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:   The Three Kinds of Creationists
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 76 of 432 (657461)
03-28-2012 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:37 PM


Re: Agnostic
Perhaps science backs reality, but perhaps not. What if science is stuck in a scenario similar to Plato's cave because it deliberately ignores the supernatural? Science will remain blissfully unaware I suppose.
Can you name a single scientific result that has ever demonstrated a supernatural cause for any phenomenon? I can't.
Science doesn't ignore the supernatural. It just so happens that science keeps finding non-supernatural causes for the phenomenon we find in nature. If you want to claim that the supernatural has effects on the natural world then it is incumbent on you to evidence these effects. Simply complaining that no one takes your beliefs seriously is not what you should be doing. Don't complain. Do.
For example, I spoke of lightning before. How did you rule out the possiblity that Zeus and Thor are really producing those lightning strikes? Are you just ignoring this possibility? What tests and experiments would you run to rule Zeus and Thor out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:37 PM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-29-2012 7:20 PM Taq has not replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4371 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


Message 77 of 432 (657464)
03-28-2012 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Perdition
03-28-2012 4:44 PM


Re: Agnostic
Perdition writes:
Science is built upon a foundation of naturalism, because otherwise, it can't investigate anything. It has nothing to say about supernatural events or beings, because they cannot be tested. They might exist, and if they did, science would be perfectly happy with that.
Science and spirituality can exist peacefully. The issues come in when spiritual or theistic people can't accept the things science says because of their interpretation of their religion. Or when they try to use science to "prove" their religion. Or when they try to force their religion into science classes.
If the religious would sit back, have their religion and either embrace the scientific discoveries or not, no one would care one whit. Science isn't out to destroy religion, but it seems some religious people are out to destroy science, and that's where the conflict comes in.
I understand that the natural world is easier to study because the scientific method can be readily applied to discover new data. However, I personally think science is doing itself a disservice by limiting itself to the natural world. Yes, it would complicate things, and the rules of the scientific method would have to change to discover the laws (if there are any) of the super natural realm. I think it would mutually benefit both.
I am not in favor of a religion vs. science dichotomy. While they currently seem diametrically opposed, I think it is more of a paradoxical scenario that is yet to be resolved. I hope it will in the future because I personally believe the 'theory of every thing' will remain a mystery until both purge their flaws and unite. While this seems unlikely, it is still my hope. Maybe a fool's hope.
Edited by bridgebuilder, : No reason given.
Edited by bridgebuilder, : typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Perdition, posted 03-28-2012 4:44 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 03-28-2012 6:00 PM bridgebuilder has not replied
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 03-28-2012 6:02 PM bridgebuilder has not replied
 Message 82 by Perdition, posted 03-28-2012 6:11 PM bridgebuilder has not replied
 Message 99 by Pressie, posted 03-29-2012 5:25 AM bridgebuilder has not replied

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


(1)
Message 78 of 432 (657467)
03-28-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:31 PM


Re: To PaulK
quote:
According to some nothing but God and an ocean existed. I personally don't believe that, but I believe we were placed in a dimension that has a linear timeline, which necessitates a starting point. Perhaps God decided that was a good place to start when explaining the origins of self aware beings, who would no doubt wonder where they came from and what was/is the meaning of their existence.
I think you're confusing what Genesis 1 says and what you personally believe. In Genesis 1, in the beginning, only God and the ocean are mentioned as existing, and many other things are mentioned as being created later. (including the stars, many of which existed long before our planet)
quote:
If I delve into this, would I open myself up to accusations of being a conspiracy-believing kook? Probably so. Most of the people here think I'm kooky already for believing in a Higher Being.
Not really - if they've been vindicated then there wouldn't be anything kooky about believing that they were right.
quote:
As far as your second point goes, I agree that bad ideas need to be blocked. However science can be guilty of the suppression of good ideas if they don't have proper checks and balances on the elites and think tanks of the science community.
Maybe so, but any system will be imperfect. The question is how bad it really is. Wegener's ideas were blocked for reasons that were justifiable at the time. And we haven't had any examples from you.
quote:
I agree to certain extent. It has been repeated to me numerous times that science should always ignore the supernatural. If so, they will never develop an understanding of supernatural phenomenon. An example I stated in a previous post was the example of levitating monks. If that was phenomenon was studied extensively instead of being debunked by mainstream science, perhaps a new breakthrough will be discovered on the way law of gravity works which may solve the mystery of what is inside a black hole. Maybe changing the vibration/brainwaves of an organism changes the magnetic fields surrounding it and allows it to defy gravity. If that was the case, a machine could be made to mimic those conditions to advance anti-gravity technology. Even if they prove it was an illusion, how the illusion was created may prove useful for some other purpose. I don't know and neither does science. So therefore it will remain esoteric and only for the few initiated.
Well the first thing to establish is if the monks can really levitate. Everything I've seen says that no, they can't (except for the weird jumping about of "yogic flying"). And if they can't then there is nothing to study. So, let's get the unexplained phenomena demonstrated properly before we talk about studying it or making bizarre speculations about how it might work.
Actually I find it very odd that you wouldn't talk about scientific work that had been rejected and later vindicated because you think that it would make you look kooky (how ?), while going on about "vibrations/brainwaves" "changing magnetic fields" enabling people to "defy gravity". Which is absolutely. definitely kooky.
quote:
Faith can enlighten or obscure knowledge, so I don't totally disagree with your point.
I've yet to see any way in which it "enlightens knowledge"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:31 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

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


Message 79 of 432 (657468)
03-28-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 5:53 PM


