means you can setup experiments which involve people praying for certain outcomes and then measure whether or not the actual outcomes being prayed for occur to an extent that is statistically significant in comparison to the same occurance when not prayed for.
LOL. Ok, so, if I pray for healing for my shoulder and the next day it's healed now what? You give credit to whomever I was praying to?
More simply - What it means is that the effects pf praying can actually be compared to the effects of not praying to see if praying really does work in the way people claim it does.
I know what it means. Im simply saying it won't matter now will it?
Even more simply - The effects of prayer are testable.
Hmmm. Funny. so you say it's good for evidence then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:38 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 09-25-2011 10:40 AM Chuck77 has replied

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


Message 68 of 207 (634971)
09-25-2011 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
09-25-2011 7:33 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Sure prayer could be evidence. But it would have to involve properly studying prayer rather than just relying on people saying that they believe it works.
Are you aware of the notion of double blind trials as applied to medical trials?
That is the sort of thing that is required. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 7:33 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 69 of 207 (634972)
09-25-2011 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Straggler
09-25-2011 7:32 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Straggler writes:
But I am intrigued as to what you think the difference is between invoking flight gnomes as the cause of aerodynamics and Thor as the cause of static electricity that produces storms?
Dude, stop playing around. Of course I believe it's God. Im happy to say it's God every time believe me.
Can you explain why we would not be able to (in principle) scientifically study the supernatural entity that is Christ?
We can study the life of Christ while he was here on earth sure. Right now? You can study christianity sure.
Right now, to actually study the SN entity that is Jesus? If I could do that for you I would.
Get saved and you can do that yourself. I can't do it for you.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:32 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:47 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 73 by Larni, posted 09-25-2011 9:45 AM Chuck77 has replied

