Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,377 Year: 4,634/9,624 Month: 409/1,096 Week: 4/110 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1330 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 1513 of 1725 (630922)
08-29-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1512 by xongsmith
08-29-2011 2:25 AM


Re: Superluminal molybdenum fins breach the surface of the sloshing ale in my belly
IF the Norse God Thor exists - YES - atheistic conclusions would be wrong, but this is on the same level as saying IF 1 equals 0, then mathematical conclusions are wrong.
But in science we look for ways which could potentially falsify a hypothesis or theory science if you don't know how a theory could be wrong how would you know that it is right? However, this does not mean the source of falsification actually exists. Your argument here comes across a bit like creationists arguing that the ToE is unfalsifiable because it hasn't yet been falsified, yet science is still able to think of a plethora of possible scenarios which could falsify the ToE it's just none have been found to actually exist so far.
So by way of the same process we can define Thor or any other deity based on how it could influence our reality and see if any of these scenarios can be empirically evidenced. So if they exist as shown by their effects on reality bluegenes theory would be falsified, but as they are currently not shown to exist does not mean his theory is unfalsifiable.
I realise that others have tried to explain this to you before, and a lot more eloquently than I'm able to, and your response has always been this 'Analemma'. But consider what 'supernatural' phenomena have previously been explained by science. I'm feeling a bit dense at the moment, so the only examples I can think of are lightning and infectious disease, you can probably think of more since it was you who posited your analemma.
Now with lightning science has described it as a natural phenomena because we've described the mechanism by which it has been generated. But does that go towards disproving Zeus? Can we know that all lightning strikes are natural, or if it was shown that some were caused by Zeus does that go anywhere towards science giving a natural explanation of Zeus himself? And yes I do realise that Zeus is no longer considered one of the 'big boys' as you put it.
For a more simple example, consider the above picture, supposedly of a ghost. Now if this apparition could be documented and verified that there was no photographic trickery or any other way it was falsified, would you say that this photo represents empirical evidence of the existence of ghosts? Now just because we have empirical evidence does that mean we can describe ghosts as natural when science can not explain what they are? Similarly if Armageddon occurred, to go with Stragglers example, and Scientists documented whatever it says in Revelations does that go any way towards giving a natural explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1512 by xongsmith, posted 08-29-2011 2:25 AM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1514 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2011 4:28 PM Meddle 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