Re: Agnostic
How can anything non-natural be studied?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 5:53 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2012 6:30 PM jar has replied

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


Message 80 of 432 (657469)
03-28-2012 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 5:53 PM


Re: Agnostic
BB writes:
I understand that the natural world is easier to study because the scientific method can be readily applied to discover new data. However, I personally think science is doing itself a disservice by limiting itself to the natural world. Yes, it would complicate things, and the rules of the scientific method would have to change to discover the laws (if there are any) of the super natural realm. I think it would mutually benefit both.
What sort of supernatural penomena do you think we should study?
I think you should have a read of this thread: Studying the supernatural
The OP summarises some of the key problems with your desire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 5:53 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4371 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


(1)
Message 81 of 432 (657470)
03-28-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by subbie
03-28-2012 4:17 PM


subbie writes:
I must commend you. Like many other creos, you came here with a lot of incorrect ideas, but unlike many, you seem willing to learn. I encourage you to do so. You will find that many of the things you thought were so are not. This may or may not change your belief structure, but at least you will know what you are up against. And it will give you a chance to conform your ideas to reality, always a good thing.
Thank you subbie I have learned a tremendous amount in my brief time here. I can only hope that I am sufficiently unique enough to create a forth category of creationists, lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by subbie, posted 03-28-2012 4:17 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by subbie, posted 03-28-2012 6:50 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 82 of 432 (657472)
03-28-2012 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 5:53 PM


Re: Agnostic
I understand that the natural world is easier to study because the scientific method can be readily applied to discover new data. However, I personally think science is doing itself a disservice by limiting itself to the natural world. Yes, it would complicate things, and the rules of the scientific method would have to change to discover the laws (if there are any) of the super natural realm. I think it would mutually benefit both.
Science constrains itself to the natural because it has to. It's called methodological naturalism. As soon as you allow supernatural explanations, the scientific method is blown to hell.
If you want to study supernatural things, that's great. What you'
re doing won't be science, but if you can come up with a method that gives demonstrably true answers, you've just invented a new discipline. If you're convinced this can be done, then do it. You'll be one of the most famous people in the world.
What I find interesting is that rather than creating this new discipline, you seem fixated on trying to wedge it into science, whcih would necessitate changing science fundamentally. The way we do science currently works. Proof is that we have cell phones, the internet, space ships, genetically modified food, vehicles, power, an understanding of our far past, etc. Why would you want to destroy that discipline just to study something the discipline was never intended to study?
While they currently seem diametrically opposed, I think it is more of a paradoxical scenario that is yet to be resolved.
Science is only diametrically opposed to those who dislike the conclusions that science comes to. Science isn't opposed to religion. Religion, by and large, isn't opposed to science. A few religious groups are opposed to science. Those are the people that need to be informed about the way science works (because they are largely ignorant of it), or they need to be told to keep their wacko ideas to themselves.
There is no conflict except where some force there to be one, and all the force is coming from one side. (Hint: it ain't the science side)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 5:53 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 83 of 432 (657473)
03-28-2012 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:56 PM


Don't reply
Following on from Catholic Scientist's comment: you don't need to reply to all comments - particularly if it is just a single sentence reply.
This post is a good example - all it really needs is an acknowledgement.
This acknowledgement can be made by simply clicking the sentence You have not yet responded and it will change to You have acknowledged this reply
This sentence will be at the bottom of my post.
Hopefully this is useful to you.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:56 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 84 of 432 (657474)
03-28-2012 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by jar
03-28-2012 6:00 PM


Re: Agnostic
How can anything non-natural be studied?
I don't see why not. If Buddhist monks really could fly, we could go and watch them do it, and if that was supernatural, we'd be studying a supernatural thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 03-28-2012 6:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 03-28-2012 6:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 85 of 432 (657475)
03-28-2012 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dr Adequate
03-28-2012 6:30 PM


Re: Agnostic
Not really.
What you would be studying is flying monks (or nuns).
To say that you are studying the supernatural is to place the conclusion before the investigation.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2012 6:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2012 8:01 PM jar has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 86 of 432 (657476)
03-28-2012 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 6:04 PM


Knowing that you do not know is the first step on the path to wisdom, grasshopper. You have begun your journey.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 6:04 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 432 (657478)
03-28-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by jar
03-28-2012 6:40 PM


Re: Agnostic
What you would be studying is flying monks (or nuns).
To say that you are studying the supernatural is to place the conclusion before the investigation.
I didn't say they were. I said that if they were, we could still study them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 03-28-2012 6:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 03-28-2012 8:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 88 of 432 (657479)
03-28-2012 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Adequate
03-28-2012 8:01 PM


Re: Agnostic
Bullshit.
How do you study "supernatural?"

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2012 8:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Theodoric, posted 03-28-2012 8:07 PM jar has not replied
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2012 8:08 PM jar has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 89 of 432 (657481)
03-28-2012 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
03-28-2012 8:03 PM


Re: Agnostic
Bullshit.
How do you study "supernatural?"
Until there is evidence of supernatural how would we know? Impossible to study that which does not exist, but if it did exist maybe we could. Won't know until someone shows the supernatural.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 03-28-2012 8:03 PM jar has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 90 of 432 (657482)
03-28-2012 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
03-28-2012 8:03 PM


Supernatural 101
How do you study "supernatural?"
Well, if the monks were doing something supernatural, then studying them doing it would be studying the supernatural.
Stop me if I'm going too fast for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 03-28-2012 8:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 03-28-2012 8:13 PM Dr Adequate 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