|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: I chimed in to explain to you how you could test some of the non-empirical claims to figure out if they're likely to be true or not. And instead you ended up talking about things like 'personal fulfilment' which don't require any testing beyond one's own wholly internal subjective feelings as to whether one feels fulfilled or not.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
And instead you ended up talking about things like 'personal fulfilment' which don't require any testing beyond one's own wholly internal subjective feelings as to whether one feels fulfilled or not. I chimed in to explain to you how you could test some of the non-empirical claims to figure out if they're likely to be true or not. Oh I'm sorry, I thought when you were talking non-empirical things that you were talking about things that were, you know, not empirical.
All experiences, whether empirical or not, involve the brain. Total nitpick, but experiencing the patellar reflex doesn't involve the brain.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Oh I'm sorry, I thought when you were talking non-empirical things that you were talking about things that were, you know, not empirical. That your contributions be relevant to the statement "I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity" were somewhat implicit (given the topic) That I had explicitly differentiated between feelings like comfort and fulfilment that religious texts might induce and the veracity of those texts was a more explicit clue. But I forgive you anyway.
CS writes: Total nitpick, but experiencing the patellar reflex doesn't involve the brain. Dead bodies and even amputated limbs will twitch and move given the right physical stimuli. But that isn't being experienced is it? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
CS writes: Total nitpick, but experiencing the patellar reflex doesn't involve the brain. The mechanism of the elicited patellar refelex doesn't involve the brain; the experience of an elicited patellar reflex certainly does.
That is a nitpick; yours was merely an error. Just sayin'."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
The mechanism of the elicited patellar refelex doesn't involve the brain; the experience of an elicited patellar reflex certainly does.
Total nitpick, but experiencing the patellar reflex doesn't involve the brain. That is a nitpick; yours was merely an error. Just sayin'.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Jess saying;
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
In my mind, I'm not doin' all the work.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jar writes: I know of no possible way you could test a real GOD. Is your definition of a "real GOD" one who necessarily does not, has not, and never will have any effect on the observable world? The sentence I've quoted above seems to be a follow up to this unsupported claim:
jar writes: Only a fool, a charlatan or con-man would think the scientific method would be of any value or worth in examining the Super Natural. Is your definition of "Super Natural" something like: "That which cannot have any effect on the observable world"? That's certainly nothing like the meaning of "supernatural". Have you identified some force which would constrain a "real GOD" in such a way that it could not possibly affect the material world? Is a "GOD" not a supreme being? If you haven't identified such a force, why do you make the above claim?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Nope to all of that.
I believe the supernatural can and does have an effect on the natural world but that I see no way that effect could be distinguished from a natural effect or directly attributable to a supernatural intervention. My definition of GOD is that which created all that is, seen and unseen. We can examine natural things but how could we determine a natural event originated from some supernatural intervention?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
jar writes: I believe the supernatural can and does have an effect on the natural world but that I see no way that effect could be distinguished from a natural effect or directly attributable to a supernatural intervention. I don't know what you mean by "directly attributable", but science doesn't require directness in order to reasonably establish cause, anyway. So, if the Great Lakes were suddenly turned into wine, empirically identified as a fine Bordeaux Red of a specific year, and all our observations tell us that such a quantity of that specific wine (or any other) could not have been produced naturally, couldn't we reasonably infer supernatural interference of some kind? Or, if all Muslims suffering from cancer were suddenly cured, wouldn't the selective nature of the mass curing lead us to some reasonable supernatural inferences?
jar writes: We can examine natural things but how could we determine a natural event originated from some supernatural intervention? It wouldn't be a "natural event" if it had a supernatural cause, would it? Perhaps you meant something more like "observable event", or "material phenomenon". And there's no reason to suppose that a god would be constrained to be so subtle that his effects could never be measurable. The point I'm making is that it's only if we declare that the supernatural can have no effect whatsoever on the observable world that we could say that it is not (at least hypothetically) possible to identify its existence via observation and reasoning from observation, which is science. As you agree, of course, we can clearly test (and sometimes falsify) specific supernatural hypotheses, like the YEC model, for example. There's no reason for the a priori exclusion of supernatural hypotheses from science, and those who declare that they should be automatically excluded are often making the worst argument against "Intelligent Design" around. The only reason that the actions of supernatural beings aren't currently included in the observation based exploration of reality that is science is the same as the reason that flat planets aren't currently included; none have ever been discovered, nor is there any evidence that such things can exist, let alone do.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I don't know what you mean by "directly attributable", but science doesn't require directness in order to reasonably establish cause, anyway. So, if the Great Lakes were suddenly turned into wine, empirically identified as a fine Bordeaux Red of a specific year, and all our observations tell us that such a quantity of that specific wine (or any other) could not have been produced naturally, couldn't we reasonably infer supernatural interference of some kind? Or, if all Muslims suffering from cancer were suddenly cured, wouldn't the selective nature of the mass curing lead us to some reasonable supernatural inferences? You might believe it was supernatural but if you are honest you'd need to put it into the "Unexplained" folder.
As you agree, of course, we can clearly test (and sometimes falsify) specific supernatural hypotheses, like the YEC model, for example. Yes, as I have said repeatedly we can say "that is not supernatural". We might believe something is the result if supernatural intervention, even believe it very strongly, but I can see no way we could ever say "that was supernatural".Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jar writes: You might believe it was supernatural but if you are honest you'd need to put it into the "Unexplained" folder. Or the "inexplicable naturally" folder. Remember that we actually have positive evidence (essential proof) that that amount of Bordeaux can't be produced naturally, and Muslims are a group defined by their religious beliefs alone. I find it odd that you believe that your GOD affects the observed world, but that there could never be observation based evidence for his existence.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
jar writes: We might believe something is the result if supernatural intervention, even believe it very strongly, but I can see no way we could ever say "that was supernatural". Who's expecting strict 100% proofs from science. I strongly believe that the Great Lakes as they are now formed naturally, but don't ask me or any geologists for a 100% proof.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Or the "inexplicable naturally" folder. Remember that we actually have positive evidence (essential proof) that that amount of Bordeaux can't be produced naturally, and Muslims are a group defined by their religious beliefs alone. Well not exactly. We have positive evidence that that amount of Bordeaux can't be produced naturally by any means we know now.
I find it odd that you believe that your GOD affects the observed world, but that there could never be observation based evidence for his existence. I have no problem with you believing that. I find it odd that you find my position odd too.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yawn.
Of course not nor have I ever suggested that. However "God did it" is content free. Even if true we know no more than if we said "I have no idea how that happened." As long as I'm alive and just human, I see no way to ever show that something really is supernatural. I might believe something is supernatural, even believe very strongly that something is supernatural but if pressed and honest I would have to stick it in the "Unexplained" folder.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024