Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 193 of 549 (577087)
08-27-2010 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-05-2010 2:38 PM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Hi Straggler,
Good post, using supernatural (in place of the IPU), sly dog you..
I had to think about this for a bit before seeing where the error was logically.
Religion has failed to explain anything in science.. ie God of the Gaps has failed..
then extrapolating it to ALL religious experience.
the game of basketball has failed to explain anything
therefore NOBODY has ever played basketball..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2010 2:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2010 7:49 AM shalamabobbi has replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 196 of 549 (577162)
08-27-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Straggler
08-27-2010 7:49 AM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Has belief in the supernatural succeeded in explaining anything?
Of course not.. anymore than the game of basketball. (Religion is a game of rules relating to obtaining salvation)
I think you're conflating two ideas, ie,
Human belief in or expereience of the supernatural
Belief and experience are two separate concepts.
Religion is testimony based, so by definition it is discounted by science.
That's where the problem lies.
You made a statement(maybe on another thread) that you would have to reconsider your stance on atheism if you experienced the 2nd coming.
To be self consistent you would commit yourself to be evaluated for schizophrenia.
So you accept testimony if it is your own.
Or maybe if it is your own and is shared by the rest of humanity.
What if one person were left out?
What if it were you in the loo?
What if it happens to you and a small group?
To yourself alone?
To a lifelong personal friend?
At some point you discount testimony.
In all the above the experience is the same. But in one (or more) you accept the experience and in the rest you reject it.
Reasonable and rational enough, but it really has no finality of proof that you are looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2010 7:49 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2010 11:46 AM shalamabobbi has replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 219 of 549 (578180)
09-01-2010 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Straggler
08-31-2010 11:46 AM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Hi Straggler,
Thanks for replying. I was afraid that my lack of skills in philosophical debate might earn me an ignored status. So that we are not talking past each other I responded to the OP looking for the logical fallacy in the argument which you indicated must exist in your debate with Oni.
I hadn't followed all the arguments by other posters and missed msg 182 which was my only point, that this does not constitute a logical proof. But since you are proposing a scientific theory absolute proof is not required. Fine..
But as I understand it the concepts of this thread lie outside of the scope of science. If that is the case how can a question that is not in the domain of science be answered by a scientific theory?
(ie, a function maps from the domain to the range.) If dark matter did not interact gravitationally we would not know about it. I believe dark energy was predicted by cosmology but not dark matter. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
My point of the basketball analogy was similar in idea to petroglyph's posts I guess, in that by noting that beliefs/religion does not explain anything in the natural world you are setting up a strawman.
The idea of religion being based upon testimony is my understanding of it. That is the only evidence that I am aware of that has been claimed for religion. But it does not constitute anything acceptable to science.
The only thing that it would evidence (if it could be proved inexplicable by means of imagination alone) would be the existence of "something more". The fact that these claims are made does not constitute some sort of proof but how would your theory be able to disprove such claims? (other than simply stating that they are unlikely).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2010 11:46 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2010 7:47 AM shalamabobbi has replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 221 of 549 (578317)
09-01-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Straggler
09-01-2010 7:47 AM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Thanks Straggler,
I think I understand the thread now. What might be a more useful thread (and I'm not volunteering for this nor is this a dis on your thread) would be something along the lines of RAZD's thread about how different mechanisms of dating correlate with one another. In other words the thread would present an abbreviated collection of all known scientific facts that might bare upon various religious beliefs and their viability.
Such a thread would discuss for example the heat death of the universe due to thermodynamics. This concept (as an example) could be nailed down and ideas such as whether or not black holes recycle matter could be presented for those of us who are not cosmologists.
I remember reading a comment by cavediver which made perfect sense but was something that most people(myself included) would not have considered. Something to the effect that creating the universe from outside of "space-time" at the point of the big bang would be "last thursdayism" as much as creating it 6000yrs ago or last Thursday. (hope I remembered/understood it correctly).
Anyhow thanks for the detailed reply.
Thus I am forced to either disagree with his analysis on some level or face a life of unicornless nihilism which I find too terrifying to contemplate.
If Modulus's idea is correct that belief is a need, then it is unhealthy not to by definition, which would be a dilemma of monumental proportion especially down the road when there is nothing new left to discover.
I guess whether or not EvC forum is nothing more than a 12 step for theists remains to be seen..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2010 7:47 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2010 2:10 PM shalamabobbi has 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