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


Message 70 of 207 (634973)
09-25-2011 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chuck77
09-25-2011 7:39 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Is God involved in absolutely everything or does anything happen on it's own?
Chuck writes:
Right now, to actually study the SN entity that is Jesus?
I guess that depends whether you believe Christ is amongst us at the moment or not. I am sure some do believe that.......
But at what ever point Christ physically walks amongst us there is nothing in principle to stop us scientifically studying this supertrnatural being is there? I would imagine Christ's DNA (considering his parentage) would be rather interesting. For example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 7:39 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 09-26-2011 5:01 AM Straggler has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 71 of 207 (634974)
09-25-2011 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Chuck77
09-25-2011 6:46 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
quote:
First off, just because YOU say Nuggin has a valid point doesn't mean anything. He took what I said and twisted it around.
But he still had a valid point, even with GDR's explanation.
quote:
If ever you construct a post that isn't at all condescending flavored with arrogance with a hint of humility it will be a first.
Coming from you, that is a bit rich.
quote:
As for understanding the posts I make, I perfectly understand what it is I said to Straggler. Thanks kindly tho.
Now there's a perfect example. I said that you should make more of an attempt to understand the posts that you are replying to And you reply that you understand the posts that you write. See the problem ?
quote:
As for getting my facts straight, OBVIOUSLY I know what abiogenesis is! In fact if you read my post it says "most sciences" aren't interested in origins (I was using the TOE as one example). I thought that would imply abiogenesis was in play as ONE of the sciences that DOES seek answers for our origins.
Oh so you weren't being ignorant, just dishonest. Let us remind you of what you said:
It's the same exact thing when we ask evolutionists about our origins. They say we only deal with current life. It's so very convienient.
Now you know that that isn't true. So why did you say it ?
quote:
Who even knows what in the frikking world that even means. If you want to come over you can watch me pray anytime. Bring your pen and notepad.
I mean that a statistical study should be able to show that prayer is effective. Even if prayer only sometimes works, a positive outcome should happen more frequently than just chance.
quote:
I have prayed for certain things that most certainly have been answered. I seriously doubt you would say it was due to prayer as you would call it a coincidence. So save displaying your pious attitude for someone else.
But that is exactly why a proper statistical study is needed. If prayer really did work, you wouldn't need to rely on anecdotes that might be coincidences at best. It could be demonstrated. And it hasn't been.
Chuck, you've written a few good posts here, and a lot of stinkers. I honestly am trying to give you some good advice here. You could be a lot better than ICANT or Buzsaw, but all too often you aren't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 6:46 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Chuck77, posted 09-26-2011 5:08 AM PaulK has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 72 of 207 (634976)
09-25-2011 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chuck77
09-25-2011 1:35 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Hi Chuck,
PaulK already explained that I was only talking about phenomena traced to a cause (meaning they were explained) hence of course "there are some things still unexplained." Since each new scientific advance tends to raise more (and more detailed) questions than it answers, the breadth of what we know we haven't yet explained grows each day.
The important point is that anything we've explained has had a natural explanation. In the entire history of science, not a single phenomena has ever been found to have a supernatural explanation. As you noted, this is largely due to the nature of science which seeks only natural answers, which raises the question, what would a scientifically supernatural explanation look like. Is "scientifically supernatural" a contradiction in terms?
Mod attempts to address this question in the opening post. Your paranoid slip is not only showing, you've pulled up your whole dress when you say Mod was trying to make creationists look stupid. He was trying to resolve the confusion that always develops when discussing the possibility of supernatural explanations.
Science(most sciences) don't care anything about origins or how things started or got here only what we have now.
Science not only cares a great deal about origins, it has given origin issues increasing attention over the years. It's inevitable that it would do so, it develops out of the "every answer raises more questions" nature of scientific inquiry.
Of course. Why would Science, which studies natural processes, care about the SN? Science could care less...
This is true about how we feel on the science side, but our creationist members feel that science should be able to confirm supernatural events. Not only should be able to, but has. How is debate between these two perspectives to be structured? Again, this is what Mod attempts to address in his opening post.
What im saying is Science is god to some people (like you)...
But science is not God to me. Most people in science, including myself, are not atheists.
...and people like me (the primitive folk)...
Interesting that among the three labels I provided (religious, superstitious and primitive) you chose the last for yourself. The labels refer to people who attribute unseen and unknown and even unknowable causes to phenomena. Isn't that you? (In associating "primitive" with the great apes you exhibited extraordinary effort in finding an insult. I was thinking of remote primitive tribes people.)
It doesn't mean once they explain that the SN is refuted.
If the explanation for thunder is Thor, a supernatural being, and if science shows that lightning is actually the product of naturally occurring atmospheric phenomena, then how would you describe what science has accomplished? There are actually some people here who aren't incredibly picky about terminology. It's fine if you don't like the word "refuted" when describing what science has shown about Thor's role in the cause of lightning. What words would you like to use to describe it?
What I'm wondering is how you believe study of the supernatural should be conducted?
I don't know. There may be some ways but if it can be tested then it's not SN right? Isn't that what you would say?
Yes, you're correct, that's what I would say, but Mod's opening post describes two different perspectives, and the other one says that, "supernatural events occurred that can be evidenced in a scientific context." For example, a common creationist belief is that the great flood was an actual event for which evidence exists that can scientifically studied. If you think this kind of thinking is wrong then that's what you should be addressing, because it is much more apropos than this conversation where we're just trying to understand each other.
It is okay to believe there is more to heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in scientific philosophy, but is there a way to study this other stuff, or is it just something one happens to believe, particularly if one is saved.
It's easy to become impassioned in these discussions and begin feeling like people are being arrogant, condescending, insulting, etc. And sometimes they are. Let it all slide off, you'll feel better for it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 1:35 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Chuck77, posted 09-26-2011 4:16 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 73 of 207 (634980)
09-25-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chuck77
09-25-2011 7:39 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Get saved and you can do that yourself. I can't do it for you.
Isn't that part of the oint of this thread? For something to be studied rigorously it needs to have data available to all, not just a subset of the population.
What you are saying is that it is only true is you already believe it is true.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 7:39 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Chuck77, posted 09-26-2011 4:34 AM Larni has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 74 of 207 (634985)
09-25-2011 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
09-25-2011 7:33 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Ok, so, if I pray for healing for my shoulder and the next day it's healed now what?
From a Christian perspective, God knew that your shoulder hurt, knew that you wanted it to not hurt. Any prayer you make to that end is superfluous. Therefore your shoulder would have been healed regardless of the prayer. And therefore the correlation of prayer and healing is in fact, a coincidence. It might have been healed by God, but the fact that you prayed prior to it does not provide evidence of this fact, since it would have happened anyway.
For Biblical references please see Matthew 6.
I think we'll need something a little more concrete if we are going to study the supernatural. Are you saying that all supernatural phenomena are necessarily beyond the purview of experiential study? Are you of the position that it is in principle impossible for God to appear in front of multiple observers in a manner that lends for corroboration? That he could not perform miraculous events that alter the normal 'natural' course of events in a way that can be detected above and beyond the personal experiences of individuals?
Is the supernatural intrinsically indistinguishable from the delusional? Or is there a little more meat to it than that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 09-25-2011 7:33 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Chuck77, posted 09-26-2011 4:49 AM Modulous has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 75 of 207 (634986)
09-25-2011 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
09-22-2011 2:00 PM


What is Supernatural
In reading through this I kinda feel that we have varying views on just what we mean by supernatural. Essentially it is what is outside the natural but I think that line can become blurred.
The thing is we are wired as particle detectors as sensed through our five senses. How else could the universe be perceived? For example we currently believe that only 4.5% of what there is makes up our perceivable universe. Maybe with different senses we could perceive dark matter. Would that be a supernatural world.
In my Nov. 2010 issue of Scientific American the lead article is headed up this way; "Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter - An Entire Universe May be Interwoven Silently With Or Own". Would that be a supernatural universe?
I think someone suggested if we can discover something scientifically then it is automatically declared natural. I'm not so sure. It seems to me that just possibly science has already discovered the supernatural.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 09-22-2011 2:00 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024